I have a 1.8TSI - have done about 15k miles now.Tried both regular95 & 98 for extended periods : I have concluded no appreciable difference in economy but I think the engine is fractionally noisier on 98 & has very slightly more power at higher revs but no difference at under 3.5K

I now use 95 as price premium is now about 4-5pence /litre in UK(4 - 5 %more)

I think the1.8TSI is tuned for torque & driveability rather than ultimate output. Also is subject to recent EC ruling -all cars must be fully useable on 95RON effectively (unlike the earlier FSI units)

Some more food for thought.

premium fuel - money down the drain

New RACV research demonstrates filling up with premium unleaded fuel is a waste of money for cars designed to run only on regular unleaded petrol.

The scientific study involved comparative tests with regular unleaded 91 RON (Research Octane Number), premium unleaded 95 RON and premium unleaded 98 RON.

All major oil companies now sell the higher octane fuels and often claim in advertising these provide higher performance, better driveability and lower fuel consumption.

RACV commissioned the laboratory research to test these claims and find out what, if any, were the real benefits in vehicles where manufacturers did not specify premium unleaded petrol.

“Basically these tests show that premium unleaded fuels are not cost-effective for cars designed to run only on regular unleaded petrol,” said RACV Manager of Government and Corporate Relations, David Cumming.

“Sure, they’ll take you a little further, but the cost per kilometre will be higher than if you were using standard unleaded petrol.

“Therefore if your motor vehicle manufacturer does not recommend premium fuels, you are probably wasting money.

“Our research was not about claims by oil companies about how high octane fuels clean your engine more efficiently – this was purely about how far you can travel and was it cost-effective? And the answer is it’s not cost-effective.

“All Australian cars are made to run on regular unleaded, so if you have an Australian-made car, it’s much smarter in this time of very high petrol prices to just use regular, instead of filling up with premium unleaded.”

While premium unleaded 95 RON costs around six cents per litre more than regular unleaded RON 91, premium unleaded 98 RON – with brand names such as BP Ultimate, Caltex Vortex 98, Mobil Synergy 8000 and Shell Optimax – costs up to 10 cents more.

Michael Case, RACV’s Chief Engineer of Vehicles, explained the RACV study used an internationally recognised standard to eliminate factors such as differences between vehicles, driving styles and traffic conditions, to ensure one fuel was directly compared to the other.

“Two vehicles were used, a four-cylinder 1.6 litre Ford Fiesta and a six-cylinder 4.0 litre Ford Falcon,” Mr Case said.

He said the biggest improvement recorded was 2.5 per cent (a drop from 7.1 litres to 6.9 litres per 100km) when using BP Ultimate (98 RON), compared with regular unleaded in the Fiesta.

The Fiesta’s engine could adapt to grades between 91 and 98 RON, unlike the Falcon, which only achieved a 1.5 per cent improvement (11.4 to 11.3 litres per 100km). When using 95 RON, both cars used around 1.7 per cent less fuel compared with 91 RON.

“Based on $1.20 a litre for 91 RON, Falcon owners would be paying 5 per cent more for 95 RON for a fuel saving of less than 2 per cent, and more than 8 per cent for 98 RON, to save a maximum 2.5 per cent of fuel,” Mr Case said.

“The intriguing thing is there was virtually no saving in relation to 95 and 98 RON and a very small gap in terms of performance between the three fuels. So we would recommend you don’t buy higher octane fuels unless the vehicle manufacturer specifies it, in which case your engine is designed to use premium fuels."

TFSI is designed to take advantage is it not?

Does that lean burn thingy:confused:

TFSI is designed to take advantage is it not?

Does that lean burn thingy:confused:

My LE has a 95 Ron sticker in the fuel cap, so perhaps the new TSI engines dont need the higher octance stuff.

The TSI does the lean burn thing, but i dont know about the TFSI. I think they are pretty much the same sort of system so i would say it does.

I started to use BP Ultimate 98 in my 1.8TSI, because standard 95 RON was replaced here in France by 95-E10, with 10% of ethanol. It may be environmentally friendly, but if you do a bit of reading, you will find out, that it is not so "corrosion" friendly to our engines...

I will try to find "pure" 95 somewhere in the vicinity, but in the meantime, I will be using 98 at my local BP station.

Thanks guys confused as ever will see which is the best fuel for the car when it arrives

The local Tesco garage is always out of super unleaded don’t seem to stock it?

Thanks guys confused as ever will see which is the best fuel for the car when it arrives

The local Tesco garage is always out of super unleaded don’t seem to stock it?

Bottom line, 95Ron is the recommended and minimum grade but 98 RON is perfectly OK. Pays your money and makes your choice - bet you wish you'd never asked.

bet you wish you'd never asked.

He he. :)

Some more food for thought.

[QUOTE]

premium fuel - money down the drain

New RACV research demonstrates filling up with premium unleaded fuel is a waste of money for cars designed to run only on regular unleaded petrol.

The scientific study involved comparative tests with regular unleaded 91 RON (Research Octane Number), premium unleaded 95 RON and premium unleaded 98 RON.

All major oil companies now sell the higher octane fuels and often claim in advertising these provide higher performance, better driveability and lower fuel consumption.

RACV commissioned the laboratory research to test these claims and find out what, if any, were the real benefits in vehicles where manufacturers did not specify premium unleaded petrol.

“Basically these tests show that premium unleaded fuels are not cost-effective for cars designed to run only on regular unleaded petrol,” said RACV Manager of Government and Corporate Relations, David Cumming.

“Sure, they’ll take you a little further, but the cost per kilometre will be higher than if you were using standard unleaded petrol.

“Therefore if your motor vehicle manufacturer does not recommend premium fuels, you are probably wasting money.

“Our research was not about claims by oil companies about how high octane fuels clean your engine more efficiently – this was purely about how far you can travel and was it cost-effective? And the answer is it’s not cost-effective.

“All Australian cars are made to run on regular unleaded, so if you have an Australian-made car, it’s much smarter in this time of very high petrol prices to just use regular, instead of filling up with premium unleaded.”

While premium unleaded 95 RON costs around six cents per litre more than regular unleaded RON 91, premium unleaded 98 RON – with brand names such as BP Ultimate, Caltex Vortex 98, Mobil Synergy 8000 and Shell Optimax – costs up to 10 cents more.

Michael Case, RACV’s Chief Engineer of Vehicles, explained the RACV study used an internationally recognised standard to eliminate factors such as differences between vehicles, driving styles and traffic conditions, to ensure one fuel was directly compared to the other.

“Two vehicles were used, a four-cylinder 1.6 litre Ford Fiesta and a six-cylinder 4.0 litre Ford Falcon,” Mr Case said.

He said the biggest improvement recorded was 2.5 per cent (a drop from 7.1 litres to 6.9 litres per 100km) when using BP Ultimate (98 RON), compared with regular unleaded in the Fiesta.

The Fiesta’s engine could adapt to grades between 91 and 98 RON, unlike the Falcon, which only achieved a 1.5 per cent improvement (11.4 to 11.3 litres per 100km). When using 95 RON, both cars used around 1.7 per cent less fuel compared with 91 RON.

“Based on $1.20 a litre for 91 RON, Falcon owners would be paying 5 per cent more for 95 RON for a fuel saving of less than 2 per cent, and more than 8 per cent for 98 RON, to save a maximum 2.5 per cent of fuel,” Mr Case said.

“The intriguing thing is there was virtually no saving in relation to 95 and 98 RON and a very small gap in terms of performance between the three fuels. So we would recommend you don’t buy higher octane fuels unless the vehicle manufacturer specifies it, in which case your engine is designed to use premium fuels."

Fitz

You'll note that this is a study by The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria & the study is now at least 3 years old (Feb 2006 media release). Vehicles have moved on a bit in the ensuing years.

It talks of a "comprehensive study" involving 2 vehicles:rofl:....... and neither of them were particularly popular at the time (Falcon sales were nosediving dramatically, Fiesta just wasn't popular).

You should also note they are talking about Falcons - in particular the basic 6 cylinder versions which 70%+ are purchased by large corporate fleets & Government departments. These are not sophisticated vehicles (but they are great bang4buck). Even the media release says that the (locally produced & programmed) ECUs aren't capable of adapting to higher octane fuels.

You should note that in the same sentence it attributes the Falcon economy improvement as both 1.5% & 1.7% for the same fuel - so which is it?

Also, it talks about fuel being 5% more for a <2% saving which is misleading as X% drop requires X+y% gain to maintain equilibrium.

The only way of getting a definitive answer for any car is to keep meticulous fuel records & test the various fuels on your own car, for your own driving style & traffic conditions.

For my Skoda Octavia 1.8TSI 6m 98ron costs me AUD50 per year more (about 1 hours pay or 13 loaves of bread or a slab of premium beer) than 95ron costs & the engine gives better low down torque so i can stay in 6th gear rather than change down (lazy sod that I am).

Of note also is that in AUS, the latest 2009 Octavia brochure specifies 98ron for the 1.8TSI - which may be a typo but interesting none-the-less.

Bottom line, 95Ron is the recommended and minimum grade but 98 RON is perfectly OK. Pays your money and makes your choice - bet you wish you'd never asked.

If you look at the smallprint in the current sales brochure, Skoda UK states that 95 RON or 91 RON can be used with a disclaimer for the latter grade of, "lower efficiency when using lower RON petrol".

This disclaimer is a little ambiguous; does it mean by inference that the higher rated 98 RON should be better than 95 RON, though they never mention the use of 98 RON whatsoever?

I'm going to stick with the recommended 95 RON and save a bit of dosh.

If you look at the smallprint in the current sales brochure, Skoda UK states that 95 RON or 91 RON can be used with a disclaimer for the latter grade of, "lower efficiency when using lower RON petrol".

This disclaimer is a little ambiguous; does it mean by inference that the higher rated 98 RON should be better than 95 RON, though they never mention the use of 98 RON whatsoever?

I'm going to stick with the recommended 95 RON and save a bit of dosh.

Quoted from the latest version of the Skoda Octavia Owner's Manual :-

" Engines which need unleaded premium petrol 95 RON can also be run on unleaded regular petrol 91 RON. This does, however, result in a slight loss in performance.

If in an emergency, the only fuel available is one which has a lower octane number than that required by the engine then only drive at medium engine speeds and lower engine loadings.

You can make unlimited use of fuel which has a higher octane number than that required by the engine. There will, however, be no advantages gained by this in terms of engine performance and fuel consumption."

In the case of my 1.4TSi ,the sticker on the inside of the fuel filler flap states 95 RON minimum.

So it's 95 or 98 RON and as far as the 1.4 TSi engine is concerned, being early days, only time and comparison will reveal if there are any benefits between the 2 fuel grades. Performance and consumption apart I like to believe, some may say foolishly, that the 98 RON burns more efficiently and results in a cleaner engine.

I think it is quite possible that the engine just "feels" better on 98 without any major performance increase or savings in mpg. So maybe the answer comes down to personal mileage (a bit like the benefits of buying a diesel or otherwise.)

My mileage nowadays is so low that I can live with the extra cost, even though I'd prefer the cash in my pocket, not in Tesco's till.

Whatever the measureable differences, or none, I definitely feel the car is nicer to drive, and with so many things going t*ts up these days I'm going to retain that little bit of pleasure!

(Perhaps someone near a rollling road could do an experimental bhp test for us??)

Take from this whatever you wish:

Total mileage ~23250km

Unleaded 92 - 48L - 7.4L/100km

Shell e10/94 - 47L - 6.8L/100km

United e10/95 - 103L - 7.4L/100km

United 98 - 35L - 7.0L/100km

BP Ultimate 98 - 69L - 6.5L/100km

Caltex Vortex 98 - 143L - 6.5L/100km

Mobil Synergy8000 98 - 141L - 7.0L/100km

Shell V-Power 98 - 934L - 6.6L/100km

United 100 e10 - 33L - 7.6L/100km

It cost about 8c a km to fuel the car. Depreciation costs me far more.

Here's a challenge.

BP Ultimate UK

Here's a challenge.

BP Ultimate UK

In 2007 I won $5000 in the Shell Fuel Economy Challenge.

won it how?

:+1:

won it how?

Shell were trying to promote their latest "fuel saving" 92ron ULP.

To enter I had to write in 25 words or less what my fuel economy strategy was so I wrote something naff like "I love saving money & Shell fuels are part of my fuel saving technique.":O Which got me into a 5 way economy challenge driving "identical" VW Golf MkV 1.6L Autos (which IIRC are supposed to run on PULP:confused:). Each "winner" was teamed up with a B-grade celebrity (also vying for a $5k donation to their chosen charity) which consisted of: Biggest Loser winner; Morning TV show host; Reality TV Gardener; Bloke that nobody recognised:rofl: and a retired sports commentator that was into motorbikes & cars - he was my randomly matched partner and we also had an independant observer in the car. His charity was the Cancer Council and his wife was in hospital being operated on that day. His first words to me were: "I've got better things to do than this, so we better win."

We were given a driver briefing & economy driving hints from a couple that had broken an economy record

We drove this course and shared the driving.

I'm hazy on the figures but 1 car got ~7L/100km; 2 others were ~6L/100km and 2 were under 5L/100km. I think we were under 4.5L/100km.

I got a heap of Shell promo stuff (inc a decent jacket), a couple of trophies, a 1.5m long novelty cheque & a real cheque for $5000 (tax exempt, so a couple of months pay). Best of all, I had a great day with a top bloke that had a million stories to tell & had my first drive of a MkV.

Thanks guys confused as ever will see which is the best fuel for the car when it arrives

The local Tesco garage is always out of super unleaded don’t seem to stock it?

Bet you wish you hadn't opened this hornet's nest of a subject with so many differing opinions and facts. :confused: However just to quickly chip in with my experience.

As a habit I have used Super Unleaded or equivalent in my petrol cars for as long as I can remember as there is a basic fact that higher RON/octane rating will give more bang!

I haven't used the 1.8T/1.8TSI or 2.0L TFSI engines, but a few years ago was running a 1.4mpi Fabia. I regularly used Shell Optimax/V-Power or if I couldn't get this then Tesco 99; both fuels provided smooth and punchy performance. If ever I had to use regular unleaded 95 octane the performance and fuel economy (by circa. 2mpg), would drop of. I never minded paying the extra few pence for the better fuel.

At the end of the day if the fuel cap sticker says 95 RON then you will be fine and have no technical issues; but if you want sweeter/better performance then invest in 98/99RON fuel. You choose; good luck.

I have put nothing other than Tesco 99 in by petrol VRS.

At the end of the day if it does what it claims then i am going to have more power, better economy and a cleaner engine in the long term.

If it doesnt do what it claims ive only spent about £1 or £2 more per tank full.

I would rather drink 1 less pint of beer and give my car the best anytime

Hi,

I put 3 tanks back to back in of Super and my MPG on the avg trip has gone up by about 5mpg. 40 to 44 is the norm with 98ron in and 36-39mpg with 95ron in. Same roads same speeds and loads etc.

The engine sounds nicer too, a bit less rough. Just put a tank of 95 ron and mpg has gone back to 36-39mpg.

So there is something in this all.

James.

Hi,

I put 3 tanks back to back in of Super and my MPG on the avg trip has gone up by about 5mpg. 40 to 44 is the norm with 98ron in and 36-39mpg with 95ron in. Same roads same speeds and loads etc.

The engine sounds nicer too, a bit less rough. Just put a tank of 95 ron and mpg has gone back to 36-39mpg.

So there is something in this all.

James.

What engine? TSi or FSi?

What engine? TSi or FSi?

FSI

James

FSI

James

That is a bit different. My FSi had 98 ron in big numbers inside the petrol filler flap and 95 in smaller numbers (i.e. best on 98 but okay on 95. My TSi just says 95 minimum.

No mine has "95 minimum" on flap no word of 98ron at all! car bought in sep 08, 1.6fsi.

James.