So you lovely VRS owners, do you use 95ron unleaded or Super Unleaded?

95 Tesco, with the occasional 99 as a treat every 15 tanks or so. Have tried 99 a few times and never found it to make any tangible difference in pickup or economy. Stock VRS 220.

 Morrison's finest 95 mostly, boggo 95 basically no point paying for anything else.

Good to know. Been used to putting in Tesco 99 in my old E63, so happy to save a few more pennies!

 

1 minute ago, Chris245 said:

Good to know. Been used to putting in Tesco 99 in my old E63, so happy to save a few more pennies!

 

If you remap your car for SUL etc then it would be worth it and only then.

Diesel. Unleaded would be bad for it  Sorry, couldn’t resist. I use the 99 RON in my AMG, but if I had a vRS TSi I would stick to the 95 myself.

9 hours ago, ahenners said:

95 Tesco, with the occasional 99 as a treat every 15 tanks or so. Have tried 99 a few times and never found it to make any tangible difference in pickup or economy. Stock VRS 220.

 

Same here, 99 if I stop at Sainsbury’s and it’s £1.20/1.23 litre

^^^ Sainsburys Super Unleaded is 97ron Minimum and not 99 ron Minimum. But the 97 is only 5 pence a litre more than their 95.

 

Same with Tesco Momentum 99 (99 ron Min)  only 5 pence a litre more than their 95 unleaded, so less than £2.50 a tank extra and likely 

cheaper than Shell, BP, Esso, Texaco, Gulf etc Unleaded 95, and lots less than their 97 ron,

or Shell V-Power Nitro+ 99 ron Minimum.

 

Costco also have 99ron  minimum Super Unleaded.  Maybe supplied by Greenergy that are part owned by Tesco and produce and supply fuel for others like ESSO. & Import and have shared storage facilities with their partner in business Royal Dutch Shell.

Edited 19 December, 20187 yr by Skoffski

I use Tesco 99, over 10,000 miles it'll cost an extra £50 or so, assuming it has absolutely no economy benefit. If I was hard up for £50 over a year I'd be driving a Mk4 Golf 1.9TDI. 

 

The manual says you may see a power and economy improvement, so it's possibly not even a £50 surplus over 10,000 miles. 

 

 On vehicles using prescribed petrol of min. 95 RON, the use of petrol with a
higher octane number than 95 RON can increase the power and reduce fuel
consumption.

 

Edit - Maybe it's one of the reasons I can get my 245 to return over 40mpg with ease? 

Edited 19 December, 20187 yr by Kenai

The engine is designed to run on both but be more efficient and performant when running on 98+.  I personally prefer 99 Momentum from Tesco but will use Shell if I'm not near a Tesco. 

 

I've spoken to one of the developers at REVO and they are adamant that the EA888 engines like the higher octane fuels and they use them exclusively during testing.  RTech tuning also state the high octane petrol has a significant benefit, they actually quote 10-15bhp improvement,  depending on variant/age/condition 

 

 

So seriously can any of you lot who use the SUL/SUL+ stuff actually notice any difference or increases to MPG? I'm talking standard cars here not remapped.

The only time I ever bothered was after my Mk1 2003 Leon Cupra had a stage 1 Revo remap and I had the SPS2 ODB2 map switcher, then I ran it all the time in 98 mode, that 1.8T engine whatever state of tune would only return around 30mpg ave for me at best.

 

Considering my vRS is driven sedately/briskly at most it hardly needs to make any more power.. so the potential increase in mpg (if that is true) comes with an increased cost of SUL or SUL+

I'm prepared at some point to be convinced to try a tank full of 99 but I don't really have any local stockists - the money isn't the issue. I'm a costco member but there are no fuel stations close by.

I've never put a tank of anything less than 99 in my 245 so far but both my old 1.8T GTI and my 2.0TFSI vRS saw economy tail off by 2 to 3mpg when I had to run 95 in those on occasion. That was noticeable and consistent whenever I did it. 

 

For the sake of a fiver a month, I just figure I may as well give it the better fuel. I'd use V Power if there was a Shell anywhere nearby but Tesco is the most conveniently located for work and home generally, so M99 it is. 

8 minutes ago, Scotty72 said:

So seriously can any of you lot who use the SUL/SUL+ stuff actually notice any difference or increases to MPG? I'm talking standard cars here not remapped.

The only time I ever bothered was after my Mk1 2003 Leon Cupra had a stage 1 Revo remap and I had the SPS2 ODB2 map switcher, then I ran it all the time in 98 mode, that 1.8T engine whatever state of tune would only return around 30mpg ave for me at best.

 

Considering my vRS is driven sedately/briskly at most it hardly needs to make any more power.. so the potential increase in mpg (if that is true) comes with an increased cost of SUL or SUL+

I'm prepared at some point to be convinced to try a tank full of 99 but I don't really have any local stockists - the money isn't the issue. I'm a costco member but there are no fuel stations close by.

 

In all honesty, I’ve no idea if I see any difference as I’ve never run 95 in this car. In fact, my last three cars (Focus ST, vRS and vRS) have all been run on 99. 

20 minutes ago, Scotty72 said:

So seriously can any of you lot who use the SUL/SUL+ stuff actually notice any difference or increases to MPG? I'm talking standard cars here not remapped.

The only time I ever bothered was after my Mk1 2003 Leon Cupra had a stage 1 Revo remap and I had the SPS2 ODB2 map switcher, then I ran it all the time in 98 mode, that 1.8T engine whatever state of tune would only return around 30mpg ave for me at best.

 

Considering my vRS is driven sedately/briskly at most it hardly needs to make any more power.. so the potential increase in mpg (if that is true) comes with an increased cost of SUL or SUL+

I'm prepared at some point to be convinced to try a tank full of 99 but I don't really have any local stockists - the money isn't the issue. I'm a costco member but there are no fuel stations close by.

Yes, I will typically get more range from a tank filled up with Momentum, in comparison to other high octane offerings from JET, BP and Shell (though I highly suspect v-Power and Momentum are the same fuel).   I've not filled this car with 95.   The filler cap states "98" and "(95)", the latter I interpret as "use if nothing else available and you don't want to be on the hard shoulder, out of fuel"  

 

I had a mk2 Octavia vRS and used to fill that with whatever supermarket 95 I could find.  Within a few months, it would startup and sound like a bag of spanners, sometimes it would feel like it wasn't going to tick over at all, sometimes it would feel ready to stall when cold/idling.   Took it to the dealer and first thing the service manager asked was "are you using regular fuel?".  Apparently the TFSI engines were very prone to carbon build up around the injectors and lower octane fuel would exacerbate the issue further.  He said fill up with Optimax (as was) as the detergents and cleaner burn should help.  Low and behold after a tank or 2 the engine was smooth and happy once more.  I never used 95 RON again in that car.  Based on my experience and from what I've been told/read, I defo wouldn't even try with the EA888 engine, and certainly not consistently. 

 

My choice on premium diesel was based on doing the same 90 commute every day for 9 years and finding that the MPG/range/smoothness of the car was much improved when filling with BP ultimate.  Typically 5-10%.  Once I had my last diesel car remapped REVO told me to use the premium stuff as the detergents would help with engine efficiency.  Remapped for 3 years and not a single issue, not one.  I was caught short a few times and did have to use regular derv and the car sounded like a 200K miles taxi with a 1.9PD engine under the bonnet.  Remapped or not. 

 

Its a personal thing though, right?  My choice to spend my pocket money on Momentum and Haribo.  Maybe try 2 tanks of Momentum and see if the car feels better?  I personally see/feel the benefit and whilst I don't have any lab results and hard data to back up my opinion it's enough for me to justify the extra few quid to myself. 

My Pre FL 230 runs on Super Unleaded. I only do 5k miles a year so cost isn't an issue. 

http://volkswagen.co.uk/need-help/owners/Fuel

Maybe you just emit less emissions from your warm hatch pottering along.  

VW do know something, like how to get EU results for tests, or WLTP ones.   They know about Engine Management / Software etc.

Nice Fuels in Continental Europe, & nice Winter Spec as well 100 & 100+ ron.

 

Nice stuff in the UK just now as well.

Always an interesting conversation this one.....might just stick with Super Unleaded, for a few extra ££.

 

Whats the tank capacity on these? How much to full up roughly?

 

2 hours ago, Chris245 said:

Whats the tank capacity on these? How much to full up roughly?

 

Should be around 50 ish litres

 

You're best putting the highest RON fuel in you can, as your car will have the relevant engine mappings to be able to make use of the higher octane fuel by delaying the ignition timings (because higher octane the fuel, the more compression it can withstand) and is able to give a bigger bang when the fuel air mixture is compressed. Lower powered and lowered capacity engines, including those built for specifically built for economy over speed, don't include different engine maps, so putting better quality fuel in is a waste of time.

 

All vehicles sold in Europe are tuned for 95 RON at a minimum, but a lot of cars, as said above, will have additional maps for 98+ RON fuels. A lot of higher end cars (such as your E63) couldn't produce their claimed horsepower in a million years if you put 95 RON in. Throw a tank of the good stuff in and hey presto!! you'll get a more accurate number. A lot of supercars struggle with less than 102 RON to get their maximum horsepower.

 

Higher octane petrol has a more noticeable effect than putting premium diesels in. Premium diesels are aimed at promoting cleaner burning over increased power, but they do often produce a little more power as they'll have a higher cetane rating (diesel is rated on the cetane index, not octane. Diesel's octane is 15 - 20)

I prefer a more scientific approach to this subject. Having actually had my car on a rolling road several times already I can state for a fact that assuming Skoda's claims for the 245 engine are accurate at 241.6bhp and 370NM then using Shell V-Power 99 Nitro gave an increase of 7bhp and 30NM over standard. During the first 7,000 miles when my car was standard it averaged 37mpg on 99 octane fuel. Following the stage 1 remap economy improved to 41mpg (10% better) using the same fuel. The following are the last ten tanks since going stage 2 so you can all see for yourselves the benefits of using more expensive fuel in your turbo engines.

399 miles    46.12 litres

405 miles    42.46 litres

406 miles    44.00 litres

456 miles    56.19 litres  (2 tanks including Snetterton track day)

367 miles    37.57 litres

381 miles    46.20 litres

384 miles    44.24 litres

388 miles    46.32 litres

393 miles    47.22 litres

These total 3,579 miles driven at stage 2 using 410.32 litres (90.26 gallons) at an average of 39.65MPG.

ALL FACTS NO FEELINGS OR IMPRESSIONS USED TO ANALYSE.

2 hours ago, shyVRS245 said:

I prefer a more scientific approach to this subject. Having actually had my car on a rolling road several times already I can state for a fact that assuming Skoda's claims for the 245 engine are accurate at 241.6bhp and 370NM then using Shell V-Power 99 Nitro gave an increase of 7bhp and 30NM over standard. During the first 7,000 miles when my car was standard it averaged 37mpg on 99 octane fuel. Following the stage 1 remap economy improved to 41mpg (10% better) using the same fuel. The following are the last ten tanks since going stage 2 so you can all see for yourselves the benefits of using more expensive fuel in your turbo engines.

399 miles    46.12 litres

405 miles    42.46 litres

406 miles    44.00 litres

456 miles    56.19 litres  (2 tanks including Snetterton track day)

367 miles    37.57 litres

381 miles    46.20 litres

384 miles    44.24 litres

388 miles    46.32 litres

393 miles    47.22 litres

These total 3,579 miles driven at stage 2 using 410.32 litres (90.26 gallons) at an average of 39.65MPG.

ALL FACTS NO FEELINGS OR IMPRESSIONS USED TO ANALYSE.

 

Still waiting for the scientific bit... 

Edited 20 December, 20187 yr by ahenners

& the figures that Skoda / VW give as Max PS / Nm Torque are actually Minimum PS / Nm Torque you should get around the world on 95 Octane at various elavationsabove sea level and ambient temps.

 

To only get on a Dyno in the UK the 'official power output' on a 95 ron with cooling fans blowing and never more than 3,000 ft above sea level does not sound much cope for those in less than perfect environments. 

10 minutes ago, Skoffski said:

& the figures that Skoda / VW give as Max PS / Nm Torque are actually Minimum PS / Nm Torque you should get around the world on 95 Octane at various elavationsabove sea level and ambient temps.

 

To only get on a Dyno in the UK the 'official power output' on a 95 ron with cooling fans blowing and never more than 3,000 ft above sea level does not sound much cope for those in less than perfect environments. 

Aye; altitude, climate and fuel quality in the UK lend themselves to making some favourable numbers on stock cars.  As you say, manufacturers quote 'worst case' which is why many EA888 engines produce  significantly more (than quoted) power, when tested (well there's also the argument that some numbers are toned down to make the Audi S/RS' appear king but that's  a different thread altogether)

24 minutes ago, ahenners said:

 

Still waiting for the scientific bit... 

Check and mate.  I doth my cap, Sir. Well played 

23 minutes ago, ahenners said:

 

Still waiting for the scientific bit... 

Just like the famous song by ASIA."OPEN YOUR EYES".

3 minutes ago, penguin17 said:

Check and mate.  I doth my cap, Sir. Well played 

Didn't realise we were playing chess, but some folk will always buy the cheapest fuel available and education is lost on others (not sure if Corbyn ever went to school, certainly didn't do well at Maths).