The 280PS Thread

[toni8b]

I rather like my stealth 280,unless you see the chrome pipes it could be a derv 150,it doesnt shout look at me like the sportline,a quick dab on the pedal and the look of astonishment on other drivers faces as they look the car up and down at the next set of lights is a great moment,had a thumbs up from a focus st driver today,only a kid,knew he was beaten,wouldnt have imagined that a few years ago driving a skoda,respect! Im not sterling moss,but every now and again you just cant resist it!! A happy owner.kevin.

 

ST has 250ps?

[old newbie2]

What is `AmD`?

AmD Technik, is a local tuning company in Thurrock, who re-mapped my SuperB..

[IgorDeLuxe]

BTW, anyone other noticed red ambient light in pictures of Sportline?

[Nick_H]

After 8 years of driving diesels I'll be happy just to remember to use petroleum, let alone which grade!!!

Billy have you had a proper press of the 'loud' pedal yet ?

[BillyJim]

Billy have you had a proper press of the 'loud' pedal yet ?

Err, not sure how to answer that on an open forum. Let's just say I've done some sedate demo drives for some local Briskodians and a few not-so-sedate demo drives for some ex-traffic colleagues.

[Rainmaker]

Too low octane can result in knocking/pinking, which can eventually lead to engine damage. I don't think I've seen anything below 95 (the minimum recommendation for the 280) in the UK so it shouldn't be an issue.

IMG_0288.jpg

 

 

Looking around my local garages they only have either 95 or 97, so guessing that 97 is they best way forward.  What is the actual difference, will be Esso Fuel by the way.

 

What you need is Tesco's Momentum or Shell V-Power Nitro+ (or whatever it's called this week lol). Both are 99 RON, and the Tesco stuff is not only very decent but only ever 5ppl dearer than their standard stuff. 

[mandp]

Forgive this intrusion into the `280` thread (I've ordered a lowly 220), but would the 220 also benefit from Tesco Momentum?

Many thanks.

Mike.

[BillyJim]

The manual doesn't list recommendations for different engines, so you'd need to look at the label inside the fuel filler cap - or PM Custardmonkey who has a 220.

The manual does say no harm will be done by using a higher than recommended fuel rating but there is no advantage to be gained in either mpg or performance.

[mandp]

The manual doesn't list recommendations for different engines, so you'd need to look at the label inside the fuel filler cap - or PM Custardmonkey who has a 220.

The manual does say no harm will be done by using a higher than recommended fuel rating but there is no advantage to be gained in either mpg or performance.

Thank you.

[Rainmaker]

The manual doesn't list recommendations for different engines, so you'd need to look at the label inside the fuel filler cap - or PM Custardmonkey who has a 220.

The manual does say no harm will be done by using a higher than recommended fuel rating but there is no advantage to be gained in either mpg or performance.

 

I'm looking at ordering a 220 (hence poking into this thread to begin with). Isn't the 220 the same as other TSI engines in that 98 is the minimum recommended RON but that it can tune itself down for 95 if required? If so, it'd be a bit pointless to run it on 95 or 97 and lose some power (and MPG) for the sake of 5ppl. Buying 220 horses and stabling up 40 of them to run lower octane fuel doesn't really make sense.

[sooty1444]

I own a 280,and use tesco momentum 99 grade fuel,as i did with my previous octavia 111 vrs with the same 220 engine as you are ordering,cracking engines they are too,from my experience when you fill up with 95 ron,you can really notice a drop in power compared to the 99,regardless of other opinions i think its well worth the extra 5p a litre.kevin.

[NX01]

I have ordered the 220TSI and had the concern about the fuel as 99% of the garages in my area have 95 or 97.  I have one Tesco which I will have to check if it does 99 or not, do not currently use it as my current car prefers Esso fuel.

 

I did speak to an older chap at Skoda UK and he said to simply use 97 as the difference between 97 & 98 is so small it would not be noticeable and would not do the car any harm or impact on any warranty for using fuel below the recommended 98.

[Nick_H]

I'm not worried. Don't know what was in when I picked her up but my first tank I filled up with 95 by mistake. Next 2 tanks filled up with 97 but cant say I noticed any difference... Just using 97 now but I cant imagine using 95 would significantly lower the engines output.

[DanJayUK]

I've not seen the owners manual but would guess the 220 would be tuned for 95 RON. The 280 may well need 98+ to extract the full power from the fuel but 95 won't cause any major difference. Knock sensors are pretty sophisticated and the engine management highly reactive these days so the engine will allow itself to be run as hard as it can within the boundaries of the fuel its got in it. If you put 95 in a 280 chances are you'd never spot the difference even if you were hammering as it'll still deliver 220 odd if not more. For anything designed for 95 putting in higher will make no difference whatsoever other than to your wallet. Most cars will run down to about 91/92 without issue though will start to see higher consumption and a lack of power. I'd be interested (and surprised) to hear if the 150 and 220 petrols in the Skoda do specify higher than 95 as standard.

The manufacturers themselves use 30+ blends of petrol that span the entire quality and additive levels that cars are likely to end up being run off when developing and testing engine management systems. These days there's little to no change in ECU settings regardless of where cars are shipped so they're designed to simply cope with whatever fuel they're likely to see. A good example of this is the older style SAAB 9-5s that were set up for E85. The 2.0 will put out 190 odd horsepower on it but only 150 on standard petrol. The ECU constantly adjusts.

Dan

[Wile7]

I reckon 95 is fine. I run my 3.6 on it. It's marketing hype to a certain extent.

If you have a highly tuned lump then you may need higher octane e.g. Caterham 620, but for a mass produced road car 95Ron is fine. In India, for example, you can only get 95 Ron and it's a big market for the Skoda Superb.

Dave

[Simon-R]

I reckon 95 is fine. I run my 3.6 on it. It's marketing hype to a certain extent.

If you have a highly tuned lump then you may need higher octane e.g. Caterham 620, but for a mass produced road car 95Ron is fine. In India, for example, you can only get 95 Ron and it's a big market for the Skoda Superb.

Dave

As an ex Caterham owner it made little difference in my 1.4 Supersport but it did make a difference in my Saab 9-5 Aero

[Wile7]

It will do on a turbo engine...and that Caterham was a good choice sir. I had a 1.4 super sport and it was a brilliant little car. If it was not for my love of the coughing and farting twin carbs and a return to Supersprint ownership I would have kept the supersport I think.

And my 1700 Supersprint runs well on 95.

[old newbie2]

I reckon 95 is fine. I run my 3.6 on it. It's marketing hype to a certain extent.

If you have a highly tuned lump then you may need higher octane e.g. Caterham 620, but for a mass produced road car 95Ron is fine. In India, for example, you can only get 95 Ron and it's a big market for the Skoda Superb.

Dave

I don't live in India, but in our town (darkest Essex) we can only buy 95 octane or diesel. 

 

My Superb seems happy enough on 95.

 

DC

[Alvaro]

As an ex Caterham owner it made little difference in my 1.4 Supersport but it did make a difference in my Saab 9-5 Aero

 

It was due to Saab's Trionic (the one and only car manufacturer that designed its own engine management). It used the spark plugs as detonation sensors, so the electronic managament could advance or slow down the ignition. The practical result was that you could put any petrol on a Saab, ranging from 90 to 100 Ron, and the electronics did the rest for a perfect ignition.

 

(By the way, this clever system was later used in the BMW M5)

 

You will find little difference in a "fixed" ignition car, like the 1.4 Supersport.

[Rainmaker]

I've not seen the owners manual but would guess the 220 would be tuned for 95 RON. The 280 may well need 98+ to extract the full power from the fuel but 95 won't cause any major difference. Knock sensors are pretty sophisticated and the engine management highly reactive these days so the engine will allow itself to be run as hard as it can within the boundaries of the fuel its got in it. If you put 95 in a 280 chances are you'd never spot the difference even if you were hammering as it'll still deliver 220 odd if not more. For anything designed for 95 putting in higher will make no difference whatsoever other than to your wallet. Most cars will run down to about 91/92 without issue though will start to see higher consumption and a lack of power. I'd be interested (and surprised) to hear if the 150 and 220 petrols in the Skoda do specify higher than 95 as standard.

The manufacturers themselves use 30+ blends of petrol that span the entire quality and additive levels that cars are likely to end up being run off when developing and testing engine management systems. These days there's little to no change in ECU settings regardless of where cars are shipped so they're designed to simply cope with whatever fuel they're likely to see. A good example of this is the older style SAAB 9-5s that were set up for E85. The 2.0 will put out 190 odd horsepower on it but only 150 on standard petrol. The ECU constantly adjusts.

Dan

 

Actually even the 1.2 TSI and 1.4TSI are rated for 98 RON, certainly in the Octavia so I don't see why the Superb would be any different. I noticed you saying there is little to no change in ECU settings regardless of where a car is sold. I can't speak for Skoda but I know Mazda had to not only change the ECU map but lower the compression in their petrol Skyactiv engines for the US market. Cars sold in the EU and Asia (where higher RON levels are available) get 14:1 compression and more aggressive timings etc, whereas the US fuels can't keep up so they lowered compression to 13:1 and changed the ECU map. I don't see why forced induction engines from VAG et al. would be much different. US customers are loathe to pay for anything but the lowest grade of gas, hence the reasons for Mazda's changes and why I suspect they're not the only OEM to do this.

 

On another note I test drove the 2.0 220 today (in the form of the Octy VRS DSG) and wow! What a cracking little engine it is! Order incoming...

Edited 23 November, 2015 by Derv

[mandp]

I really cant get my head round all this technical stuff but what I'd really like to know is...would putting 99 octane into a 220 be a waste of money...even at just 5p extra?

[DanJayUK]

I can't access this site from my work PC so I can't copy and paste from the owners manual however it says for petrol vehicles there's a sticker on the inside of the filler flap. It should either say:

1. 95 min 92/93;

2. 95 min; or

3. 98/(95)

I'm guessing you'll either see 2 or 3 on a 220 (please report back, I'm intrigued). Surprisingly (for me) the manual states if "2" a higher octane fuel can increase the power and reduce fuel consumption". So there you go, it perhaps is worthwhile! Though it does say if "1" then no. I doubt it'll be a "1" though.

My wife has the 240PS Mondeo and that states 95 with no benefit of using higher so it is possible to wring 240 horses out of what is for all intents and purposes 3 star without the lead in it!

Edited 24 November, 2015 by mbbx6drj

[Custardmonkey]

I think my 2.0 220 says 95 minimum (away from the car today). I've been using Sainsbury's super unleaded (98) as I found in my scirocco (which had the same sort of engine) I got about 10% better fuel economy using it. Not put it to the test in the superb.

[Nick_H]

Managed to get out this morning for an hour for the first time by myself and in the dry to enjoy myself a bit....

 

Played with sport but mostly in manual mode. Great fun ! I just want to drive it all the time. I'm finding myself not having a beer at night on the off chance the Mrs needs something from the shops :-D

 

So gave it some proper welly today upto the posted limits of course and I must say it gets their bloody quickly ! The acceleration is relentless. Its been a long time since ive felt that constant push in the back.

 

Handles well for a big barge. I picked the correct engine for me !

[philsmith]

Some thoughts after the first weekend and drive with the car,

 

It's not big enough! needs to be 10cm wider to take the same load as my old E series, but I guess will learn how to load it better with a bit more practice.

I have the steering set to sport and everything else to comfort which suits me, tried the gear change in sport and it never seems to change into sixth!

Does not seem as quick as the E350 but I probalby need to get used to petrol power again and use the revs.

Im getting an average of 28mpg but I expect this to improve as the car loosens up and I stop sitting in the car with the engine running checking out all the features! would think I can equal the old mercs 33mpg

Very comfortable seats.

Sat Nav screen a little vague and cannot work out how to put a postcode into it (I know you can as the salesman entered my address into it when I picked it up using this method) but all may be revealed when I get the Infotianment Manual that was missing from the folder! also might then be able to work out how to get the mp3 player to play on random.

Love the colour (petrol blue, beige leather) looks better everytime I look at it.

Tint on the back windows is not dark enough as you can still see what's in the car when loaded.

 

All in all I'm happy, just need to get the Anthracite wheels changed from the silver ones that the dealer ordered by mistake!

Edited 7 December, 2015 by philsmith