It seems it may have caused a very slight performance increase to my car. The only mods my car has is the Milltek and a remapp. With just a map my car was doing circa 6.8/6.9 secs for the 60-100 mph sprint using 3rd and 4th gear. After fitting and a slight tweak to the map it's down to 6.5/6.6 secs.

In kmhr from 100-160 kmhr it used to do it in 6.5 seconds. Now it recorded 6.1 seconds. All on 95 octane fuel. The car seems to run good on 95 for some reason:confused: With just a remapp the times were identicle whether i used 95 or 99. Anyone else notice no performance differences between different octane fuels?

Will be taking delivery of a Evom's intake soon so will do more timings once that is fitted.

I read a very interesting article a couple weeks ago about why you should use 97 or better in the TFSi - I'll see if I can find it.

Originally posted by Maximus - Login

The higher the octane rating of the fuel the longer the FSI engine will run in FSI mode.

You see, when the FSI is running in 'Fuel Stratified Injection' mode it creates a lot of NoX (NoX - Very bad as far as emisions go) due to it being such a lean burn, so it has a NoX Cat which abrorbs the NoX, once its full the Nox probe (fancy lambda probe) senses this and the engine switches back to normal running and can safely clear the NoX out with the other gases through the main Cat so it can switch back into in FSI mode again.

The problem with octane levels is, and this is just an example depending on driving styles.

Out of 100 miles average :-

95RON - 90 miles normal, 10 miles FSI (lots of NoX made in FSI mode)

97+RON - 60 miles normal, 40 miles FSI (some NoX made in FSI mode)

Now regardless of what anyone says this is how the engine is built and as its more efficient in FSI mode VW always recommend the highest octane rating for this reason, they did introduce a 1.4FSI for the uk market that is made to run on 95RON fuel for longer but you want to see the size of the NoX Cat, more like a tanker. lol

And after all that, you will get better miles to the gallon running 97+RON regardless of it being an FSI, its they way they are made these days, the ecu recognises when the fuel mixture combusts and will adjust it accordingly, the cheaper the fuel the more retarded the timing, the more retarded the timing the less power, the less power the more you 'need' to put the foot down.

What's the story with octane boosters that you put into the tank? Are they any good?

How would this be affected by a remap? Do mappers take this into consideration when mapping?

ive tried one but cant remember which one, it might have increased power slightly, but i think its more of a placebo affect that you know its in the tank and therefore you think its performing better. Redex has been used too which i felt did better when the car started to loose mpg and once that had gone through the system i could notice it from how much blackness was left on the exhuast outlet pipes.

Stu, is what you saying above saying that if i used 95 ron instead of 97+ i might use more fuel but enviromentally its better?

No it's saying that the FSi engine is designed to use 97 Ron and will run more optimally on 97. Possibly even returning better MPG.

And what happens if you you 98/99 octane?

When i use 99 over 95 i don't notice a thing.

98 RON is recommended for the 2.0 T FSI, because the engine has a high compression ratio (10.3:1). 98 is more stable than 95 and will not detonate (Knock) before the spark plug has a chance to ignite the air fuel mixture.

The 2.0 T FSI has anti Knock sensor this will retard timing to prevent damage to the engine when RON 95 is used. Because of this there is a slight reduction in power and increase in fuel consumption.

Using a higher than 98 RON fuel will not improve performance

The BWA motor in the VRS does not run a Stratified Charge.

Do you think the DP is worth £500?

Do you think the DP is worth £500?

Maybe. Since fitting it and getting the map slightly tweaked it has shaved nearly half a second off my 60-100 mph. Pre Milltek and just a map my car put out 238bhp on the RR. It should be now another 10bhp at least judging from the half a second off my timings.

I'm still running OEM intake and fuel pump. When i fit the fuel pump in a few days i will do more timings, should have the evom's soon.

I have been thinking about the milltek exhaust, I am running Revo Stage1 and love it!

I am using K&N filter panel as I want to keep under the Hood looking stock as our friends across the pond would say; I hear the standard air intake is good for 300+ with a good filter. Are you not worried about excessive cam follower wear with an up rated fuel pump, are you getting fuel cuts?

Are you going to the Gandon Inn meet on the 28.

Apparently though the lads on here are getting 10bhp+ more with these intakes. It is kinda puzzling about how the edition 30's etc are getting 300bhp with the standard intake with a remapp. The theory i have is because the ko4 turbo is larger it is able to suck air a lot stronger than a ko3 so putting an intake on gives the ko3 an easier time making it a little more efficient making it do less work, so it doesn't have to suck as hard.

No, I'm not too worried about the cam as mine has the B cam. Also i'm using the longlife oil which is also designed for PD engines that have high pressure cams so it should aid my cam a little.

You from Ireland?

The fuel pump that Micky is buying came from makefish's car and I removed it earlier this week. There wasn't any discernable wear on the cam follower at all. I've had the pump in my car for quite some time and I recently inspected my follower for wear and it was absolutely fine. I've also fitted/inspected a couple of the other local cars which again are fine.

One thing that I have a theory on with the cam follower problems is that the lads over the pond do not put Cyl 1 on TDC before they start. I've been in several discussions with guys in the US about it and they are adamant it isn't necessary however the Skoda manual does tell you to do it.

Yeah from Co.Clare.

I read that Cyl 1 has to be at TDC in the Haynes manual. Do you think the pump made a significant power delivery difference at stage 2 even without having fuel cut issues?

On Makefish's car it gave an apparent 20bhp. With all the mods it achieved 280-5 bhp.

WOW sounds good, I cant wait for my bonus.

WOW sounds good, I cant wait for my bonus.

This is the problem with websites like these, you end up with no money left

I know somone who has a car with one or two other subtle mods and stage 1 software which achieves a reliable 260hp and just under 300lbft.

I know somone who has a car with one or two other subtle mods and stage 1 software which achieves a reliable 260hp and just under 300lbft.

So when is he going for stage 2? Uprated intercoolers seem to be making a difference too.

The intercooler is already in place but as to Stage II I'm not sure he will bother just yet.

On Makefish's car it gave an apparent 20bhp. With all the mods it achieved 280-5 bhp.

Yep, those figures sound familiar.

Is DP install a hard job? i was thinking of running a catless DP, and reinstall standard one

at time of NCT( Irish MOT). What do you guys think of this option. Is there any company producing a catless DP for the vRS....

downpipe install was quite easy I thought.

Took me about an hr to do it, taking my time without a lift - only jacks and stands.