On 29/01/2017 at 09:05, Offski said:

^^^ Are you sure the ESSO Super Unleaded is 98 Octane & not 97 ron, is 98 what it says on the pump?

http://www.esso.co.uk/petrol

Quote

97 Ron shoot me now ........

 

6 hours ago, Offski said:

& to use 4 tank fills using 99 ron would cost you £10 extra if that and then you might know if you get any better range from each tank fill over that period 

and then be in a position to dismiss it as snake oil in a 1.4TSI, or £10 cash money wasted.

 

I normally only fill the tank about 1/2 unless I am going on a long trip. Carrying the extra weight of 6 gallons of petrol (about 20Kg) is simply daft when you don't need to. I put £25 in yesterday, about 4,7 gallons. That will last me at least a week and a half.

 

Its not like I would need to go out of my way either. Tesco sell 99 octane at the same pump they sell 95 octane so I would only need to lift a different nozzle.

 

But considering the car runs perfectly and will out perform most run of the mill cars on the road I simply do not see any point.

 

If I had a specialist car with huge horsepower it would probably be a different story but my track car (about 175 bhp N/A) runs on 95 octane and I have a cabinet of trophys to prove its a match for anything in the class.

Nobody could argue with that reasoning, all the experience and all the gear....

Hardly worth even discussing is it!

You can't compare a 1.4 and a NA engine (175hp or not) to a larger forced induction petrol though. The 2.0 TSI definitely benefits from 98 RON and above (not 97, the fuel table is set for 95 or 98+, the trigger isn't activated until 98 or above is detected). Skoda even confirmed it for us this afternoon, albeit in their usual clouded language. Forced induction engines typically love higher octane, especially fuel with high oxygenate content (as Momentum 99). My actual question to Skoda was why do the two 2.0 TSIs (220 and 280) have the same information about fuel written back to front; i.e. '98(95)' and 'Min 95 but can provide more power and better economy on higher octane fuel'. They didn't actually answer why they did it that way, but they did say the engines have lots of sensors to adapt to and benefit from the higher RON. There in black and white from the people who built the engine. When I plugged in my OBDII reader and did some hot laps the car was severely pulling/retarding timing on 95 RON but advancing like crazy on 99 RON. Just pay the extra pennies a week for the good stuff OP, your car will thank you in the long run.  

 

Edited to add: Reading this back I just want to clarify that I'm certainly not disagreeing with you overall skidpan. Your logic and reasoning is sound, just you answered a question nobody asked. The OP asked what fuel his 2.0 TSI will run best on and you replied about your 1.4 and an NA engine in your track car. Two completely different things. 

Edited 31 January, 20179 yr by Rainmaker

On 31.1.2017 at 18:55, skidpan said:

But considering the car runs perfectly and will out perform most run of the mill cars on the road I simply do not see any point.

Is it saying the same in your tank lid as it stands in the 220 and 280 hp? 

Take a picture if you have some change to do that..  

Edited 1 February, 20179 yr by Core2Duo

3 minutes ago, Core2Duo said:

Is it standing the same in your tank lid as it stands in the 220 and 280 hp? 

 

Presume you mean saying and not standing, totally different words. Don't have the Superb yet so cannot comment. The Leon 1.4 TSi 140 PS handbook says 95 Octane or 91 Octane with a small loss of power.

5 minutes ago, skidpan said:

 

Presume you mean saying and not standing, totally different words. Don't have the Superb yet so cannot comment. The Leon 1.4 TSi 140 PS handbook says 95 Octane or 91 Octane with a small loss of power.

Yes, I mixed the words a little, sorry. But it says nothing about the 98? Maybe that's what the problem is... Your engine dosn't get any more power when you use 98 or higher...

I would bet you my 'overdraft' that 98 plus (Super) octane gives more power.

& that 91 octane is mentioned for Other World Regions, and the Leon 1.4TSI 140ps is set up to achieve the Published 140 PS/ 138 BHP & 250Nm / 184ft/lb  minimum on 95 ron 

at different altitudes and Ambient Temperatures , where the UK will never be more than 4,000 ft above sea level or having extreme temperatures and achieve better than the minimum figures,  maybe even better ones that Heavier VW / Audi's get given when they have the same drivetrain and engine management. (Because the VW Group do that.)

Edited 1 February, 20179 yr by Offski

I had a 97 triumph tiger that wouldn't start very well on normal unleaded

started a treat on super 97 Ron,since then all my bikes run on super if I had a petrol car I would use super uL  . I imagine it would be exactly the same as a car but as I said b4 my cars are diesel ....

Wasn't the Tiger a diesel

13 hours ago, Offski said:

I would bet you my 'overdraft' that 98 plus (Super) octane gives more power.

& that 91 octane is mentioned for Other World Regions, and the Leon 1.4TSI 140ps is set up to achieve the Published 140 PS/ 138 BHP & 250Nm / 184ft/lb  minimum on 95 ron 

at different altitudes and Ambient Temperatures , where the UK will never be more than 4,000 ft above sea level or having extreme temperatures and achieve better than the minimum figures,  maybe even better ones that Heavier VW / Audi's get given when they have the same drivetrain and engine management. (Because the VW Group do that.)

Exactly, manufacturers build in all these tolerances so that the car will perform in 'sub optimum' conditions.  Quality of fuel being one of them.

 

The reason why REVO, Shark, etc can easily find 30-40bhp from a remap without killing the car. 

On 01/02/2017 at 23:39, Bud said:

Wasn't the Tiger a diesel

No not diesel it was a tractor.....