4 hours ago, Karoqer130 said:

Happy to help and I cant recommend that guy enough for his easy to follow explanations for things

As long as he sticks with technical matter and things "down there" ...  

3 hours ago, shyVRS245 said:

Indeed  says MINIMUM 95 octane. Skoda claim 370NM of torque for my engine on 95 ctane but I always use 99 octane (Tesco Momentum or V-Power). When on Shell on the rolling road it gave an extra 7bhp but 30 extra torque at 400NM.

 

But did you test it on 95RON to see if the uplift was real?

 

VAG production engines almost always develop more than the quoted output which should be regarded as a minimum, especially in the uk where we are at sea level, temperate climate, good quality fuel. Its not unusual for many skoda engines to develop 5-10% more than brochure spec.

 

Heres a Superb iii with standard 220ps 350Nm that when tested actually gave 248ps 380Nm

 

Edited 2 October, 20187 yr by xman

23 minutes ago, xman said:

 

But did you test it on 95RON to see if the uplift was real?

 

VAG production engines almost always develop more than the quoted output which should be regarded as a minimum, especially in the uk where we are at sea level, temperate climate, good quality fuel. Its not unusual for many skoda engines to develop 5-10% more than brochure spec.

 

Heres a Superb iii with standard 220ps 350Nm that when tested actually gave 248ps 380Nm

 

Skoda OFFICIAL figures for a standard 245 are using 95 octane unleaded which gives 241.6bhp (hence 245PS nameplate) and 370NM. You really should pay attention to teacher, or have been secretly watching GOLF?

With respect, sir, if you didn't test your car on 95RON your results don't prove anything about the benefits or not of vpower.

 

 

Watching golf is too dangerous

11 minutes ago, xman said:

With respect, sir, if you didn't test your car on 95RON your results don't prove anything about the benefits or not of vpower.

 

 

Watching golf is too dangerous

Why waste money when Skoda already published the results for everyone to see. Was only aware it had 248.6bhp when they told me it now had 302bhp so really not bothered.

Because otherwise you are talking Sharn.  Just going on about improvements with no base line.

& nobody drives to work on Dyno's, rolling roads, or shows a print out at a traffic light grand prix...

 

What was the temperature of the air being blown into the Air Intake on the Dyno at what ever test. etc etc.

 

17 minutes ago, Offski said:

Because otherwise you are talking Sharn.  Just going on about improvements with no base line.

& nobody drives to work on Dyno's, rolling roads, or shows a print out at a traffic light grand prix...

 

What was the temperature of the air being blown into the Air Intake on the Dyno at what ever test. etc etc.

 

When I post a video from Snetterton on November 12th 2018 you can all decide whether my car is nippy enough for you.

27 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

Why waste money when Skoda already published the results for everyone to see. Was only aware it had 248.6bhp when they told me it now had 302bhp so really not bothered.

 

I suspect its a waste of time trying to explain.

Looking forward to seeing Snetterton & just how long before the brake system decides the fluid and system is a bit hot.

Does it run an OEM set up with the brakes?

4 minutes ago, Offski said:

Looking forward to seeing Snetterton & just how long before the brake system decides the fluid and system is a bit hot.

Does it run an OEM set up with the brakes?

Of course not plenty of assumptions on here today. Stainless brakelines with Motorsport spec DOT5 brake fluid. Did 50 laps around Croft circuit with this set up (100 track miles) and surprise, surprise no overheating, no soggy pedal and no brake fade.

What was the XDS+ at,  Off and totally off?

 

If you keep us informed no need for assumptions,

like anyone assuming that Maximum BHP / Torque as Skoda show with cars is not the Minimum you should expect with Unleaded Fuel in the UK.

Edited 2 October, 20187 yr by Offski

1 minute ago, Offski said:

If you keep us informed no need for assumptions,

like anyone assuming that Maximum BHP / Torque as Skoda show with cars is not the Minimum you should expect with Unleaded Fuel in the UK.

Not seen many 245 owners put 95 octane unleaded in their car and pay for it to be tested on a rolling road to see whether it makes the claimed BHP. That would be SIMPLY SILLY.

Not seen many put a 245 on a Dyno, but seen some vRS run 95 ron to check out what they are putting out, & GTI PP and Cupras and run 95 ron just to see.

 

Have you posted your Dyno printouts with before and after the remaps running 99 ron minimum?

@Rjaygee I am surprised you did not find this topic from your searches because it has been covered many times and quite recently.

As you will have seen from the responses so far the efficacy of fuel with higher than standard Ron ratings is a contentious subject for both believers and non-believers.

As Cadogan says your engine has to be set up to utilise the higher RON rating so at best you could expect to see 1% 'improvement' for each increase in Ron rating. You might even see another 1 or 2% improvement if the higher RON does not have the current (UK statutory for 95 Octane) 5% Ethanol added. As mentioned Ethanol has a far lower energy content per volume (1.4L of Ethanol to match 1L of Petrol) but a mere 5% mix is not really going to be that noticeable.

 

I have a 1.4tsi which like the later 1.5tsi is designed primarily to run on 95 Octane fuel and when I tried a few tanks of our locally available 98 octane (in South Australia both ratings are available in pure petrol form) I could detect no improvement in performance/running (insensitive 'bum-on-seat' meter) or overall consumption to offset the extra cost of the higher rated fuel.

Some will insist the more expensive fuel keeps their engine cleaner with its more 'advanced' detergent formula (a common petrol company advertising theme) but since both the 1.4 and 1.5tsi are direct injection systems they don't get any opportunity to wash the inlet valves where carbon can accumulate. Might work for older multi-point engines or even the 2.0tsi engines with their dual injection (direct and manifold injection). I have not seen a conclusive independent test to confirm whether an engine runs cleaner with the higher rating.

Obviously if a higher octane fuel is recommended for an engine by its manufacturer or tuner then it should be used.

 

One thing not mentioned so far is that petrol goes 'off' over a period as volatiles in the mix vent.  Generally we are talking about a month in the tank before deterioration is detectable by testing. So you really want to buy from establishments that have good turnover of fuel and seem well maintained, personally I do not think it matters which brand but others will vehemently disagree.

 

As mentioned by another Aus we can get E10 and even E85 fuels here but they are not that popular as many have reported worse consumption and some have reported poor running when it has been used.

I know our Nordic friends say that their statutory E10 is not a problem for them but I'd posit that is because they have good turnover from universal use whereas our E10 is more likely to be sitting in the stations tank for a longer period and Ethanol absorbs water and then separates from the petrol content so becomes 'contaminated'.

It will be interesting to know if this could be an issue for plug in hybrids where a tank of fuel might take months to use up?

 

Ricardo Engineering (who make the McLaren engines) once designed a turbo engine using diesel components to run the very high compression ratios to utilise the 112 Octane rating of pure ethanol and reportedly achieved excellent efficiencies. Ethanol is a viable fuel in the right engine and hydroscopic tainting is not a problem in pure ethanol applications.

 

Nothing from stopping you trying out higher rated fuels yourself and seeing if you can justify the higher cost, in the short term it is a cheap experiment.

 

 

 

Edited 2 October, 20187 yr by Gerrycan

^^^ That higher cost.  4.546 litres / 1 Imperial gallon.  Super Market 95 ron £5.45,   Supermarket Super 97 or 99 £5.68. 

10 gallons, £2.30 extra cost to experiment.

 

Just in 2 weeks time and the less hygroscopic fuels will be getting delivered in the UK.

Edited 2 October, 20187 yr by Offski

17 minutes ago, Offski said:

 

 

Just in 2 weeks time and the less hygroscopic fuels will be getting delivered in the UK.

What different fuels are these? I'm guessing the big companies will do some sort of marketing

30 minutes ago, Offski said:

Not seen many put a 245 on a Dyno, but seen some vRS run 95 ron to check out what they are putting out, & GTI PP and Cupras and run 95 ron just to see.

 

Have you posted your Dyno printouts with before and after the remaps running 99 ron minimum?

3 so far on this forum. NOAIM 290bho and myself 302bhp both using Shell V-Power. Finally MUZZA with a few hardware bits/JB4 MAPPING and 331bh, on Tesco Momentum so all minimum 99 octane.

Just now, shyVRS245 said:

3 so far on this forum. NOAIM 290bho and myself 302bhp both using Shell V-Power. Finally MUZZA with a few hardware bits/JB4 MAPPING and 331bh, on Tesco Momentum so all minimum 99 octane.

YES 7 months ago.

All UK Diesel & Petrol from Mid October till March is Winter Spec.

  Distributions starting in Scotland and North England heading South.

 

Has been for years, sometimes winter spec arrives in the UK later than March as the Importers buy up Fuel in Continental Europe.

 

Karoqer130,

Under your Plane at the left hand side, that is a 'TSI Petrol' i assume you have and not a TDI.

Edited 2 October, 20187 yr by Offski

1 hour ago, Gerrycan said:

@Rjaygee

Some will insist the more expensive fuel keeps their engine cleaner with its more 'advanced' detergent formula (a common petrol company advertising theme) but since both the 1.4 and 1.5tsi are direct injection systems they don't get any opportunity to wash the inlet valves where carbon can accumulate. Might work for older multi-point engines or even the 2.0tsi engines with their dual injection (direct and manifold injection). I have not seen a conclusive independent test to confirm whether an engine runs cleaner with the higher rating.

 

 

 

Engines like the 1.4 and 1.5tsi use variable camshaft timing overlap to perform in head EGR. Whether the detergents used survive a combustion cycle is debatable. What detergents definitely can do is keep fine multi point injector nozzles clean and free of carbon build up, maintaining optimum spray patterns.

 

Miller oils published photos demonstrating injector cleanup using detergent additives (diesel direct injection)

Edited 2 October, 20187 yr by xman

For normal everyday road driving being stuck in traffic/hold ups/speed restrictions shortish journeys etc I consider high octane fuels a complete waste of money,if you taking a Car on a track to find peak performance your wasting a lot of money on fuel anyway and only getting under 20 mpg if your lucky so fuel price is pointless but if it’s a hobby that’s what people spend/waste their money on it’s their choice and keeps the tax coming in.

^^^ If you had a Euro 5 1.4 TSI / TFSI 132-136 KW engine for everyday driving you might have noticed how nicer they start when cold and run just at 30 mph or NSL's on the recommended octane compared to 95 Ron Unleaded.

As it is they run lean and sometimes very rich and are a little bit fussy, but then they were designed to get an available 132kw minimum from 1,390cc.

They can even get 60 mpg doing that on Turbo with no Supercharger assistance.

9 minutes ago, xman said:

 

Engines like the 1.4 and 1.5tsi use variable camshaft timing overlap to perform in head EGR. Whether the detergents used survive a combustion cycle is debatable. What detergents definitely can do is keep fine multi point injector nozzles clean and free of carbon build up, maintaining optimum spray patterns.

 

Miller oils published photos demonstrating injector cleanup using detergent additives (diesel direct injection)

Petrol is a pretty good solvent, diesel less so but I am sure diesel formulations contain sufficient deterg3nt for normal usage.

Millers evidence would hardly be truly independent would it?

4 minutes ago, Offski said:

^^^ If you had a Euro 5 1.4 TSI / TFSI 132-136 KW engine for everyday driving you might have noticed how nicer they start when cold and run just at 30 mph or NSL's on the recommended octane compared to 95 Ron Unleaded.

As it is they run lean and sometimes very rich and are a little bit fussy, but then they were designed to get an available 132kw minimum from 1,390cc.

They can even get 60 mpg doing that on Turbo with no Supercharger assistance.

Mine even pulls cleanly from 17mph in 3rd and 40mph in 6th gears, not sure a standard 245 with 95 octane would be happy at such low revs in those gears.  Perhaps someone would like to try and get back to us without shaking their engine to pieces first.

You are on about that remap again.  Did it pull OK when standard, or did you not check?

 

Did you drive it new from the Dealers with the 95 ron in and go to the filling station and put the Super Unleaded in or did you tell them at the PDI 99 ron only.

Edited 2 October, 20187 yr by Offski