I'm sure I'm not the only one who's seen the commercials for Shell's new "nitrogen enriched" gasoline to help clean gunk from engine parts (valves being shown in commercial).

I was just wondering if anybody had any thoughts about this, and what the possible long term effects of running nitrogen thru an engine could be? I've no idea what to think of this.

I just filled up with Shell 93. Car runs good on it.

I'd really like to hear the chemistry behind this... until then, I assume that it's a gimmick. 80% of the air that goes into an engine is Nitrogen. NOx emissions are a bad thing.

You gotta listen carefully and read the fine print. The 'nitrogen' stuff is part of the detergent/cleaner package. So unlike exotic stuff like nitromethane or nitrogen tetraoxide, it's more like ammonia... A basically inert component that is not there for any power-modification purpose, just to help remove deposits.

Since deposit-removing products are not new, this may be something that's been there all along, but the ad copy has been reformulated ;-)

BP has been touting a similar cleaner package lately. I ran that for a while because it was convenient and no more expensive than my other options. Maybe there was some benefit because my mileage has gone up a little bit - but I think it may also just be the transition out of winter gas.

Since the Titan gets fairly crappy mileage I'm all for improving efficiency, but there's a cost-per-mile factor to be considered as well. There's a Shell on my sometimes way home, but they want about $0.06 more a gallon than a place that's even more convenient. I can't see going too far out of my way to pay more...

Okay- so what would make this gas any better at cleaning gunk than, for example, your run of the mill fuel system cleaner? Or, for arguments sake, a "proven name brand" cleaner like STP? Are the cleaners in the gas just more concentrated, or are they not and Shell is just counting on repeat business for the gas to do its job?

Funny, had this discussion with a chemist last week. ( fuel plants are close to my house).

His thought was pretty much all the fuel is the same. The amounts of "cleaner" in them will make very little difference. He said to run the cheap stuff and run a bottle of cleaner in the tank every few thousand miles.

A commercial is meant to sell a product ...
Andy

I was just noticing the intake runner in that commercial was filled with a cartoon like fuel and soaking the deposits causing them to float off the valve and then magically disappear. Smoke and mirrors if you ask me.

Fair enough....

Yes, I use their gas exclusively......love the results!
the middle grade is what I use......may be wasting my money?
Oh well, I do alot of that!

And my cars run good on QuikTrip ethanol which is a "Top tier rated" gasoline that is also supposed to clean the engine as I drive.

It probably is just a gimmick- I just wondered if anybody here had seen or done any research into the claim...

I used to use Shell almost exclusivly. Ease of gas station and the like. I filled up my 914 with 93 octane. I barely made it home. I had so much water in the tank that I had to drain the entire thing and clean out my carbs. I brought this to Shells attention and how much I use their gas (45-50k miles a year) and what a loyal customer I had been for the last 8-10 years. I was simply looking to get the gas replaced and acknowledgement of the issue. I was told that they can't guarantee their gas and politly told to pack sand. That is the last time I used them. I would rather buy gas at the local "super cheap" mart then Shell.
I now drive across the street to cheveron.

My gas light was on today so I decided to take the trip past the Shell to check it out. Turns out it was no more expensive than my other options so I have no regrets - other than the pump was pig-slow so it took forever...

However, Shell is an old hand at the 'marketing language' game. The old-timers will recall their big 'claim to fame' was an additive called "Platformate." It was featured everywhere, in all their ads. Eventually it came to light that it was a common additive and _everybody_ was using it. At which time Shell's official response was "we never claimed it was an _exclusive_ additive..."

This won't surprise any of you but most of what you see on television is formated for comprhension at the 5th grade level. The average level for adults in the U.S. is 7th or 8th Grade.

Ad companies know this and try to formulate marketing to hit a broad range of people. Basically they make it sound "scientific" enough that it "wows" us into buying their product, but not so low brow that we pick up on it and get offended. Unfortunately they take things one step to far and come up with boat loads of made up B.S. like "Patented Foaming Action" and other stupid catchy phrases.

Shell most likely did nothing to their gas, their ad company just decided to pick a chemical already added to the gas and hype it.

This has been going on for almost as long as TV has been in existence. It's the very reason I can't stand commercials to begin with. I hate it when I'm watching a half hour long program and 15-20 minutes of that half hour is commercials. I can't remember where I heard it or if this number is correct, but at one time I heard that advertising is something like an 80 billion per year industry.

I blame psychology- if that had never been discovered the advertisers wouldn't have anything on us!

Not to change the metaphor, but fast food
seem really to be the worst at deception ads
the food is always larger or more on tele......
than when you go in to buy it!!

Couldn't be more right. I think the perfect example of this is the new "Torpedo" sandwiches at Quizno's. I like Quizno's so I went in to try it. They make that thing look huge on TV, saying its "more than a foot of of sandwich"....which is true. 1' long and about 1/8" wide. Its so thin its hard to put any meat on it without it spilling out the sides.

What do you expect for $4 I guess