Hi Juux, well your credentials do seem up to the job.

Nice explaination thank you.

It's true that more than one tank of fuel is required to achieve the benefits of higher octane fuels.

As I say, my experience with 97 RON is dated now but I did check the consumption figures accurately (brim to brim) rather than relying on the car's computer. On those two cars 97 was no better than 95. But I haven't tried 97 in the Superb.

No it is not.

I ran a Stage 2 1.4 TSI Twincharger on 99 usually, and for high days and holidays on Hiperflo 250 102 ron.

I knew the dyno results on 99, and could run the tank near dry, put in the 25 litres of twice the price 102 ron and go for a 10 mile or so run, 

then on the Dyno and check the results.

No 2 tank fills or the likes.   Then when i was at the 1/4 mile i knew i was ready steady go.

http://www.vitalequipment.co.uk/carless-hiperflo-380-c.asp 

 

 

 

 

Edited 5 March, 20188 yr by AwaoffSki

21 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

 

As far as I was informed, the fuelling tables for VAG (including the 220) are <98 RON and >98 RON. As such 97 RON fuel would be lumped into the <98 RON fuelling table and only advanced accordingly.

Should there be a less than or equal to, or greater than or equal to sign on one of those? As written, 97 could be lumped into either.

In that case would 95 be in the same table as 97 and 98? 

25 minutes ago, AwaoffSki said:

No it is not.

I ran a Stage 2 1.4 TSI Twincharger on 99 usually, and for high days and holidays on Hiperflo 250 102 ron.

I knew the dyno results on 99, and could run the tank near dry, put in the 25 litres of twice the price 102 ron and go for a 10 mile or so run, 

then on the Dyno and check the results.

No 2 tank fills or the likes.   Then when i was at the 1/4 mile i knew i was ready steady go.

http://www.vitalequipment.co.uk/carless-hiperflo-380-c.asp 

 

 

 

True, as you ran the tank near dry. I guess most peeps would not do that in normal driving but the point is still moot. If the engine can detect the right 'conditions' it'll adjust itself accordingly.

Edited 5 March, 20188 yr by El Dingo

9 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

 

As far as I was informed, the fuelling tables for VAG (including the 220) are <98 RON and >98 RON. As such 97 RON fuel would be lumped into the <98 RON fuelling table and only advanced accordingly.

 

Mildly, that would be surprising. The ECU doesn’t “know” what the octane rating of the fuel it’s currently using is; there’s no way for it to measure that directly, and if you’d ever seen the equipment and test procedures required to assert a fuel’s octane number you’d see it’s not exactly something you could build into a car. 

 

All the ECU can really do is fuel and advance or retard the ignition based on what it is being asked to do and the parameters it can measure, and it draws from the appropriate map for the required operation to do this (closed or open loop traditionally, but who knows what trickery manufacturers employ nowadays?!)

 

Happy to learn otherwise in terms of VWs but I’d wager that any “high performance” map, if it could be so described, would just kick in when the engine is running optimally, not just a step change based on what it thinks been pumped in to the tank last. In simplistic terms the ECU will just keep advancing ignition until knock is detected then dial it back a bit. The better the fuel the more often that point will be in the more aggressive portions of the map. 

Some very technical stuff here .... having given it all due consideration I'm going to continue with the Shell V Power Nitro + on the basis that I just like the name   

http://www.royaldutchshellplc.com/2015/01/20/shell-fined-nearly-1-million-for-falsely-selling-green-motor-fuel 

 

As to Refinery Chemists, or Fuel Manufacturers Chemists, 

the must have been sniffing too much gasoline at Royal Dutch Shell when they formulated Formula Shell with their lovely Detergent & Additives package  1980's Engine Killers.

Plenty cars or engines ended hanging on a chain of a break down truck or engine lift.

(or was it too many coffee shop breaks they were having!)

 

Then as for the Adverts of Shell V-Power and running a F1 car on Shell Road / Pump Fuel.

Then it was V-Power, before the new detergent packages and the re-launch as V-Power Nitro+ in the UK 99 rom minimum.

 

They just forgot to mention that there are Pumps in Italy in cities or near Ferrari Factories & Test Tracks there is on sale Shell V-Power that is not only 98 octane but 100 Octane.(minimum) 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating 

 

 

 

Edited 6 March, 20188 yr by AwaoffSki

I am at 25mpg for my 280ps.  Mainly suburban with a bit of motorway in quite a hilly area plus the wife drives most of the time and she is heavy footed.  Best I have had is 32mpg with a two mile tail back on the motorway.

9 hours ago, Harryc said:

I am at 25mpg for my 280ps.  Mainly suburban with a bit of motorway in quite a hilly area plus the wife drives most of the time and she is heavy footed.  Best I have had is 32mpg with a two mile tail back on the motorway.

 

That's almost reassuring @harryc! 

12 hours ago, Harryc said:

I am at 25mpg for my 280ps.  Mainly suburban with a bit of motorway in quite a hilly area plus the wife drives most of the time and she is heavy footed.  Best I have had is 32mpg with a two mile tail back on the motorway.

Gulp.  As much as I can't wait to get back into a petrol.  I can't help but feel I will be looking at my MPG for the first few weeks with a 'WTF face?!?!',  after running diesels for the last 9-10 years 

1 hour ago, penguin17 said:

Gulp.  As much as I can't wait to get back into a petrol.  I can't help but feel I will be looking at my MPG for the first few weeks with a 'WTF face?!?!',  after running diesels for the last 9-10 years 

You'll have the same WTF face when you press the loud pedal to the floor  

All considered the 220 petrol is no more expensive than the 190 diesel, at least using my old Octavia VRS diesel as a guide. When I had a 190 Superb L&K diesel for the weekend I got slightly less mpg than with my Octavia. 

 

The Octavia has a 50 litre tank, which costs approx £60 to fill, whilst the Superb has 60 litre tank, which costs approx £70 to fill. Both full tanks have a range of around 450 miles and I'll do two fill ups per month. 

 

The £20 extra I spend on fuel is offset by the £20 less the petrol costs me to lease the car. The petrol was also cheaper to insure. 

 

All figures are approximately, but in any case there's very little in it for me. My mpg continues to creep up and when I try 99 octane fuel it will hopefully improve further, so the petrol is progressively making a better case for itself. 

Out of curiosity I specifically ventured to my local(ish) Tesco forecourt on Sunday.  Momentum 99 is 119p p/l which is better than 'standard', local Shell or Jet diesel which is 121p but still much better than the 131p I was spending on BP Ultimate derv.  I stopped looking at the price of VPower diesel after it got close to 135p.  Cost of more smiles...priceless. 

I guess I'm just going to have to move up north. The Tesco Momentum 99 on The Old Kent Road was 121.9p last Sunday. 65.48 litres, so it must be a 70 litre tank. The computer gave me a 550 mile range on a tank, which ain't bad. On my bike, I used to start getting nervous after 180 miles.

 

Last tank was my first on the Momentum 99. I got 35.4 mpg for the tank – not bad for a couple of very cold winter drives. I topped up again, but don't have any motorway trips on the horizon until April. I expect the mileage to drop on the next tank, just doing short urban trips.

I've realised the trip computer is highly inaccurate. Tells me 27.4 mpg, but 440 miles for £70 is 33.35 mpg. 

8 hours ago, TomW80 said:

I've realised the trip computer is highly inaccurate. Tells me 27.4 mpg, but 440 miles for £70 is 33.35 mpg. 

If you monitor that and get a consistent figure of by how much the computer is out then you can adjust it via VCDS (IIRC)

Edited 8 March, 20188 yr by penguin17

1 hour ago, penguin17 said:

If you monitor that and get a consistent figure of by how much the computer is out then you can adjust it via VCDS (IIRC)

 

Thanks , but I don;t know what VCDS is. I assume software.

 

 

16 minutes ago, TomW80 said:

 

Thanks , but I don;t know what VCDS is. I assume software.

Yes, it stands for VAG-COM Diagnostic System.  Basically, it's a diagnostic tool for VW, Audi, Seat and Škoda vehicles.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Penpusher said:

 

 

Thanks. I assume the dealership would sort this out?

Well my old 2.0t Vectra got 26-ish around town and up to 35 on the motorway, so the new 280 holds no bad surprises for me - should be the same or better and with extra 108bhp to boot!

1 hour ago, TomW80 said:

 

Thanks. I assume the dealership would sort this out?

(Sorry, I posted my last reply in the wrong box!)

 

I'm not sure if they will change anything from the standard set up, but you can always ask.  If you want most charges from the standard set up, such as changing from the Škoda throttle to the Audi throttle, they won't do it.

 

If the dealer won't make your changes, there are other members with VCDS as per the map who may change it for you; usually in exchange for some beer money or similar.

12 minutes ago, Penpusher said:

(Sorry, I posted my last reply in the wrong box!)

 

I'm not sure if they will change anything from the standard set up, but you can always ask.  If you want most charges from the standard set up, such as changing from the Škoda throttle to the Audi throttle, they won't do it.

 

If the dealer won't make your changes, there are other members with VCDS as per the map who may change it for you; usually in exchange for some beer money or similar.

 

Thanks. As long as I know the true mpg I'm not too concerned what the car is telling me. I also wouldn't want to go tinkering about with mapping and software updates. Well I would, but probably shouldn't.

 

Thanks again 

14 hours ago, TomW80 said:

I've realised the trip computer is highly inaccurate. Tells me 27.4 mpg, but 440 miles for £70 is 33.35 mpg. 

 

How did you measure mate? So far every Skoda I’ve driven has been eerily accurate on the MPG front. My 220 gets it right to within 0.2mpg every time. 

I don't really track it to see what the MPG is as that might require me to consider another vehicle or how I drive this one.  I track all my expenditure and the by product is the MPG tracking. I tend only to use the on-board computer to see how far i can get and if i need to stop for fuel so i can try and plan buying at the best price

 

 @TomW80 There is something missing in you calc as 440miles/£70 give 6.286 miles per pound and the price per unit quantity needs to be established as geographic price differences are substantial, especially on or near motorways when the price uplift can be nearly 20%.

 

A good looking car. May offend BMW owners but Skodas are looking better than the current crop of BMWs and certainly Mercedes. Trouble is the popularity of Skoda is pushing up prices.