2 tanks per week You might drive that distance, but id bet the average person doesnt. i drive about 10k a year.

Ok then lets assume the following:

• 350miles per tank minimum ( 45 litre tank=11.88 gallons). therefore to achieve 350 miles it would require just under 29mpg.
  

• Thats 8 tanks per week = 2800miles a month that pretty horific amount of mileage and thats basing it on the car only managing 29mpg
  

.

• If you average 36.7mpg (the manufacturer specified urban Mpg) that would equate to 433miles to a tank or nearly 3500 miles a month.

• they say the average mileage no a days is 15k a year=1250 miles a month.

Slightly over kill id say. So all of a sudden the extra cost over that 3 year period is pretty much halved.

Fair point janner and our car wont be doing heavy mileage, but if you see my reply to LOL above you'll see the point i'm trying to make.

No one wants to spend extra money but if the engine on the vRS actually requires it to run to full power whats the point of running it not to full power ? If you going to do this then dont buy the vRS by the 1.2 TSI or other model.

I have a Mazda RX8 thats horrendous on fuel economy and emissions but I knew that going into the purchase and thats what i have had and enjoyed the car for it being that way for the last couple of years.

I just dont see any point in buying a vRS then running it on the 'wrong' fuel which in turn makes it slightly slower/less powerful. If the quirk of this 1.4 TSI unit is to run on high octane fuel then thats what we have all signed up for in buying the vRS.

Still of course much interested in how the 95 vs 98 runs debate and peoples experiences, but I for one will fill it up with the 98 stuff per the spec of the engine - will cost me more but thats the deal as far as I can see it.

Fair point janner and our car wont be doing heavy mileage, but if you see my reply to LOL above you'll see the point i'm trying to make.

:thumbup:

Hi LOL. I'm going to test the water when the car arrives and see how it goes. It will probably end up getting a bit of a mix anyway as I know the missus probably wont bother putting super in it and she'll be driving it most of the time. Point i've been trying to make is that I dont think running one on decent quality 95 octane fuel will damage it at all, its cheap/poor quality & ultra low sulpher fuels that would knacker such an engine and I think thats largely the cause of all these 1.4TSi engine issues. Some of it is probably bad luck too. Fuels bloody expensive now and resent spending out on standard fuel as it is. If we can save a fair chunk of money over 3 years by running 95 RON without any real noticable performance drop or causing damage I know what we'll be doing.

I have a fuel card for my company car but i'm not allowed to buy premium grade fuels, 95 RON or standard diesel only. Used to be able to but since the credit crunch they've come down on it hard. Can still buy Oil on it though, proves rather handy!

Am completely with you on the VAT deal, Before the Fabia turned up was really interested in a 2.0 TSi vRS DSG wagon but it was really too big for us and more than we wanted to spend on a second car, particularly when adding DSG and Curtain Airbags (think its appaling the Octy vRS doesnt come with these whilst the Fabia does) which would have been a must for me. Ultimately the Octy is no quicker either.

Monte carlo will be nice, assume a 105ps TSi? I drove an 85hp at the same time as the vRS and was very impressed. Much more punchy than the wifes current 1.4 80ps Polo and no flatspot. Can only imagine the 105 is better still.

==============================================================================================================================

Particularly important to run high octane when running in I would think when those little hot spots are aorund and you do not want to be pinking although the anti-knock sensors should take care of that.

We have always added curtain airbags where possible, VRSs etc although later L&Ks comes with them.

Monte Carlo will be for the kids so I have a nasty feeling it may have to be the 85 hp or even the 70 hp 1.2 if the insurance is silly money.

Edited 30 January, 201115 yr by lol

Sorry Stu but we're probably going to have to agree to disagree there. Putting Super in the car religiously over a 3 year period is likely to cost £1.5/2K extra over normal 95 RON fuel (based roughly on two tanks per week at £3-4 extra per tank) which is actually quite alot of money and that cannot be denied.

When you're in the market for a £14k car, fuel consumption is definitely taken into consideration by most people; not so much when you have 40 - 50K to spend on a car and clearly have money to burn. If it did 20-odd MPG all day long could you honestly tell me you could justify buying one?

I'd never wish to disrespect any vRS owners (because i'm soon to become one and love the car) but ultimately it's not a sports car and I'm sure the use of 98 RON fuel is not essential in the same way as it would be in a bona-fide sports car that is actually tuned to run on that spec fuel and nothing else. As i've said already I ran a MK5 GTi Golf on both sorts of fuel (98 recommended, 95 OK - same sort of recommendation as on the vRS) and in no way was able to determine a change in performance and I really dont see how the 1.4 TSi is going to be any different. I absolutely hammered the car whilst I had it too, so if there was any difference it would have been noticed. The car was a hire vehicle and had done approx 14K very hard miles, no doubt mostly on normal unleaded and it ran like a sewing machine.

When I get my car I will try it on both to see if there is any noticable difference, if there is I will eat my hat and will admit defeat. If there isnt it will probably just get run on branded 95 RON, we'll save ourselves a few grand (and spend the money on better things!) and if it does go wrong that's what the warranty is for.

Fair point, I can only assume that 98 is correct from the fuel cap. I can't claim to have vast knowledge on the subject, I just go off what the fuel cap says

Hi LOL. I'm going to test the water when the car arrives and see how it goes. It will probably end up getting a bit of a mix anyway as I know the missus probably wont bother putting super in it and she'll be driving it most of the time. Point i've been trying to make is that I dont think running one on decent quality 95 octane fuel will damage it at all, its cheap/poor quality & ultra low sulpher fuels that would knacker such an engine and I think thats largely the cause of all these 1.4TSi engine issues. Some of it is probably bad luck too. Fuels bloody expensive now and resent spending out on standard fuel as it is. If we can save a fair chunk of money over 3 years by running 95 RON without any real noticable performance drop or causing damage I know what we'll be doing.

I have a fuel card for my company car but i'm not allowed to buy premium grade fuels, 95 RON or standard diesel only. Used to be able to but since the credit crunch they've come down on it hard. Can still buy Oil on it though, proves rather handy!

Am completely with you on the VAT deal, Before the Fabia turned up was really interested in a 2.0 TSi vRS DSG wagon but it was really too big for us and more than we wanted to spend on a second car, particularly when adding DSG and Curtain Airbags (think its appaling the Octy vRS doesnt come with these whilst the Fabia does) which would have been a must for me. Ultimately the Octy is no quicker either.

Monte carlo will be nice, assume a 105ps TSi? I drove an 85hp at the same time as the vRS and was very impressed. Much more punchy than the wifes current 1.4 80ps Polo and no flatspot. Can only imagine the 105 is better still.

Again, fair point. If you can't notice a difference, then win win

Edit: Just seen your bit about the wife's Polo too - I had a 60 plate 1.4TSI Polo as a hire car a few weeks ago now, and by Christ was it slow!

Edited 31 January, 201115 yr by Stu vRS

Fair point, I can only assume that 98 is correct from the fuel cap. I can't claim to have vast knowledge on the subject, I just go off what the fuel cap says

Again, fair point. If you can't notice a difference, then win win

Edit: Just seen your bit about the wife's Polo too - I had a 60 plate 1.4TSI Polo as a hire car a few weeks ago now, and by Christ was it slow!

Mate our Polo is just utter c**p! In its defense its well screwed together but to drive its like being on a blamange with wheels and no brakes haha. Certainly cant say the same about the vRS, just gutted its going to take so long to arrive but guess its something to look forward to!

What's the best rated petrol for the New Fabia MkII Vrs

" Is 95 RON ok????"

Emailed Skoda UK Customer Services and asked them for the definitive answer.

Will update once they reply.

Build date for reply week 21, email delivery expected week 30 onwards .........

Emailed Skoda UK Customer Services and asked them for the definitive answer.

Will update once they reply.

Build date for reply week 21, email delivery expected week 30 onwards .........

why? if it says 98 ron on the petrol cap what more is there to ask?

why? if it says 98 ron on the petrol cap what more is there to ask?

No Fuel sticker on demo at my local dealer and I've got one on order so I would quite like to know if thats ok with you mate !

No Fuel sticker on demo at my local dealer and I've got one on order so I would quite like to know if thats ok with you mate !

Hi mate, just took a quick photo of my fuel cap:

Hope this helps.

Hi mate, just took a quick photo of my fuel cap:

Hope this helps.

Cheers ! Ordered mine in red too, but dark chrome wheels....

It looks like the 95 in brackets means it'll run on 95 but at lower power?

Cheers ! Ordered mine in red too, but dark chrome wheels....

It looks like the 95 in brackets means it'll run on 95 but at lower power?

As mentioned previously it should run fine on 95. Use decent quality stuff. Power will be reduced.

However, as I have expressed before also, I now run mine on 98 (well, 99 to be exact) exclusively, as it is what is recommended.

No Fuel sticker on demo at my local dealer and I've got one on order so I would quite like to know if thats ok with you mate !

Cheers ! Ordered mine in red too, but dark chrome wheels....

It looks like the 95 in brackets means it'll run on 95 but at lower power?

didnt mean to offend mate . Im just dead set against 95 ron fuel in these sort of cars . think it defeats the object. The cars have a built in knock sensor which will recognise the poorer fuel and retard the ignition timing to compensate for the increased detonation and lower octane, obviously resulting in reduced power output so they will run on 95 ron fuel safely.

One thing to consider though is although 98+ron fuel is more expensive, but due to the greater chemical energy/calorific value etc etc it is more efficient asnd thus will last longer. My octavia would mnage around 30-40miles more to a tank with Vpower100(used to live in germany) and 97 ron fuel. So the extra cost will cancel out to a certain degree

Another point to consider is 95 ron fuel is the lowest grade available. however you can get 97, 98 and 99 ron fuel all over the UK. Obviously 99ron is the most expensive, but if i had to slump for lower fuel id be looking for 97 ron rather than 95. Not that much price difference between the two either

Sy

Edited 31 January, 201115 yr by janner_Sy

Also, in case you were wondering, V-Power is 99RON not 98 as I originally thought.

didnt mean to offend mate . Im just dead set against 95 ron fuel in these sort of cars . think it defeats the object. The cars have a built in knock sensor which will recognise the poorer fuel and retard the ignition timing to compensate for the increased detonation and lower octane, obviously resulting in reduced power output so they will run on 95 ron fuel safely.

One thing to consider though is although 98+ron fuel is more expensive, but due to the greater chemical energy/calorific value etc etc it is more efficient asnd thus will last longer. My octavia would mnage around 30-40miles more to a tank with Vpower100(used to live in germany) and 97 ron fuel. So the extra cost will cancel out to a certain degree

Another point to consider is 95 ron fuel is the lowest grade available. however you can get 97, 98 and 99 ron fuel all over the UK. Obviously 99ron is the most expensive, but if i had to slump for lower fuel id be looking for 97 ron rather than 95. Not that much price difference between the two either

Sy

No worries, was just jesting mate , no offence taken just a bit of banter !!

No one wants to spend extra money but if the engine on the vRS actually requires it to run to full power whats the point of running it not to full power ? If you going to do this then dont buy the vRS by the 1.2 TSI or other model.

I have a Mazda RX8 thats horrendous on fuel economy and emissions but I knew that going into the purchase and thats what i have had and enjoyed the car for it being that way for the last couple of years.

I just dont see any point in buying a vRS then running it on the 'wrong' fuel which in turn makes it slightly slower/less powerful. If the quirk of this 1.4 TSI unit is to run on high octane fuel then thats what we have all signed up for in buying the vRS.

Still of course much interested in how the 95 vs 98 runs debate and peoples experiences, but I for one will fill it up with the 98 stuff per the spec of the engine - will cost me more but thats the deal as far as I can see it.

Mate I am going to try both and if I notice a huge difference with super will definitely be putting it in; cant stop the missus though being our home bean-counter haha. I was ultimately trying to make the point that (if you read the above posts I've made) I doubt very much that running a vRS on 95RON permanently would actually damage it like people have been claiming; I think the issues have been down to bad luck and poor quality fuels rather than the lower grade.

Having just got a Fabia vRS I'm interested in the group consensus.

Mine's an ex-demo and my dealer was definitely putting higher octane fuel in and has recommended I do the same.

I'm surprised about the comments inferring engine damage if you use the wrong RON value, from my understanding most modern engines should be able to cope - however I certainly don't claim to be an expert.

I would add that I was running my old Boxster on 95 RON for the whole seven years since new without ill effects and I'm pretty sure that 98 RON was 'recommended' for that too.

Personally, I think I'll give the 98+ RON stuff a fair try for a month or two as whatever it cost I'll be playing a lot less for fuel than I was with my Boxster!!

As i've said already I ran a MK5 GTi Golf on both sorts of fuel (98 recommended, 95 OK - same sort of recommendation as on the vRS) and in no way was able to determine a change in performance and I really dont see how the 1.4 TSi is going to be any different.

I've had a Mk5 Golf GTi and a Mk2 Octavia vRS, 98 RON fuel improved both engine performance and MPG.

Also, in case you were wondering, V-Power is 99RON not 98 as I originally thought.

Shell changed the formulation several years ago from 98 to 99.

It seams strange that Skoda states Super unleaded as 98 octane, as I thought in most places (except Tesco and Shell) it was 97 Octane.

So

Normal unleaded = 95

Super Unleaded = 97

4*/LRP = 98

Shell Optimax (their old Super) = 98

Shell V-power = 99

Then there's Bp Ultimate 102 @ 102 octane, then racing fuel at 100-114 RON

I wonder what Shell Fuel save is, as I've read the diesel has a higher cetane rating that VPD.

I don't want to risk starting the petrol argument up again, but I'll risk it :(

BP Ultimate is 97 RON. Not sure about where you guys are, but BP are extremely expensive down here. BP Ultimate is 140p in Wiltshire and surrounding areas.

I thought the BP 102 RON stuff was only available at very few stations up north?

There is a lot of conflicting information on this topic.

I have to reply to Cech Customer Services with my VIN number for a difinitive answer for the forum.

I have personally had verbal confirmation that 98+ is to be used for the vRS and am happy with this advice, but there are a number of people who do not believe this.

As soon as I have my latest answer, I will post again.

Regards

Tony :think:

Shell V-Power was 140.9 here when I filled up on Sunday.

Shell V-Power was 140.9 here when I filled up on Sunday.

That is why I am staying with my Mk1 vRS What mpg are you getting out of your Mk2 please?

Edited 12 March, 201115 yr by djdazzy

That is why I am staying with my Mk1 vRS What mpg are you getting out of your Mk2 please?

This is always going to be a difficult subject ot prove definatively as we will all drive our cars differently, over different roads and conditions, all of which ultimately effect fuel consumption.

Obviously, as has been stated, modern cars have knock sensors fitted and as such the ECU is able to adjust itself to run on different fuels (octane rating) automatically advancing or retarding the ignition. The more retarded the ignition the less bang for your buck you get. I can therfore imagine that if you were to run for long periods on 91 octane fuel, it may give rise to some engine damage.

Had the VRS less than two weeks and so far covered about 650 miles, current fuel consumption based on the 'brim' method is 35.3 mpg, hoping this will get better in time but certainly a lot better thn the Imprezza i used to run a few years ago. However, with the Scooby i did find that i got some 2 to 3 miles per gallon better economy with Shell Optimax than i did std unleaded, so i may try the shell ordinary once i have completed the first 1000 miles to see of i experience a similar difference, all in the interests of science of course.

Sorry Stu, V Power was £1.359 a litre in Southampton this morning.

I am wondering why some people have mentioned Ultra Low Sulphur as being an issue? EN 228 has specified a max Sulphur content of 10 ppm since January 1st 2009.

Finally, anyone want to try Avgas??