I still cannot believe the comments being made here, was just the same in the other 98 vs 95 threads.

People keep scaremongering on this site that 95 RON fuel will damage the 1.4 TSi engine and cause poor running, this is ultimately a load of b*l*cks. It's doing my head in.

It's been confirmed by the manufacturer that 95 RON is OK, most people experiencing problems have either been unlucky to pick up some crap fuel (it does happen) or their car was always bound to go wrong from the start. VAG cars are well built but they arent the most reliable. We have an 08 reg Polo 1.4 with 18k on the clock that will every now and again refuse to start, its always done it.

Blaming octane rating is wrong as its clearly not the cause. I think this guy is just very unluckly to have something seriously wrong with his car.

And anyway £14k is a cheap car, most people buying something like this at this price wont really care too much what fuel goes in it I'm sure. If it was a £50k premium sports car we're talking about sure I'd agree that 98 is the only thing you should be putting in it; but a £14K Skoda...really?!

Not Wrong.

Look through the other threads on this please and then your see what others have said, people worried about future warranty work and will the 95 fuel damage the engine etc etc

At the end of the day the recommended fuel is 98 octane, why bother trying to beat the system and doing something different and then posting/moaning/worrying about it

It is wrong. I'll be running mine on super unleaded from day 1 but skoda have said 95 is fine and they couldn't refuse warranty work because you used it.

I suspect that the OPs problem is more related to how the car was looked after when it was a demonstrator.

I still cannot believe the comments being made here, was just the same in the other 98 vs 95 threads.

People keep scaremongering on this site that 95 RON fuel will damage the 1.4 TSi engine and cause poor running, this is ultimately a load of b*l*cks. It's doing my head in.

It's been confirmed by the manufacturer that 95 RON is OK, most people experiencing problems have either been unlucky to pick up some crap fuel (it does happen) or their car was always bound to go wrong from the start. VAG cars are well built but they arent the most reliable. We have an 08 reg Polo 1.4 with 18k on the clock that will every now and again refuse to start, its always done it.

Blaming octane rating is wrong as its clearly not the cause. I think this guy is just very unluckly to have something seriously wrong with his car.

And anyway £14k is a cheap car, most people buying something like this at this price wont really care too much what fuel goes in it I'm sure. If it was a £50k premium sports car we're talking about sure I'd agree that 98 is the only thing you should be putting in it; but a £14K Skoda...really?!

-------------

Your points taken above. But I think the real point is that every time someone does not want to put 98 octane in then they moan or say they have been using 95 Octane and something has/or may happen to the car now or in the future.

Just follow what Skoda recommend or if you do something different then so be it, but dont then moan its down on power or the car is stalling etc etc - and then we have a round of comments that start these threads off yet again saying the same thing every time.

PS - Auric Good post.

Regardless of the fuel used, I would teke the car off the road, Cutting out is an accident waiting to happen!

I think someone needs to do a rolling road test with each type to put an end to the bickering... (Although there will then be arguments about the way the test was run)

I found with my old clio172 that the diffrence in price was offset by the ecconomy I got, so it made no diffrence to the wallet in the end. I havnt got enough data on this one to make any judgements but it looks better when the price at the pump is lower so Im sticking with 95 for now.

(I used v power for teh first 1500 miles, then switched to normal 95 for the next 1500, I have not noticed any diffrent in power at all, and had no warning lights.)

-------------

Your points taken above. But I think the real point is that every time someone does not want to put 98 octane in then they moan or say they have been using 95 Octane and something has/or may happen to the car now or in the future.

Just follow what Skoda recommend or if you do something different then so be it, but dont then moan its down on power or the car is stalling etc etc - and then we have a round of comments that start these threads off yet again saying the same thing every time.

PS - Auric Good post.

I just think its wrong people blaming 95 RON fuel. Sure it may slightly (and I mean slightly, the difference will be negligable) blunt overall performance and economy but it wont cause the car to go wrong.

I expect we'll run ours on 97/98 RON as I agree the extra cost vs increased economy will probably offset any expense but i'm not ever going to be overly concerned about putting 95 RON in it if I have to. If the car goes wrong it will be going straight back to the stealers to be looked at under warranty, just like my 18 month old MK6 Golf has been back to the dealers several times for warranty issues.

Sadly VAG cars arent the paragon of reliability they once were, they are better built and developed than most of their peers but as a result are often more complicated, giving cause for more things to go wrong. I have had 3 new VW's over the past three years and each one has gone wrong in some way or another, but I still prefer them to any Ford or Vauxhall and will continue to preference them. Skoda's are re-badged VW's in most respects so I dont expect too much more from them either, other than better dealer service.

To get this back to the op's origonal problem.

I have a theory I'd like you to try if you are willing, going on some observations I've made when cleaning my VRS and from driving in on the weekly commute and some longer runs.

1 Fill car with fuel.

2 Clean the inside of the exaust that you can see.

3 Take car for a run in the country down fast quiet roads that you know well

4 Use full power and lots of revs once the engine is properly warm (oil temp in the 80's on mine)

5 Check the inside of the exaust. See if its is full of soot again.

6 Drive normaly to see if the problem has been resolved.

*The theory* Going by a few observations I've made I believe the engine may be over fueling the engine to keep the combution temprature down. This along with careful mpg minded driving will lead to a build up of unburnt fuel within the system leading to reduced performance and eventually issues like the op's

Thats a sound theory Can

Not sure if Teeza2 is the type to use full power and hard acceleration though!

For the record ALOT of new petrol cars are recommended to run on 98ron nowadays, that article saying it';s only a few cars are wrong!

The cooper S is 98ron recommended

Every Turbocharged Petrol engined and multiair engine in Alfa and Fiats range are 98ron recommended

The new Z4 3.0ltr and higher spec engines are 98ron recommend

Renault Megane Renaultsport 250 is 98Ron recommended

Polo GTi and Fabia VRS and Seat Ibiza all 98Ron recommended

according to work colleague(who doesn't own a TT) says the 2.0tsfi engines in the TT is 98ron recommended

All subaru 2009+ petrol engines are 98ron recommended 98ron even the non-turbos

Nissan 370Z and Gtr are both 99ron recommended

starting to get my point now?

almost all performance petrol turbo engines nowadays are 98ron recommended, which of them have ignition systems that can alter fuelling depending on what fuel is actually put in is a separate debate, but i think more and more cars are gonna be 98ron recommended as we go into the future, this is partly because they can post higher economy figures.

Know i don't know about the fabia but i can post figures quoted by Alfa when they first released there Mito

they said that the 1.4 turbo engine(pre-multiair engines)

develops 155bhp and 44.7mpg on 98ron

and

143bhp and 41mpg on 95ron

if you are advertising a new car which of these set of figures are more appealing?? considering the manurfacturer doesn't have to tell you the ron of the fuel in the advert it would be silly to sell the car based on the 95ron figures.

i could feel the difference in the Mito between 95 and 98 octane fuels but thats becuase the car alters itself

however on my skoda felicia, porsche 944 and MR2 roadster, although i do use 98ron petrol im probably wasting my money as when my dad borrows my cars i know he puts in 95ron petrol and i am none the wiser to it.

whewww thats a long post, sorry

Edited 11 April, 201115 yr by Sonner

And remember the vrs is not only turbo-charged it's supercharged also,makes purfect sense to run on 98and above,95 is for a standard car not for vrs

Crux of this debate is the car should be run on 98 RON as that is what is recommended, though use of 95 RON will neither damage the engine or cause poor running characteristics.

Speculation on this thread that the use of 95 RON can and will cause engine damage/warranty issues is entirely incorrect and is what annoys me. If you're having engine trouble with your vRS and have been running it on 95 RON fuel then in my mind the problems would have occured anyway. Blame Skoda for not building the car properly not the grade of fuel you have been using (unless of course you have been buying utter s**te from some middle of nowhere two-bit operation - but then I doubt many people on this forum do that!).

Finally to say that you shouldnt buy a vRS if you are not prepared to put 98 RON fuel in it religiously is frankly laughable. The real world performance difference between two stock vRS's running 95 and 98 RON fuel would be so negligable it would barely be noticed. The way some guys talk on here its almost like the use of 95 RON fuel in a vRS will make it drive like a 1.2 TSi.

With this debate I think its entirely each to their own, who cares so long as everyone is happy. Whilst I think we all agree the vRS runs best on 98 RON, please can we stop all the speculation that 95 RON fuel will break a vRS as it is misleading the entire vRS driving comunity who read these threads.

Edited 11 April, 201115 yr by pipsyp

I still don't follow the assertion on this forum that higher RON gives better economy. The higher RON kicks in at high revs and high power. Unless you are constantly thrashing the car, the extra octane is just not used. I don't think there should be any increase in mpg for normal usage.

Crux of this debate is the car should be run on 98 RON as that is what is recommended, though use of 95 RON will neither damage the engine or cause poor running characteristics.

Speculation on this thread that the use of 95 RON can and will cause engine damage/warranty issues is entirely incorrect and is what annoys me. If you're having engine trouble with your vRS and have been running it on 95 RON fuel then in my mind the problems would have occured anyway. Blame Skoda for not building the car properly not the grade of fuel you have been using (unless of course you have been buying utter s**te from some middle of nowhere two-bit operation - but then I doubt many people on this forum do that!).

Finally to say that you shouldnt buy a vRS if you are not prepared to put 98 RON fuel in it religiously is frankly laughable. The real world performance difference between two stock vRS's running 95 and 98 RON fuel would be so negligable it would barely be noticed. The way some guys talk on here its almost like the use of 95 RON fuel in a vRS will make it drive like a 1.2 TSi.

With this debate I think its entirely each to their own, who cares so long as everyone is happy. Whilst I think we all agree the vRS runs best on 98 RON, please can we stop all the speculation that 95 RON fuel will break a vRS as it is misleading the entire vRS driving comunity who read these threads.

Its a fair shout above, maybe we should ask the mods to close the thread ?

Crux of this debate is the car should be run on 98 RON as that is what is recommended, though use of 95 RON will neither damage the engine or cause poor running characteristics.

this is the sentance that should summerise the thread.. it "should" be run on 98 or above, that is what the engine designers designed the engine around. it will NOT harm the engine, or cause faults to run it on 95.... BUT skoda have stated in official responses you will get less torque, and less fuel economy.

Do you need to use higher Ron petrol in the 1.2 tsi as well? Seems crazy you lot are committed to a lifetime of buying even more expensive petrol...

The manual with mine says 95, but they have since revised it to recommend 98.

I've run mine on 95 for 5500 miles so far with absolutely no issues, runs just fine. I'm trying a tank of V-power in it at the moment and it does seem to have a little more power, economy may have improved also, but my normal short commute is not really showing up the difference. If it will give enough extra miles to cover the extra cost, then I'll use it all the time, if it's marginal, then I'll probably stick to 95.

However, using 95RON will not be causing the OP's car to cut out, something is faulty and needs fixed.

Nobody else has reported these problems?

I'll be running mine on Shell V-Power for its life to help it run better.

BP ULTIMATE IS KING!! lol

Hi, anyone else having issues with the new Fabia vRS?

Purchased mine in February from Parkview Skoda in Reading, ex demo with 500 miles on the clock.

Found that the idle speed was somewhat erratic and then found that if the engine got hot (say after being in traffic) and you stopped, returned to the car 20-30 minutes later it would start ok but as soon as you accelerated away the engine cut out and then re-started, most disconcerting if you had spotted a gap in the traffic.

The car surged on occasions and was very keen to change down a gear (7th to 6th) at the slightest sign of an incline which I had not experinced with my previous 1.4tsi octy and the fuel consumption was very poor - 32-36mpg driven very gently (still believe in bedding engines in - showing my age here!).

So, car went back to Parkview for this to be investigated along with numerous rattles from three of the doors.

The fault, thankfully, appeared the first time the service manager drove it and the fault code apparent led them to a faulty fuel pump. Two week wait for a new one! Got the car back, they had fitted a new fuel pump but hadn't found any rattles but 1 mile after leaving the garage there they all were! So back I wnet, took the service manager out for a drive and surprise he could hear the rattles...arghh!!!!! He attempted to fix the fault to save me the 125 mile drive back again but decided the car needed new door panels.

The fuelling issues were still there too so contacted them by email, two weeks later, no response from them - been most unhelpful, so conytacted Skoda Customer Services - John Good was helpful and came back to tell me I would have to wait 6-8 weeks more for the door panels - what?!? No thoughts on the fuelling issues and no offer to rectify.

This is my fifth Skoda, guess it will be the last.

Anyway if any of you have similar experiences then please let me know as am taking legal advice about my position.

Many thanks

Tezza2

HELLO BUD. I HAD SIMILAR PROBLEMS WITH MINE RECENTLY. KEPT SHOWING ENGINE LIGHT AFTER ONLY 800 MILES !!!!! THEN THE LIMP HOME MODE KEPT KICKING IN, THOUGHT IT MAY BE CONTAMINATED FUEL. HOWEVER, TOOK IT TO SPARSHATTS SKODA IN PORTSMOUTH WHO FOUND THAT IT WAS THE FUEL PRESSURE SENSOR PLUG HAD NOT BEEN FITTED CORRECTLY AT THE FACTORY!!! SLIGHTLY WORRYING AS EVEN THE DEMOS THEY HAD AND SALEAMANS OWN VRS HE BOUGHT FOR THE WIFE WAS EXACTLY THE SAME. MAYBE THEY SHOULD CONSIDER A RECALL?? HOPE THIS SOLVES THE PROBLEM FOR YOU AS I LOVE MINE!! ALL THE BEST, JUSTIN

If this is something you dont like doing then surely you have bought the wrong car ?

Unfortunately we did not have the information from Skoda at time of purchase, that the car has to run on 98+RON.

Only when you open the filler cap, do you get this news.

Also you soon find out that 46.5 mpg overall is impossible; I don't reset the fuel gauge and am getting 37.9 after 7,000 miles.

I am happy with this and I am sure that 47 mpg is possible on a motorway with lots of downhill and following wind at 60 mph.

As soon as you leave the motorway, mpg will plummet and in Sport, 25 mpg will be the norm.

Just enjoy a super car.

Tony

p.s. Tesco Momentum 99 RON is best.

Just very slightly OT but a general question about price.

My loacal garage sells Total with unleaded being around £1.34 and Excellium (97 ron?) being around £1.49 per litre.

In this thread the comments of "a few pence more a litre" have made me wonder if I am missing something here

A fill up from empty to full costs me around £6.00 more for using Excellium.

Please understand I am NOT debating if 95 is better than 97/98(it as been done to death - move on ) but asking what price do YOU pay and what is the price difference between "normal" and "super" at your local filling point?

Edited 11 August, 201114 yr by Jayw

this whole petrol argument still going on...

i started on vpower then due to a shortage in funds started using 95 RON, and tbh, it seems better! performance is no different and im getting 39mpg round town, 47/50 on the |Mway!

I use V-POWER simply because it has a cool name.

End of .........

Talking to my local dealer the other day about fuel in the vrs and he insisted that 95 RON is all you need to use.

Please understand I am NOT debating if 95 is better than 97/98(it as been done to death - move on ) but asking what price do YOU pay and what is the price difference between "normal" and "super" at your local filling point?

I'm running the 1.2 on Tesco 99 at the moment. I am getting noticeably more miles per tank with it and the car is running great. Tesco 99 is 5ppl more than their 95. My local Shell usually matches Tescos price for 95, but V-power is 8ppl more.

Filling the tank with Tesco 99 is £2.25 more than a tank of 95. BUT it is going further and I reckon it's covering the cost.

Your Total garage is seriously taking the pi$$ with their pricing. :no:

When the vRS was first released, the fuel cap and manual both stated 95 ron minimum. Skoda and vag have since amended these to now say 98 ron. Wander why..........

I'm running the 1.2 on Tesco 99 at the moment. I am getting noticeably more miles per tank with it and the car is running great. Tesco 99 is 5ppl more than their 95. My local Shell usually matches Tescos price for 95, but V-power is 8ppl more.

Filling the tank with Tesco 99 is £2.25 more than a tank of 95. BUT it is going further and I reckon it's covering the cost.

Your Total garage is seriously taking the pi$$ with their pricing. :no:

thanks for taking the time to read the question and not just rant aimlessly about 95 v 99 ron

5ppl sounds much better then 17ppl....time to change fill up points me thinks

No worries

Truth be told, I will happily fill up with either Shell 95 or Tesco 99, the car likes both of them. It didn't like Tesco 95 though and you'll never, ever find me filling up at ASDA (even though I shop there)