i run my skoda fabia 1,4 16v 100bhp 95octane.But on the fuel cap it say 98octane.Does any one know which is the best fuel to use.and does the higher octane make it run better

Have a read of your manual, i was reading my mrs manual for her 1.2 polo and it says 95 to 98 ron but you wont see any benefit from anything above 95... thats what the actual manual recons

98 RON for 1.4 16V, otherwise you don't get the full power and also you might get reliability problems. If you do a search there is a quite a bit about this.

Petrol if it has spark plugs.

Derv if it has glow plugs.

As above, the 100bhp 16v engine is quite fussy on fuel from some of the tales i`v read on here.

98ron defo..............

...it will run on 95ron for short periods (several tank fulls)......but it the long term it dosn't do it any good

How will it not do it any good, the ecu will pull timing until knock.

I'd run it on 99 personally.

I do wonder if the ones which have been run on ron95 in the long term are more likely than those run on ron98 to have engine issues. I suspect the majority of the car driving public only try to worry about the difference between petrol and diesel, otherwise stick the cheapest stuff in. Once saw a Lamborghini Gallardo owner filling up with 95 when there was a more appropriate pump directly next to it. Spend that much on a car and try save a few pence on fuel, lol. Still suppose if you can afford a car like that a major engine rebuild, new engine, or new car is pocket change.

Edited 20 October, 201213 yr by anewman

I do wonder if the ones which have been run on ron95 in the long term are more likely than those run on ron98 to have engine issues. I suspect the majority of the car driving public only try to worry about the difference between petrol and diesel, otherwise stick the cheapest stuff in. Once saw a Lamborghini Gallardo owner filling up with 95 when there was a more appropriate pump directly next to it. Spend that much on a car and try save a few pence on fuel, lol. Still suppose if you can afford a car like that a major engine rebuild, new engine, or new car is pocket change.

Surely it's cheaper in the long run to give it the good stuff.

I actually apologised to my fabia the other week when I put shell fuel save in it as I had my fuel light on, 100 mile journey to do and no vpower diesel available at the garage I went to

Regarding diesel, the cheaper the better. Vpower etc is a bad idea.

Regarding diesel, the cheaper the better. Vpower etc is a bad idea.

I'm sure it wasn't the placebo effect but the first time I put vpower in the fabia, it sounded much smoother. Didn't feel any faster, but smoother from when I started it and I have always only put vpower in since (apart from the above occasion)

Stand by my assertion. Waste of money.

I've just got approx 545 miles out of a tank full of the Esso diesel ''we fuel progress'' The pump nozzles have tags on explaining what it means - better economy, cleans the fuel system etc..... The difference at Esso being they only have the one diesel fuel and it doesn't cost any more like the inflated costs of BP ultimate and Shell optimax. I'd recommend it.

Edited 21 October, 201213 yr by VRSD30

Stand by my assertion. Waste of money.

I'd be interested in hearing your logic on this.. Would you mind sharing?

I've personally always found the engine to be much quieter & smoother when running on Vpower Derv.

I tried the power of V in mine last week, and I didn't notice a jot of difference TBH. Avg consumption was the same, sounded the same, no noticeable increase in power.

BP ultimate for me, took at least 3 tanks full for the ECU to adjust then after that she runs soooo much smoother and less smoke on start up and booting ;-)

Evo mag along with others have over the years run back to back long term runs etc comparing Vpower, Ultimate, cheap standard etc...........And they even removed the sparkplugs and stuck a boreoscope? (small video camera)into the combustion chamber before and after.....

.....and guess what????

the better stuff does what it says on the can........!!!!!!

Better addative/cleaning packages......

And you need to to go through three full tanks (ie run to almost empty and fill with vpower) before the ecu can fully relearn......

So those that say "i tried a tankfull and it did sod all"....are NOT giving it a proper trial!

The early 1.4lt 16v engines were designed to get the quoted power by running on 98ron...as the previous version first appeared in the Polo 16v back in 1996 and that was a high output for a nat' asp' engine in a small mass produced car!

I think this site has several threads about should I use 98ron in a 1.4lt 16v......

I'd be interested in hearing your logic on this.. Would you mind sharing?

I've personally always found the engine to be much quieter & smoother when running on Vpower Derv.

Well, lots of people think their cars run quieter or smoother or more economically when on VPower. Which is fair enough, but it's totally open to placebo. Or, perhaps even trying to convince yourself that it's worth the cash. But that's by the by.

I've never seen anything factual (i.e. a proper scientific test) that backs any of it up. Whether long term or short term. Disassembly of engines after a back to back long term test would be very revealing....

Regarding the Evo test - which is new to me - I'm assuming that was on petrol engines?

Cheers

Can't find the Evo test on their website but I do have the mag somewhere....2006 christmas issue ...there was another test that they did as well....

And yes it was on petrol engines

The bloodly quote button isn't working at the mo'

I remember fifth gear tested supermarket diesel against v power and ultimate diesel on the same car and found there was a tad more power from super juices than from the cheap stuff

Well, lots of people think their cars run quieter or smoother or more economically when on VPower. Which is fair enough, but it's totally open to placebo. Or, perhaps even trying to convince yourself that it's worth the cash. But that's by the by.

I've never seen anything factual (i.e. a proper scientific test) that backs any of it up. Whether long term or short term. Disassembly of engines after a back to back long term test would be very revealing....

Regarding the Evo test - which is new to me - I'm assuming that was on petrol engines?

Cheers

I notice no power / economy / torque gains. But the noise / smoothness difference is definitely apparent, so much so that after running on v-power for a prolonged period of time, I thought something was wrong with my engine when converting back to 'normal' derv. Some engines seem to have less difference than others though, my friends Merc C coupe 230 thing sounds / performs the same no matter what derv you put in. My PD130, my Dad's PD110 and my friends CR170 all notice the smoothness improvements on v-power. Maybe it's a VAG thing?

It's a personal preference though, I run v-power every now and then for a few tanks worth. And it would definitely be running on it if/when I come to sell the car.

If you don't think it's worth it, I won't hold it against you. But I do recommend everyone should try it.

Found the only link to to the actual evo mag edition......but it's just an overview

http://www.evo.co.uk/news/evonews/62488/this_months_evo.html

Also fifthgear did a test as well....link here..

You will notice that they show a picture of the inside of the golfs filler cap which shows "98ron" ....and they state that it is made to run better on 98ron........

....exactly the same as the 1.4 16v Fabia engines and fuel filler caps............

I run mine on Shell V Power. First off, much more responsive. It's also using a lot less oil, the petrol does give me more to the tank too, it runs a lot smoother (sounded like a bag of spanners prior) and my engine management light's gone out for it too. Result if you ask me.

As for oil it's got Castrol Edge 5-30 fully synthetic