Hi all 

I can't see this in the search so sorry if this has been answered before. To settle an argument can anyone confirm if the Vrs 245 power output is based on using minimum 98 Ron and not 95? I think it's been measured by Skoda using 98 Ron.

 

Ta muchly.

 

 

 

 

Pretty sure that all Euro mandatory emission and consumption regulations are required to be met with 95 Ron.

No idea whether that would apply to published power figures but considering how easy it is to boost power outputs from software changes why would they resort to 'special' petrol.

The measured and quoted power on VAG engines can be quite different based on various rolling road experiences others have posted.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if the difference between 95 and 98 fuel is less than that

 

Not sure that helps solve your argument though...

😆 Thanks both. I'll tell my pal it's a score draw!

IIRC the ECU is programmed in Europe to expect either 95 or 98 RON fuel. The 98 RON fuel will ultimately perform that bit better. Whether you'd notice it in day to day driving.......... I doubt very much.

 

My motorbike, however, is set for 98 RON all the time. Put 95 RON into it and you are able to notice a change in the engine. 

 

My VRS is a diesel and the only reason I put V Power in over standard diesel is for all the special, deep cleaning snake oil characteristics Shell has been able to brainwash into me 

With older VW group engines where they specifically recommended a higher octane fuel then I can understand a benefit, but I think the story is less clear with present production engines which are expected to meet rigid emission requirements.

Within the context of a standard vRS on a rolling road there may be a small increase in power using a higher RON but just how much?

 

Mazda make a 2.5L turbo 'SkyActive' engine for which they issue power figures with different RON ratings.

It can be run on our Australian obnoxious high sulphur 91 Octane rated fuel, which is a miracle in itself considering their engine's high compression ratios but they also say that if run on 98 Octane fuel it produces 13kw (27bhp) more power, however the max torque is unaffected. Unfortunately they do not give figures for 95 RON but my guess the power figure is closer to the 98 RON than the 91 RON so the difference is probably quite small.

 

Another story comes from a now retired research auto engineer in the Fabia 3 section, where he was involved in independent testing of a range of currently available production small turbo engines from various manufacturers with 95 and 98 rated fuels.

IF I remember it correctly their findings were that most engines had been so optimised for 95 RON fuels that there were little to no benefits in running the higher octane for power or overall consumption, AND for some engines there was actually a measurable but marginal decrease in both.

 

The owners manual for our 2003 1.3L Toyota Echo states with remarkable frankness that the engine is designed for our local 91 RON fuel and there is no benefit in using a higher octane, so I don't.  The engine has done 194k km and never been touched apart from irregular servicing and can still return 55mpg on a refill if I can string together a few runs longer than 10km.

 

It is all a great pub discussion point though.

 

 

6 hours ago, tunedude said:

 

My VRS is a diesel and the only reason I put V Power in over standard diesel is for all the special, deep cleaning snake oil characteristics Shell has been able to brainwash into me 

I suggest that you might want to save yourself some Dosh and put in standard diesel plus some Maximus Cetane improver (https://www.hydra-int.com/maximus-diesel-power-booster.html). Far cheaper and better on your wallet.

Mmm.

 

This is what I got for range after I filled up with Momentum 99 on top of a ⅓ of a tank of standard UL which had Eco Max added to it. 

 

Got home and the computer said...

 

I reckon that ⅓ of a tank of standard UL+ EcoMax and Momentum 99 may have given me a 100 octane. 

 

Edited 24 August, 20214 yr by TheWanderer

I managed this in my 19 plate vRS 245 hatch on Sunday, on "only" 99 Tesco, and that with the roof bars and a cycle carrier stropped onto them. Journey was from North Wales back to Pembs via the A483 and A40, in the usual processions of Sunday drivers and holidaymakers....

Oh, and that's with the Bridgestone all season tyres fitted too.

Edited 24 August, 20214 yr by stever750

The Factory figures are with 95 Ron.   But then what shows as Max PS & Max Nm is actually what they will be as a minimum in Europe.

 

You are buying them on the performance figures shown and no way should you be short changed in the UK where you will not be driving at more than 3,000 ft above sea level or in ambient temps more than 40*oC.

 

There is no 98 ron on sale in the UK since BP went to 97 minimum and Shell, Tesco & Esso went to 99 ron minimum.

 

VW never changed the Website for the UK, and when they say R & GTI which included the Polo GTI 1.4 TSI Twincharger with 98 (95) on the fuel filler Skoda had the same sticker on the Mk2 Fabia vRS.

https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/en/need-help/need-help-faqs/fuel.html

 

North America, South Africa, Australia etc which can have detuned GTI's / R's and different fuel grades (Ron & Mon) are obviously not in the EU / Europe.

 

Edited 24 August, 20214 yr by e-Roottoot

My MY245VRS ran 258bhp on Ron99 with no other mods, never ran it on 95 Ron & I mean ever

I wouldn't be surprised if it made over 250 on 95. Most VAG engines seem to be understated wrt to power if you believe the various vag owners forum chatter!

I find that Skoda / SEAT are 'Understated' by VAG compared to a VW or Audi with the same engines, max power bhp / Nm but heavier cars and more expensive.

Over the decades it is 'Performance by RRP', you can not have the poverty brands / versions getting better 0-62 or better fuel consumption figures.

When they do maybe mix it up by showing the premium brands with a 0-60. 

VW Got caught out in the past doing this 'Accounts engineering'.

1 hour ago, e-Roottoot said:

I find that Skoda / SEAT are 'Understated' by VAG compared to a VW or Audi with the same engines, max power bhp / Nm but heavier cars and more expensive.

Over the decades it is 'Performance by RRP', you can not have the poverty brands / versions getting better 0-62 or better fuel consumption figures.

When they do maybe mix it up by showing the premium brands with a 0-60. 

VW Got caught out in the past doing this 'Accounts engineering'.

Do you recall the first road test reviews of the mk1 octavia vrs, the bright yellow one. It had stupendous acceleration times, so much so that it was rumoured and likely remapped beyond factory spec, and thus the myth was created etc. In truth VAG are no strangers to deceit and manipulation..... 

On 24/08/2021 at 16:36, stever750 said:

I managed this in my 19 plate vRS 245 hatch on Sunday, on "only" 99 Tesco, and that with the roof bars and a cycle carrier stropped onto them. Journey was from North Wales back to Pembs via the A483 and A40, in the usual processions of Sunday drivers and holidaymakers....

Oh, and that's with the Bridgestone all season tyres fitted too.

That's pretty impressive, given the state of your aerodynamics on that trip.

I'm just glad some people in the UK are resistant to the litres/km economy figures, which makes no sense to me at all.

To me it is easy to think how many miles you get per litre used.

Simply being 10 miles to a litre so as near to 45 mpg if 45 litres take you 450 miles.   

 It is a long time since fuel was shown at filling stations as the price per gallon in the UK or that road signs show the distance anyplace in km.

Edited 27 August, 20214 yr by e-Roottoot