Quite interesting this. Test car was a Golf GTI Edition 35 and each fuel was kept separate

Shell VPower (98ron) - 240.9bhp - £1.45/litre

Esso Supreme (97ron) - 240.5bhp - £1.44/litre

BP Ultimate (97ron) - 236.7bhp - £1.47/litre

BP (95ron) - 236.1bhp - £1.39/litre

Asda (95ron) - 235.8bhp - £1.36/litre

The order they were tested were BP, BP Ultimate, Esso Supreme, VPower then Asda

So VPower made the most but the most expensive BP Ultimate barely beat supermarket fuels. The one point I did find interesting is that they didn't test Momentum. Conflict of interest perhaps with Jason Plato's team being sponsored by them?

Personally I did notice the difference between standard Tesco stuff and VPower but apart from price I notice no difference between VPower and Momentum.

5bhp is barely noticeable.

Although they found a difference in power their conclusion was "dont bother".

Interesting test tho! Would of been good to have also seen how momentum 99 and Sainsbury-97 compared

spk to nick @ r-tech it was he who did the test for them on his rollers and although it was max 5 bhp in real terms it was actually lots

looking at all aspects of corrections ad power loss etc and the vpower was tested after 4 runs back to back so heat soak was an issue !!!

add this into a remapped car it again makes the gap even bigger !!!!

Had a feeling heatsoak would be brought up and it is a valid point. Doing several runs all day would mean more heat.

It was an interesting feature but I would like to see all the data though. I did wonder when going from standard BP to Ultimate what the lag would be to the ECU re adjusting. I appreciate that they were taking the average of four runs but I would be interested to see the output of each. Not entirely sure how quickly the ECU adjust but would expect the internal fuel map to increase slowly for a higher octane fuel but decrease rapidly for a lower octane fuel so as not to cause engine damage throug pre ignition.

The other piece I would like to see on these fuels is a fuel economy run, as this would actually be more important. Previously when I ran an Impreza I found that the additonal few pence a litre I spent on Optimax resulted in a 10% increase in fuel economy which when you are only getting 24 mpg on standard fuel is quite an increase and range extender.

The ecu takes ages to learn what to do with the fuel so unless this was done with each fuel being used for at least a month it's not very reliable test

this got done a few year ago on the gadget show didnt it? they had 3 cars and tested all three fuels on the three cars.

the supermini and hatch never really made much of a difference but the scooby showed a decent increase using the vpower high octane stuff.

The ecu takes ages to learn what to do with the fuel so unless this was done with each fuel being used for at least a month it's not very reliable test

That's what I was thinking when I watched it. Doesn't it take 3 or 4 tankfulls for the ECU to start taking advantage of the change in fuel quality?

isnt there a post saying if you disconnect the ecu for a while it resets saving the need to run 3 or 4 tankfulls to notice the difference

personally i notice 40-60 more miles per tank using bp 97 over standard, power seems the same so id say it pays for itself over a tankfull anyways

Realistically this is as close as you could get. Sure you could run a few tanks of each over months to get it spot on but when it came to test you'd have different ambient temps, how the car had been driven during the test before the dyno, etc. You could argue that if it was a fairly new engine it would be still running in.

isnt there a post saying if you disconnect the ecu for a while it resets saving the need to run 3 or 4 tankfulls to notice the difference

personally i notice 40-60 more miles per tank using bp 97 over standard, power seems the same so id say it pays for itself over a tankfull anyways

Even if reset so it starts a blank it would still take a while for it to learn what to do with each type of fuel...so at least 3 or 4 tankfulls over at least a month, so you could say those figures would be a lot wider apart in real life as the previous fuel used in the car has an influence over the next one used and so on...so by the time it got to the worst one that would be a false reading as it was still remembering the last fuel types and trying to get the same performance from inferior fuel ..if run for longer on the lowest fuel the figures would be a lot different

while in europe on the prague trip, I suddenly realised how poor our fuel was..... most of the "super" was at least 100RON.... we can barely manage 99 at best! most of our "super" is 97 :(

we had some time on an airfield and my car ran fantastically..... at that point it was a mixture of 100RON and 102RON fuel..... these were just "super" at service stations..... it felt better than it ever had, and was fast ... obviously no RR, but if you have a vRS and can somehow get 100+RON fuel, do so! (though I dont know of anywhere that does it :( )

just posted a message to nick from r-tech to comment so you all understand the results and understand how it was tested from the guy that did it !!! saves people thinking they understand it ;-)

below is what nick has to say to this thread via facebook !! the guy is a legend and imo not many people in this country can touch him on knowledge enjoy the read !!

We was pumping the fuel in direct to HPFP line, Then timing knock, load and ADD MULT STFTs LTFTs where all reset in the ecu. The car then had the exact same 20mile load cycle to to adapt the car, then 4 back to back power runs all with data logging. It's total Bull crap saying it take 4 tanks, who ever is saying that had not got a single clue how an Adaptive ecu works. It's the same old, some one on a forum post it takes 4 tanks then everyone becomes a keyboard warrior to defend the comments.. Lol. Vicky could "feel" the improved power using same adaption methods and within 30miles driving. I do this day in day out and have seen consistent results over the last 7years on all 1.8t and 2.0tfi setups. I don't stack shelfs for a living, then go on a forum and pretend I know everything because.

If the briskoda boys want to prove this 4 tank filling myth then they are more than welcome to have an open day at rtech use the dyno and show me the data and numbers.....

So what they are saying is if I am running vpower fuel on a car then switch to 95 the cars is not going to pick up the knock until over 1200miles and 4 tanks of fuel?? Then when I switch back vpower the knock routine is still going to hold the timing back, when the ecu sw is designed to to reapply timing is a set time, within milliseconds not the time it takes to use 4 tanks of fuel.

So what's the point of the ecu having a complex knock control to instantly detect the fuel/combustion quality if the ecu is going to wait until 1200miles later.

Fuel is not magical potion, it's the RON that's makes it or brakes it. The lower the RON the more knock the car is going to see "instantly" at which point the ecu pulls timing away to a point which best suites the fuel quality, this all works via real time knock sensor voltage. Optimised power from the 2.0tfsi would be 0CF over the whole power run. The Asda fuel was pulling a routine of -6.5CF off the timing maps at points to run safe. Where the V-power ran a 0CF on all 4 runs allowing the ecu to run its optimised timing advance at a safe level. The Vpower did not add extra power to the engine it just allowed the ecu to run its optimised timing advance.

All these briskoda boys need to do is repeat the tests we did....... But they cannot can they? As what happens is they will fill up with vpower while still having 20ltrs of happy shopper fuel in the tank, which then dilutes the vpower, then the next tank the full up with more vpower, and top up the already diluted vpower, so maybe at 96.5 / 97ron? Tank number 3 then tank number 4 it will near enough be running the full vpower ron. So maybe won't see the full potential of the fuel until Its neat. These reason we used small fuel tanks with fuel at 5bar direct into the hpfp feed.

I bet you £50 non of them have fully emptied and drained a tank of 95, filled up with vpower, reset there ecu the logged the instant timing corrections back to back at the same time measuring the hp on a dyno........ If the ecu is pulling timing out its running less power.

If the Golf 35 is recommended to run on 95 octane then VPower etc will not really be worth the extra money ie about 5% more cost.

The Fabia 2 VRS and other VAG twin charge engines and designed to run best on 98 Octane and will suffer significant more fuel consumption and power loss if you use 95 Octane so it is worth using, particularly Tesco Momentum which is 99 Octane and you occasional have to buy half a tank of 95 Octane because you cannot get 98 Octane, or above, when you need to.

Cheapest and best solution I find.

In the Octavia TSI VRS seems to make little difference except maybe the more advanced V-power etc giving the engine a little clean through with its better additives. Get in the 40s mpg with both and full throttle used not infrequently.

Edited 26 September, 201213 yr by lol

My understanding is correct running on Nicks comments - an engine designed/mapped to run 95 won't see much of an improvement on 97+; get one like the 1.4TSI (or the aforementioned Scoobys) that are designed to run on 98+, and the ECU will apply its safety net settings when fed 95. Its going to be adjusting it combustion by combustion as you don't get many seconds of detonation before it blows holes in things with a heavily forced induction lump..

I see some people saying that the higher octane (98 RON) fuel gives better fuel economy, is this correct for all types of driving ? My wife does a lot of stop start short trips (couple of miles at most), currently running 95 RON fuel and averaging around 31mpg, but it be worth going to higher octane ?

On a vehicle with a Recommended 98 ron fuel then yes 98 or 99 ron can give better fuel consumption and performance than using the 95 ron

minimum that you can use.

You are unlikely to notice any improvement on short commutes where the vehicle might never be up to temperature or using any of its available performance.

If it is a vehicle suited to 95 ron is the recommended petrol or 95 ron & a minimum 91 ron you are unlikely to see or achieve any improvement

in performance or economy using 98 oe 99 ron. JMO & JME

george

I see some people saying that the higher octane (98 RON) fuel gives better fuel economy, is this correct for all types of driving ? My wife does a lot of stop start short trips (couple of miles at most), currently running 95 RON fuel and averaging around 31mpg, but it be worth going to higher octane ?

I always see better fuel consumption at cruising speed when Im running the 100 or 102RON stuff in europe. As Sharkrider says - using this stuff makes you see how naff our fuel is generally. It gives me a smoother engine, more responsive acceleration and better economy!!

I do wonder if Nicks point about it being diluted in the tank by previous, still present, lower octane petrol is what people are confusing when the say you need 4 tank fulls for adaption. It has to be 100% of the decent stuff in the tank or you wont see the full benefit and higher RON value. As he says, if adaption to knock took that long, they'd be a hell of a lot of damaged/failed engines out there!

Edited 26 September, 201213 yr by FocusZtec

Adaptaion to knock is close to instant but the advancing of the timing back to the map takes longer , thought the 4 tanks was excessive my Evo would "learn" in about 15 minutes of driving.

Its certainly interesting but would have been nice to see all the curves of the power run as the headline peak horsepower is not the full story and there is no way on earth even an experienced driver like VBH could feel 5hp , she was feeling something else, as said better responsiveness and smoother running are much more noticeable than about a 2.5% increase in peak ponies

Edited 26 September, 201213 yr by Richf

while in europe on the prague trip, I suddenly realised how poor our fuel was..... most of the "super" was at least 100RON.... we can barely manage 99 at best! most of our "super" is 97 :(

we had some time on an airfield and my car ran fantastically..... at that point it was a mixture of 100RON and 102RON fuel..... these were just "super" at service stations..... it felt better than it ever had, and was fast ... obviously no RR, but if you have a vRS and can somehow get 100+RON fuel, do so! (though I dont know of anywhere that does it :( )

I have to say it did run fantastically on that 102

imo they should have done a blind test with VBH at the end - send her out on track twice and get her to guess which was the Asda and which was the V power fuel.

Mr Tuning, of course, absolutely correct in what you say regarding the ecu switching octane timing settings. Modern engines/ecu's respond instantly to the fuel being used. But just to expand a point, for the benefit of everyone. If someone fills up with 98ron with say one quarter tank left of 95, they are not running pure 98ron and the engine management system won't respond as if it is. The ecu will set itself to run for example 97.25ron or thereabouts for arguements sake. It won't be until a second fill of 98ron that the engine will give it's best for the ron standard of fuel used. So for us guys running our cars on the road who may switch fuel standard for whatever reason, it's not a case of an instant performance, economy change until at least a second fill is completely. I think that is where some have been confused by the 4 tanks thing. Of course it may take 4 tanks if someone is not allowing the car tank to empty very much and they just keep topping up little by little with higher octane. Very good post of your, and thanks.

Wouldn't mind trying 102ron it's just a shame it's rare and really expensive