proof that 99 ron massively outperforms 95 Ron

[apmaman]

Dont see the point in using 95 when 99's fractionally more expensive on the day.

You're getting shafted by the tax so might as well enjoy it.

[Auric Goldfinger]

I posted this in another thread on Dec 23rd

" There is not a massive difference in price between 95 RON and 97/98 RON on a full fill up and is less than £4 or £5 compared to ordinary fuel

When you buy a hot hatch that costs £13K plus and is recommended to run on 97/98 Ron Fuel whats £5 "

Skin Flints

Always use the best

[the mad monk]

Skin Flints [

i prefer to call you guys flash gits

£4 - £5 per tanks is a lot when its per week in what is a cheap supermini

[newbie69]

I saw some pretty simple statistical facts which cannot be denied, (consumption, dyno test etc.) and then there are some technological facts as well, engine's compression ratio etc. which all together, make this a no-brainer. In fact, it couldn't be made clearer how beneficious the high octane fuel is, especially for our car.

On the other hand, I've only read things like "no, I'm still not convinced", "there was not a vRS in the test" etc. but imho they would still deny it if there even was a vRS tested but not theirs. To me, it sounds as If you're telling somebody "take a number, multiply it by 3 and then divide it by 4. You'll end up with a smaller number than you begun" and he replying "I'm not sure, try it with 10 as a starting number. Ok, now try it with 15, Ok now try it with ....." Of course he can keep denying it forever but there is not point in continuing the discussion. If the results on the Focus are in favour of the higher octane fuel than guess what will it be on the vRS, at least that's what technological knowledge suggests. In fact I could even explain this article to my mother which has the slightest sense of car technology and still make her understand the benefits.

A forum is not about having to prove we are - and always have been - 100% correct regarding our car habbits. I'm very happy when the opposite happens actually, as I can correct it for the future. With this in mind, I think the use of 95-ron fuel has not the slightest argument in favor, except "I like to save as much as I can from each tank as I don;t know what will happen tomorrow" which I would totally accept. I don't care patronising with comments "If you gave 14K for the car then put 98+ in it". A vRS is not the same from an economical point of view for everybody. To one it could be 5 years savings while to another it could be a last minute change of mind from buying a Golf GTI, deciding he should keep the extra money. I'm just glad that we can all read some proper facts rather than "that's how I do it, so that's the right thing", so we can decide what should we or shouldn't do.

Edited 26 December, 2011 by newbie69

[Auric Goldfinger]

i prefer to call you guys flash gits

£4 - £5 per tanks is a lot when its per week in what is a cheap supermini

£4 or £5 is less than a packet of fags (if you smoke) or one and a half pints ( if you drink )

Buy 1 less packet and drink less.............

Disclaimer:- I'm not saying you drink or smoke Mr Mad Monk

[the mad monk]

whilst i can agree with some of your points newbie69, whats been unproven here is what it'd do with a 1.4tsi

one video showed a 170 odd bhp golf and the gains where next to nothing, only worthwhile gains were in a performance engine, which this is not

i fail to see where 3 or 4 horses would make it worthwhile or even 2-3 mpg better

now if somebody could PROVE it would damage my engine by using 95 fuel over the long run then id buy 98 tomorrow but until its proven by using this engine i fail to see whats to be gained, i bet in a straight line id be as quick as yours

if there was a downside to using 95 then Skoda wouldnt say you could use it, much like they say about 91 octane but they dont about 95 only that you lose a slight drop in performance which has never been denied

like ive said before, each to their own its your own money and choice, but nobody has any actual proof other than THEY think its better and also thats its not just better but much better which looking at one video just isnt the case

each time somebody has shown a link to a 250bhp+ car which isnt the same and is pointless, proves nothing imho

as they say, show me the money, and ill use it. until then im thinking some on here have had too many beers this Christmas

£4 or £5 is less than a packet of fags (if you smoke) or one and a half pints ( if you drink )

Buy 1 less packet and drink less.............

Disclaimer:- I'm not saying you drink or smoke Mr Mad Monk

oh but i do, well drink anyways, and no i wont have 1 less per week, thats against my religion you know. i just like to be frugal with my cash, thats why i bought this car with 20% off

Edited 26 December, 2011 by the mad monk

[vRSy]

if there was a downside to using 95 then Skoda wouldnt say you could use it, much like they say about 91 octane but they dont about 95 only that you lose a slight drop in performance which has never been denied

By UK law, all cars within the UK have to be capable of running on 95 Ron. Hence why its there in much smaller font, with 98 Ron in a larger bold font next to it.

[the mad monk]

By UK law, all cars within the UK have to be capable of running on 95 Ron. Hence why its there in much smaller font, with 98 Ron in a larger bold font next to it.

mate bought a Volvo polecat which he says ONLY runs on 98? no idea if this is true but thats what he says anyways

but on the other side, the vrs must be able to run ok on 95 otherwise thered be lots of us going back complaining

Edited 26 December, 2011 by the mad monk

[Auric Goldfinger]

oh but i do, well drink anyways, and no i wont have 1 less per week, thats against my religion you know. i just like to be frugal with my cash, thats why i bought this car with 20% off

Nice one, have a coke instead

[rob_tsi_vrs]

if anything the small 1.4 engine would benefit from the us of higher octane fuel due to fact that the car has been turbocharged and supercharged. This is a great post to prove that point. The fuel consumption, i personally find i get better mpg's using tesco that vpower and normal 95 however that could be just coincidence to my driving style to that partucluar tank however on 2 tanks of 95 i have found to average 33mpg (worked out not going on the computer) and with tesco momentum 99 iv been averaging 35 and 36mpg per tank. Also the engine size and the fact that the focus rs is est 300bhp is going to see bigger gains than the small 1.4 and not overly massive 180bhp, but also i know of a 700+bhp evo that see's gains of 100bhp from using race fuel yet another high octane fuel (it was said in the post the other day about ferrari carrying out a test with race fuel and normal 95 i think it was).

Edited 27 December, 2011 by rob_tsi_vrs

[seboni121]

Does not matter what vehicle you drive, the better the fuel entering will give you a better burn, better performance and economy although some difference will be minuscule but better for the engine system it will be, this is true of all things better quality will give you better results, be it in all things i.e cooking, building the ingredients you start with will ultimately decide the end product, crappy ingredient = crappy outcome, so if you do anything this year change to the higher specked fuel

[MartynVRS]

The point has been proven again and again and it still won't be dropped that it "hasn't been tested on a vRS". It's common sense (which doesn't seem that common) that a higher octane fuel will benefit a turbo and supercharged engine. Of course it will run on 95 but will always be at it's best on 98 or higher. Of course It's a performance engine. I'd class 99% of turbo'd petrols performance not to mention the supercharger too.

There's been a lot of trolling and baiting on this forum lately and imo this is another example.

[fabdavrav]

To the OP.... .......for the info...I forgot that Thorny MS had done a test, I have in the past quoted the EVO magazine tests.

To all those who still think that they can run their cars on 95ron for the long term with only a slight reduction in power output................

........Just look in the MKI Fabia forum for "Problems with 1.4 16v AUB engine".........this engine has the same 98/95ron super unleaded sticker in the petrol filler flap as the new MKII vRS. This engines quoted output was based on 98ron fuel with a 5% reduction for 95ron fuel. All the "problems" with the engine are because people have been running them long term on 95ron fuel and driving them slow and on short journeys! All the people who say they don't have problems (like me) usually run their's on 98ron fuel, and drive them appropiatly!!!!

In a few years time when MKII vRS's are second hand I would rather buy one that was run on 98ron fuel buy the previous owner!!!

As for it "not being a performance engine".......I'm sorry but that is b0ll0cks........it is a 1.4lt that produces 177.5BHP?????.......thats a power to capacity of 127BHP/lt........for refference...

New BMW M5 (F10) = 126BHP/lt

Ferrari F430 = 113BHP/lt

Lexus LFA Nurburgring Edition = 117BHP/lt

Porsche 911 GT3 RS 4.0 (997.2) = 124BHP/lt

The MKII Fabia vRS IS A HOT HATCH WITH A HIGH PERFORMANCE ENGINE......TREAT IT AS SUCH!!!!!.......

[999pooch]

There's been a lot of trolling and baiting on this forum lately and imo this is another example.

+1

Hard facts v lame opinion

tbh, hardly worth putting my 2p in.

[Kevsta]

Just to throw petrol onto the fire, most 1000cc sports bikes make around 200 bhp/litre and they don't require 97RON. The only bike that I know requires it are the BMW R1200RT, which are the bikes the police use, they will only run on 97RON.

[fabdavrav]

Just to throw petrol onto the fire, most 1000cc sports bikes make around 200 bhp/litre and they don't require 97RON. The only bike that I know requires it are the BMW R1200RT, which are the bikes the police use, they will only run on 97RON.

Don't give a FF about bikes...........their engines don't have to lug around a heavy body, 5 seats, crash protection, etc....... so the comparision etc is totally unappropriate and is just muddying the waters!!!!......

[the mad monk]

The MKII Fabia vRS IS A HOT HATCH WITH A HIGH PERFORMANCE ENGINE......TREAT IT AS SUCH!!!!!.......

is it heck, its a 13k car thats nippy

dont get me wrong its a great car, i love the dsg, but its not a performance car. maybe mapped and with the suspension sorted its getting there but not as standard. people label this car as something its not, get real

and as for driving it slowly on short journeys, my drive to work is 20 miles and i dont drive slow, get better economy than lots on here so again the argument is flawed

i guess we shall see in several years as to whether this is detrimental to the car or not, nobody on here knows for a fact that it is despite all their trying

as for food quotes, caviar is expensive but doesnt mean i have to eat it coz it is, id rather have fish and chips

oh and my bike doesnt use 97/98/99 ron either :p

[richm]

Trusty old chestnut this one lol

There's just a few key things to consider, no black magic..

1, There is NO practical calorific value difference between 95/97/98/99 RON fuels

2, Higher RON fuels have progressively higher knock resistance, ie. the air/fuel mixture tolerates more temperature and/or pressure before it spontaneously ignites independently of spark

3, There will only be benefit in using higher RON fuel if the engine is mapped and operating beyond it's knock limit in respect of ignition timing for the prevailing conditions in the cylinders (temperature/pressure).

Most modern engines now have active knock control with knock sensor(s) continuously monitoring the knock levels within the engine, and ECU retarding timing as neccesary to maintain the operating envelope within the programmed knock limit. This allows the engine to operate at it's optimum torque and efficiency for the prevailing conditions.

If the knock limit is not exceeded in a particular engine, then higher RON fuel will show no benefit. However, if the prevailing conditions are encroaching on the knock limit then higher RON fuel will allow the engine to operate further into it's intended operating region and realise more torque/power and potentially fuel economy, as the engine will be working at higher efficiency.

So simply - if the engine is mapped to produce it's rated torque/power output on high RON fuel, then it will almost certainly not achieve that with 95 - at some operating conditions the knock limit of 95 fuel will be exceeded and the engine output will be restricted by ECU control accordingly.

If you are just cruising around, or indeed as is the case in the current weather with traction limitations, there is a case for doubting the benefit of using 97+RON fuel, as the engine will likely be operating well within the knock limits, no damage will occur to the engine either way.

Edited 27 December, 2011 by richm

[jonny boy]

Update on my fueling with 95RON.

I eventually used it up and re-filled with Texaco 'High Octane' (97 RON) and the lumpy idle has vanished.

There's no doubt in my mind that 95 RON is not sufficient with a tuned engine. Mine has Revo Stage 1 and I have subsequently found out

that the dealership put £20 worth of Shell V in it on collection. So, it was mapped on that fuel. Something I knew nothing about not having had

a turbo petrol engine before or had mapping done.

The main issue I have is that the nearest Shell station is 55 miles away and within a 20 mile radius, my Texaco has the highest octane I can get.

That was why I mentioned about the possibility of an additive with the Texaco fuel, but I expect it should be OK.

[the mad monk]

interesting reading another of your posts mate

as your pushing ur engine past its normal limits id deffo use the fuel its mapped for, just a shame no shell nearer to you, im the same so i guess ill never get to experience v power

[jonny boy]

interesting reading another of your posts mate

as your pushing ur engine past its normal limits id deffo use the fuel its mapped for, just a shame no shell nearer to you, im the same so i guess ill never get to experience v power

Yeah, in all honesty, I maybe should have -

A) Done a little more research into this before getting the car

Been reminded by the dealership the importance of using the correct fuel

c) The tuners underlying the facts to me

Or ALL of the above

[Confide]

Yeah, in all honesty, I maybe should have -

A) Done a little more research into this before getting the car

Been reminded by the dealership the importance of using the correct fuel

c) The tuners underlying the facts to me

Or ALL of the above

Actually, the guy who sold me the car claimed that it would run without any problems on 95 RON fuel.

The dealers have no idea it means .

Have this as a little reminder : whenever a car is turbo/super charged, if it develops more then 0.6 bar then put 98+ RON in it !

[Ad Lav]

Who cares - the 95 ron boys will think they are right (nippy car - wtf) and 98+ boys will think they are right. I'm happy using V-Power and saving money and helping my car run better/faster etc.

The car has a small engine with a turbo and a supercharger, i'd give it the bet I could to get the best from it.

I bet mad monk if I had a drag race agaisnt him on santa pod I could beat him, same car, different fuel = I win

[the mad monk]

i dont need to prove anything, except i get better mpg on crap fuel oh and ive never had to go back coz of missfires or hesitation, weired that isnt it

but i guess when my car blows up you can always say i told you so

Edited 27 December, 2011 by the mad monk

[jonny boy]

Santa Pod it is then chaps ?

Tell you what though, in all seriousness, the result would be interesting