Super unleaded

[flybynite]

7 hours ago, Exeterj said:

Says minimum as 98 RON for the R on page 67

 

10 hours ago, Sarge said:

That's all very well re. power but what about long term engine wear or damage. Is higher Ron better? IIRC the likes of Esso reckon their super unleaded is better for your engine. Is this true? I may be being very naive but if, for example, VW states the minimum Ron for the golf R is 98, does using 95 cause a problem or is it just that 98 is what gives the max. performance and economy? 

 

Being the cynic that I am, if they are trying to get the emissions down as much as they can, they would say that. For a given speed it can be made to run a fraction cleaner on 98.

 

The boost pressures generated by the IS38 (R/S3) are high enough through the upper rev range that it will make more use of the 98RON than the same engine with an IS20 (GTi/vRS). However, as I've said before, even that engine will cope just fine on 95RON. Start tuning a 7R or put a box on it, I would then use 97/98/99RON

 

The management systems on these cars will cope just fine with 95 they have a lot of control. The changes the engine makes between 95 and higher are minimal. It just won't let the car do on 95RON what it would do on 98RON and that's difference I would doubt you would notice. Tune or map the car and all bets are off anyway.

 

What they advertise is down to the 'cleaning agents' each company claim they add to the fuel. I would say most normally driven cars with this engine would not need it anyway, it has a second bank of injectors to avoid this problem. There are engines that lay down deposits that may benefit from this but are these cleaners powerful enough to completely avoid a walnut de-coke? I think not, but it may stretch the time it needs one by a few miles.

 

Do they do what they say, probably yes, but nowhere near as much as they would like you to think.

[Exeterj]

22 hours ago, AwaoffSki said:

Not seeing where it says that on page 67. 

 

 

 

Its a bit crap pdf (page 34 of the pdf but you have to scroll fully to the right) - attached screenshot.

 

Thinking more on it, we'll run with 99 tesco or shell v power (having run diesels for last 10yrs i'm not sure if we get nitro in Devon) most of the time anyway, as has been said i'm not expecting to run a golf R or anything similar for cost/fuel efficiency benefits. i think its more about knowing its not going to be a major issue to run it on 95 unleaded if we can't get 98+ (well 99) if we're out somewhere unfamiliar.

 

 

Edited 9 January, 2018 by Exeterj

[Ootohere]

You can do the North Coast 500 quite quick and still use Super Unleaded with maybe 10 or 15 litres extra fuel in cans with a Golf R, 

done that,

so not so sure where South of Inverness you are going to have difficulty having a tank of at least 97 ron if you want it.

Edited 9 January, 2018 by AwaoffSki

[Gerrycan]

14 hours ago, AwaoffSki said:

 

No idea why you think it is a no no.

Lovely stuff in the UK 99 ron minimum, and if you do not want to use it then there are plenty Retailers all selling their Formulations 

& Octanes

 

It was you who intimated that Ethanol was used as an octane booster from 97 to 99 Octane.

I have already explained why I believe Ethanol to be flawed additive to a quality fuel, but as usual you choose to ignore any other viewpoint, and reiterating that something is 'lovely stuff' in umpteen thousand posts does not necessarily change the laws of physics.

Anhydrous Ethanol in low dilutions is unlikely to cause issues but if compromised storage, transportation or transfer allows it to revert back to its more natural hydrous state then that is when separation occurs.

It may well have accounted for your stories of being sold 95 Octane instead of the higher rated 'lovely stuff'.

[Ootohere]

Believe all you like, it is not like it is not commonly used in billion of litres in the UK and other world regions.

Engines failing like the TSI's are not from the use of Super Unleaded.

 

Out of 20,000 -25,000 miles a year of petrol buying for lots of years i have recounted 3 times i know that the fuel put 

in the tank was wrong. 

 

So 3 times out of once or twice a week of over 3 decades. 

Not that often.  Hence i know when the fuel was not right, not Super Unleaded.

Edited 9 January, 2018 by AwaoffSki

[Gerrycan]

1 minute ago, AwaoffSki said:

Believe all you like, it is not like it is not commonly used in billion of litres in the UK and other world regions.

Engines failing like the TSI's are not from the use of Super Unleaded.

What TSI's are failing?

[Ootohere]

The 1.4, 1.8 & 2.0 TSI's where components, Chain Tensioners, Valves, Rings / Scrapers & Pistons have been the issue.

Sometimes Long Life 5w 30 FS LL.    Not fuel issues,  sometimes Bore Wash though.

 

Those TSI's.

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/266114-18tsi-and-20tsi-engine-failures/?page=1 

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/294051-cave-cthe-14tsi-just-reply-please-if-you-had-an-engine-replaced 

Edited 9 January, 2018 by AwaoffSki

[Gerrycan]

To quote Shawshank, "now your just being obtuse".

[Ootohere]

No idea why you are so anti something you do not use and would not use.

I have run engines for 50,000 plus miles without failures using Super Unleaded so not really listening to some stories on how it is not good stuff is just how it is.

 

What is it you want that is not obtuse?

Edited 10 January, 2018 by AwaoffSki

[Gerrycan]

Vehicles that have the capability of utilising higher octane fuels will perform better with it. I don't dispute that.

However you repeatedly state that ethanol is good thing, cars love it etc and I do dispute that generalised statement.

 

Fuel manufacturers only add ethanol to fuel where legislation requires that it must be done. If it was such a good thing then manufacturers would add it themselves, they are not stupid. As I said before governments do this because they consider ethanol to be 'green' (which is debatable)

EU requirements are that 5% anhydrous ethanol is added to 95 Octane fuel and if the fuel is properly blended, transported and stored to the point of use then vehicles will tolerate its inclusion, but certainly not love it because it has a lower calorific content compared to 100% petrol of the same octane.

Now it turns out that not all Super Unleaded fuels contain ethanol and I posit that is generally preferable to use fuel without ethanol than with.

If a percentage of ethanol has been used to raise a super unleaded  octane rating to say a nominal 99 ron then a car that has been tuned to run on it will do so happily, however if the fuel mixture has been compromised at some point by exposure to moisture then the more hydroscopic ethanol would absorb it and become hydrous ethanol and tend to separation from the petrol and your 99 octane tuned car would probably run like ****.

That situation sounds remarkably like the instances you quoted, or it could be as you said and they put 95 octane in a super tank by mistake. Who knows?

 

Ethanol in Australia has a murky history from when some dodgy operators were 'watering down' their fuel with ethanol (probably hydrous) which was not covered by tax codes for profit (of course) and probably random amounts were added. This resulted in complaints from motorists of badly running vehicles and melted fuels lines that were not capable of handling the ethanol content.

The coalition government of the day had strong agricultural ties with the sugar farmers and legislated control of the situation to formalise the quantities and type of ethanol that could be sold and local vehicle manufacturers developed 'flex-fuel' engines to cope with the ethanol. It was quite controversial at the time.

I think there is still a type of government subsidy in place and as I said the ethanol blend fuels are slightly cheaper, but not very popular especially now there is no local vehicle manufacturer making anything claiming to cope with the E85 fuel.

 

At least with LPG there is a much lower price point to offset the lower efficiency to make it financially worthwhile, which is not the case for e10 or e85 where the financial case is marginal or actually much worse.

 

Brazil has legislated a ethanol based economy with local manufacturers providing flex-fuel vehicles (VW were one of the first) and even have e100 widely available in hydrous form which is completely acceptable since there is no separation risk. They even make vehicles with very high compression ratios that are better capable of utilising the e100 fuel, but I am not so sure how well, or if even capable of running on ethanol/petrol mixes

 

Edited 10 January, 2018 by Gerrycan

[Ootohere]

'hygroscopic'

I had a Granny that taught me to suck eggs, and racers and engineers / mechanics.

 

I have ran LPG as well, on my Tow Barges towing my vehicles running Super Unleaded & 102 ron some on Alcohol / Ethanol/ Nitros.

LPG on this RPI Stage 2 engine gave 3 miles to the litre towing & it was 50 pence a litre which was half the price of Petrol.

(All make a poor built engine go pop!)

10 Litre LPG gave 30 miles & cost £5,  a Petrol V8 110 might have got 12-15 miles for £5.  Much Cheapness.

220 litre tank giving 660 mile range towing. £110.

(Diesel now & 63 litres might get 630 miles and only £76 and nothing like the same fun.)

 

As to the lower price and efficiency it is equal to 108 Octane.

My 4.6 V8 ran only on LPG and had no petrol for starting and no petrol carried as then no Tachograph was required. for towing commercially.

Same engines as built by RPI for Mogans racing & others and Scandinavian countries where owners need to keep the Classic 3.5 V8 capacity but want more power.

http://v8engines.com 

 

 

Edited 14 January, 2018 by AwaoffSki

[Gerrycan]

I am impressed by your passion and experience with modified and high performance vehicles but I am not sure what relevance your post has in supporting your ethanol (much goodness, cars love it) claims for ordinary road going vehicles where most people are more interested in efficiency (good consumption) than raw power.

I suspect if LPG (or any alternate fuels) were taxed at the same rate as petrol then you would not have gone down the paths you did.

 

As far as the OP is concerned with 245 hp vRS then as he lives in Leighton Buzzard where there is a fair chance the Super unleaded is apparently not laced with Ethanol and 95 Octane probably is then it is well worth his while trying it out and see if it justifies the extra cost.

 

 

[Ootohere]

Because the OP asked about Super Unleaded in the UK /EU, and it is lovely stuff IMO & so i say 'lovely stuff'..

Not commenting on Australian or any other World Regions Premium or 100 ron Race Fuels from Shell, just Super Unleaded.

Continental Europe has some lovely super unleaded as well, and not at rip off prices.

 

..................................

Years back Taxi Drivers were given grants to buy LPG Vehicles in Scotland.

It was cheap, but as Westminster Chancellors putting the likes of 1 & 2 pence on a litre of fuel and seeing as some used twice as many litre or more of LPG compared to Petrol then the saving started to get lost.

I stopped using LPG when it got to 75 pence a litre in ASDA, and the ASDA Credit Card stopped giving 2 pence a litre off.

Then there were fewer Morrisons filling stations with LPG which could be a pain in England. Morrisons were the cheapest other than the odd independent Filling Station, one in Kilmarknock being very cheap.

*Going to get on a ferry to cross the Irish Sea in what looked like a Diesel Land Rover  even though you show them a petrol engine & when they wanted to dip your tank and you say it is LPG and they say we will need to open it and you can not say the 'bomb' word can mean you are not getting on a ferry.*

 

(There are those that got cheap LPG, because unlike Red Diesel for Agricultural use it has no marker, 

& llegally there is LPG Heating Fuel in Home Tanks, Factories / Workshops and on Farms like for Grain Driers.

Obviously using that as road fuel is Illegal, but as i said, No Markers in LPG.

Lots of nice big Ex Military petrol engine vehicle travel to shows etc with large LPG tanks onboard.

Odd how you never see them in filling stations filling 300 litre + tanks...

 

LPG was just really considered a by product takes off the Oil as it travelled up the Forties Pipeline from the North Sea to Grangemouth and the Petrochemical plant. Years ago not considered much value, things have changed though.

 

Edited 11 January, 2018 by AwaoffSki

[JohnnyType2]

[Ootohere]

Yawning again.  Jog on.

 

Tell a story about your Vdubs.  

Edited 11 January, 2018 by AwaoffSki

[flybynite]

I think it pays to keep in mind that 'Octane' in these terms is actually 'Octane rating' which I have always known as a measure of 'resistance to detonation' (knock) It does not actually have much bearing on the specific content of the fuel (maybe when the term was conceived in the days of heptane and trimethylpentane but certainly not with the things put into the fuel these days)

 

It is a useful measure but about as actually relevant as the spirits 'proof' rating which involves the mixing of the spirit with gunpowder and seeing if it will burn.

 

They make the usual (100LL) aviation gasoline by taking normal fuel (about 80-85) and simply adding lead (Tetramethyllead) (As they used to do in petrol). There is still a lot of head scratching going on to work out how to replace this. They have tried 'aromatics' which tend to produce huge amounts of NOx. Ethanol tends to damage the older design that most aviation engines are (and materials they use).

 

What each company adds to the raw product to bring it up to the 94 level let alone 97/98/99 of "knock resistance" I suspect is quite a cocktail, and probably as guarded as the recipe to CocaCola

 

There is no doubting ethanol has a powerful resistance to detonation, you can see it in datalogs of these engines (EA888) run on E85. or mixes of E85 and regular petrol. It allows the timing and boost that ultimately get more power before the onset of detonation.

 

Whether it is the most efficient at getting that power is another matter, not high up the priority list of those chasing the last BHP though

[Gerrycan]

I lost touch with the aviation world quite a few years back but judging by what I see flying overhead, light aircraft are primarily the same aircraft I knew (so most now 30 to 70 years old). I shouldn't be surprised Lead is still added.

[simon1304]

AFAIK most light aircraft with 'traditional' engines still need 100LL leaded avgas (although I am also out of touch with avgas use).   I don't know what the scene is in Australia but, in Europe, many newer lightweight designs (microlights, sub-600kg and a few heavier) are using various versions of the Rotax flat four (912, etc.);   these run on unleaded mogas.

[susi]

On 08/01/2018 at 00:48, AwaoffSki said:

 

Cars love ethanol just some owners worry about it. 

 

Can you link an independent and credible source that confirms that?

 

We choose the lowest ethanol % for use in all our engines: cars, chainsaws, bushwhackers, snowblowers, lawn mowers, etc. We made that decision on the back of  third hand recommendations about avoiding moisture in fuel and ensuring seal longevity. But new information is always welcome!

[Ootohere]

No i can not sorry.   

But if you know of any issues, negatives or harm done in the UK with cars running Super Unleaded from Tesco, Shell or Costco please give that source.

 

 

Winter spec formulation produced to be less hygroscopic is formulated how ever that is done.

Delivered in the UK starting in the north from mid October to end of March each winter.

Edited 14 January, 2018 by AwaoffSki

[SkodaAsh]

Ethanol benefits seem to be conjecture for vehicles but there is plenty out there citing either economic or environmental benefits such as http://e10thegoodfuel.com.au/benefits-of-e10/index.html

 

Or is it because we have other biological biproducts that we are so keen to use up and not waste so we can be seen to be “earth friendly”? 

 

So when reports like this appear: https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/07/31/more-evidence-that-its-time-to-dump-ethanol, then we have to scrutinise these “benefits”, especially when there is contrary evidence: http://e360.yale.edu/features/the_case_against_ethanol_bad_for_environment

 

This is a good summary article : https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_benefits.html

 

But now where is the evidence for the benefit of the vehicle? 

Edited 14 January, 2018 by SkodaAsh

[Ootohere]

Burning carbon fuels is bad for the environment and using renewables good supposedly. Sound fair enough.

Seemingly coal burning to produce electricity is clean but then it is a self proclaimed Stable Genius claiming it

& he is the President of the United States of America.

 

 

Edited 14 January, 2018 by AwaoffSki

[SkodaAsh]

Argument of electric vs petrol cars is quite simple in my mind.

Whether you are (1) burning refined fuel to power a car, or (2) burning fossil fuel to create the energy to power a car, or (3) utilising the services of a company that brings together a number of precious metals in an expensive process to create a solar panel that generates the energy with a maximum of 17% efficiency to power a car, it's all 'unclean'. No one process is greatly cleaner than the other from start to finish, only with 100% electric cars the number of kW able to be delivered will just not compare with petrol driven engines, unless you're wanting to compare them to a Fiat 500 or one of these: https://youtu.be/ab4L0wHkCEs. Hybrid cars bring the supposed 'best of both worlds', but the saving in fuel economy is hardly worth the extra effort, cost and consideration of disposal of fuel cells after their short life span is up.

 

 

Edited 14 January, 2018 by SkodaAsh