Do you think they'd allow the MKII Fabia vRS as a specialised subject on Mastermind?

I admit, put this in the First World problems league, but I have a potential issue in the very near future regarding business mileage.   I'm currently field based, working for a major food retailer which also has its own petrol stations. I claim my fuel costs at a set rate per mile, as I use my own private vehicle for my travel which is approx 12k per year business mileage. Up until now they have accepted any VAT fuel receipt with my claim, which I get back as cash in hand.

After a draconian, knee jerk review of expenses it now seems they may only accept mileage claims if their own brand petrol is purchased, which does make business sense on the one hand, as it increases revenue at the pumps if all the field team do this.   The issue is the car is the 180bhp VAG 1.4TSI engine which is 98ron recommended, and I have only ever used super unleaded in it. Admittedly it is 95ron minimum, but have heard many reports of rough running, reduced MPG and general potential for engine unhealthiness, probably exarcebated as it probably won't be the greatest of 95ron petrols being a supermarket offering.

There's every chance this won't be enforced strongly, but if it is I'm wondering where I stand. I'm a bit precious about my cars and keeping them running well, especially now it's out of warranty and there's some seriously complex tech in this motor which would be astronomically high to fix. If they do enforce it and refuse to pay out unless offered an own brand fuel receipt, where do I stand? Perhaps an official manufacturer document stating the use of 98ron fuel? Play it sly and submit other receipts from family members filling up at the own brand pumps? Just stick 95ron in and have a crap running car? 

 

To return to your specific point I had the same issue with my employer questioning usage of super unleaded.

 

I managed to show them bits in the manual ie about reduced performance and I think it said "reduced fuel consumption" and they let me continue to use super unleaded.

 

All other users of super unleaded who could not prove their cars benefited from the higher octane fuel where forced to stop putting super in and revert to 95 octane.

 

I think I might have used the argument that I would not only get less miles to a tank but also spend more time filling the car up, particularly key when you only have a 9.9 gallon tank and a range struggling to reach 400 miles on 95 octane fuel and you could well see another 20 miles or so on high octane fuel.

 

Tescos Momentum commisioned study on the Audi TT is probably the closest lab evidence though I think Shell might have pipped it Momentum on some tests.

http://www.tescopfs.com/content/downloads/mbk_12_0311_2.pdf

 

In actual fact I do not always buy 99 Octane fuel.  Over 90% of the time I buy Tesco Momentum and occasionally buy Shell 99 but also, like yesterday, put in Shell 95 Octane.

 

Shell 99, 8 pence more than 95 Octane, is not really worth it, Tesco Momentum at only 4/5 pence more is in my view especially with all the Tescos points too.

 

Whatever you put in will mix with the gallon or two your still have in the tank (you still have a gallon or so when the range shows zero) and arrive at an average octane of the combined fuel mix.

 

If it was a very hot day or even a very cold day with a high pressure, I would be especially keen to put in 99.  Have spent time working for Piper tuning and burnt many an engine part when pushing a little bit too hard fuel is not something I would skimp on.  That said, a part from the unfortunate Silicon in the fuel incident at Tescos I find Momentum fine and accessible in 95% of the country and boy do I get a few tens of thousands of points a year, nice bonus.

What are you going to be putting in your new Skoda, and does the Nissan get the good stuff?

 

I think most Japanese cars, like Korean and US cars are built to run on 95 or even 91 Octane.

 

Even some high performance ones, motorcycles too, still OK on low octane fuel.

 

I imagine some of the tuned version of the cars would need the higher octanes.

 

Most countries in the only have 91 and some with 95 octane so their cars are built to run on these fuels.  

The 370z has to run on 98, there is limited knock control and you can damage the engine running 95.

Japan has premium unleaded with 100ron so most of the performance stuff is designed to run on that so that's stuff designed for the Japanese domestic market , cars like the older turbocharged Skylines etc

Where do you manage to buy the 98 RON Super Unleaded.?

 

EDIT.

Doh, sorry,

i see the post now, you buy 99 ron minimum from Tesco or Shell.

Edited 17 April, 201511 yr by goneoffSKi

Thanks for the input, if they really insist I'll probably alternate between a tank of 95 and 99, and just submit the normal petrol receipts.

The VEL tests sponsored by Tescos showed that running super unleaded improved fuel consumption over 95 octane by between 2 and 3%.

 

Economically is 98/99 octane fuel worth it putting in to the Fabia 2 VRS, too to call for Tesco's Momentum but slow close that at least you are getting another ten miles or maybe a bit more out of the tankful and unless you like stopping at garages to sneak in a mars bar (this is where garages make their money not selling fuel) or the like then using 98/99 octane is as much about getting a bit more range out of the diminutive fuel tank than much else.

 

Shell Nitro Plus not worth it for its improvement in fuel consumption economically IMO.

 

I reckon you get a few more horsepower having 98 octane if you use full throttle repeatedly (especially on a warmer day).  Measuring combustion temperatures we would see a two degree rise in exhuast temperatures for ever degree rise in inlet temperature ie use 98/99 octane especially on day where NTP exceeds about 290 Kelvin ie 17C.

 

My Fabia 2 VRS has almost 100K miles following this methodology (now covered by CSMA insurance as VAG pathetic warranty ran out more than a year ago).  AS there is no replacement from Skoda for the Fabia 2 VRS I have to look for another marque.  Polo GTI, bit small especially the boot, probably the Clio RS fits the bill, 200 or 220 hp.  

Well, if it comes to it I'll probably alternate between tanks of regular from my company and super and just submit the receipts of the regular. They only expect receipts for half of the claim value so shouldn't be too much of a problem.

 

I'd be interested to see how regular fuel effects my fuel economy, I get between 40-46mpg at the moment averaging around 42mpg. 

Edited 19 April, 201511 yr by TeebsVRS

@lol-lol

Here are the test results that Tesco had done which were really more about emissions.

It would be good to see similar test results done with 95 ron unleaded E10  and 97 or 99 ron Super Unleaded E5.

 

Since this thread from 2015 Esso Super Unleaded is now 99 ron minimum. 

6ca06d648b9541e78fa838fece4a1a23 (1) (1).pdf 388380a097b04fe693a8c27db8bb4974 (1).pdf

 

2021 & E5 97 & 99 in the UK. 

petrol.pdf

Edited 14 December, 20214 yr by roottoot

I do recall those results and recall the battle I had with my expenses claims department telling them the Fabia VRS Twincharge should have 98+ octane and that was the economical choice for that car.  Many of the other fuel card holders were putting in 97,98,99  octane in their cars which were designed to run OK on 95 octane.  Back in these days 5% Ethanol applied to 95 and the higher octanes.

 

Been reading lots of stuff on the E10 and putting in alternate high octane, low ethanol, especially the Esso 99 which has no ethanol, is looking more attractive or for a second choice Tesco Momentum 99 as always.  Not sure the Clio 900cc, 90 hp is going to be that fussy but worth a feel test.

 

 

 

There are areas of the UK where the ESSO Synergy + 99 will not have Ethanol.   

That might be the areas where Greenergy are not the supplier to those filling stations. 

So Central England, some of Southern England and parts of Wales is not such a large area regardless of how many vehicles or Esso Filling stations.

 

 

Edited 14 December, 20214 yr by roottoot

Higher levels of ethanol actually make the fuel more knock resistant, not less.

This is why cars like the koenigsegg CCR make more power on bio than on mineral based fuels.

There's a MASSIVE amount of nonsense talked about fuels.

Indeed there is.  

Twinchargers in the UK have thrived on higher octane petrol with as much as 5% ethanol for over a decade now.

2 hours ago, lol-lol said:

Not sure the Clio 900cc, 90 hp is going to be that fussy but worth a feel test.

 

Slightly OT but helps with your question, or my understanding of what you're on about? Our Sandero (same engine) runs fine on 95 RON E10, the cheapest of the cheap too, whatever my Granda buys.

I didn't comment because the postings were several years old but typical of the massive amount of nonsense posted were those I read that said the engines if fuelled with a lower octane carburant would run rough for 700 miles while the ECU adjusted, complete horse poo, the piezo crystal knock sensors fitted to every engine for the last 26 years minimum send a signal to the ECU which retards the ignition in milliseconds, change to a higher octane fuel and the engine will develop more power (if it had been detonating on the lower grade) within milliseconds also.

2 hours ago, AnnoyingPentium said:

 

Slightly OT but helps with your question, or my understanding of what you're on about? Our Sandero (same engine) runs fine on 95 RON E10, the cheapest of the cheap too, whatever my Granda buys.

 

Indeed, the 898 cc TCE Renault is\was a good engine and with ECO mode is a capable of high 60 mpg on the computer and in the Twingo GT was putting out 109 hp.  Always ran my Dacia Logan on 95 Tesco and it did well and got it up to 115 on one occasion.

 

E10 has 2% less energy value than E5 petrol so one has to expect one or so less mpg.

 

If people buy more E5, or even the Esso with no ethanol, then Uk government may have to tweak the taxation levels to encourage E10 use if it really is better for the environment.