GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk6 => Topic started by: keelaw on 15 July 2009, 23:43
-
For those that have them, what petrol are you lot putting into your GTIs?
Is it worth the premium for super? Does it have to be super?
-
For those that have them, what petrol are you lot putting into your GTIs?
Is it worth the premium for super? Does it have to be super?
Super, and only use a BP garage. BP Ultimate is all I will be putting in my GTI when I get her.
-
For those that have them, what petrol are you lot putting into your GTIs?
Is it worth the premium for super? Does it have to be super?
Super, and only use a BP garage. BP Ultimate is all I will be putting in my GTI when I get her.
why BP? I used to use Optimax all the time for my old type r. Tesco does 100 Ron, so thats pretty potent.
-
How about Shell V-Power?
-
How about Shell V-Power?
ok ok... it was a while ago when i owned the type r ok :tongue:
-
I've heard all this before from auto nuts, so somebody explain. What's the benefit?
For the record, I've never put anything but el cheapo unleaded in the Peuteot GTi, and never even looked at what brand it was. Like I said, 118,000 miles and 11 and a half years, and counting.
What benefits do you get from the pricier petrol (as if it wasn't dear enough!), and how does it work?
Rolfe.
-
For those that have them, what petrol are you lot putting into your GTIs?
Is it worth the premium for super? Does it have to be super?
Super, and only use a BP garage. BP Ultimate is all I will be putting in my GTI when I get her.
why BP? I used to use Optimax all the time for my old type r. Tesco does 100 Ron, so thats pretty potent.
Just think its the best is all. I dont necessarily believe all the power gains or acceleration gains as a hard fact or that you get more mpg, but I think there may be a little truth to them though, but I believe its much cleaner for the engine and car as a whole, I think over time the engine will love you for it. It's also a little greener for the environment.
I'm sure the Optimax etc will have the same benefits maybe just not as 'good' as the Ultimate.
-
hiya RON... sorry I meant Rolfe
higher RON... i.e. in theory it burns with greater energy and therefore greater power. also they put additives into the fuel to clean your engine therefore increasing efficiency and again more power.
iirc one motoring show tested it on a scooby and there was a noticable difference... apparently down to the fact it was a turbo charged engined. by that logic there could be gains for the gti :)
-
some say that you get better power and greater mileage but am not too convinced yet... I have been using Shell V-Power for the Beemer, but have yet to use the cheaper alternatives...
-
i used regular for my beemer because i could, and because it wasn't a really a proper sports car. so i just drove it (relatively) sedately.
question is though boys and girl, do you have to use super in the GTI?
-
I suppose it all depends on what people can afford. Put sh!te in get sh!te out is something to think about. Also, if you spend on average inc extras £25k on a car, you should give it a good drink.
-
i used regular for my beemer because i could, and because it wasn't a really a proper sports car. so i just drove it (relatively) sedately.
question is though boys and girl, do you have to use super in the GTI?
Nah, would prob run on cooking oil. :grin:
-
One of our users commented that using higher octane fuel than your engine requires actually gives no benefit and may be a waste of money. This is because virtually NO engines require 98 RON over 95, and the market for 'super' fuels seems to be based on people's misunderstanding of octane ratings and the placebo effect of filling up with 'more powerful' fuel - making motorists think their engine is running better in some way. What do the fuel companies say then, to justify the "increased power" claims for the super grade fuels? Some companies say that while all fuels contain cleaning additives, 'super' fuels contain more or better detergents to keep the injectors cleaner than standard fuel. Others say the fuel is a few percent denser which gives slightly more power per litre. These benefits may be marginal though in comparison to the extra cost involved so it is worth ensuring that your engine will actually benefit before filling up.
Some engines actually do need higher octane fuel, such as race engines with very high compression and some turbocharged engines, such as the import version of the Nissan Skyline. Also, a few vehicles, such as the new BMW K1200R motorbike, can sense knock and adjust their engine tuning to take advantage of higher grade fuels. Another user commented that the 2004 BMW 330 also does this, according to the driver's handbook it makes 231 BHP on 98 octane and 221 BHP on 95. This ability is apparently widespread amongst German performance cars using Bosch / Siemens electronic engine controls.
-
To answer the question specifically, no you do not have to run the car on super. I ran my scirocco on either and you can't really feel the difference in performance behind the wheel. However, get the car on a dyno and you will see the differences in performance on different fuels can be significant.
There was a test in a magazine a couple of years ago and the fuel that came out top was Tesco 99ron, beating all the other posh fuels.
-
If the new engine still uses FSI technology you do have to use super (98RON or above acording to my fuel flap) to get the stated performance and economy. The engine has been designed to use super and if its anything like the mk5 engine there will be a noticable drop in performance and fuel consumption if you use regular petrol.
Have a look in the mk5 section on an explanation of FSI and what it does or wiki, should become clearer then what the importance is.
I had to use the normal stuff for a week and the difference was very apparant.
V-Power and Tesco 99 generally regarded as very good.
BP stuff generally regarded as shyte.
Its pretty simple, if its been set up to run on super - use super. If it hasn't, don't waste your money. But the new VAG engines using FSI are set up for super.
-
the new Gti does not need to run on 98ron like the mk5 gti used to. 95ron will be fine.
-
the new Gti does not need to run on 98ron like the mk5 gti used to. 95ron will be fine.
Elaborate please?
-
I've heard all this before from auto nuts, so somebody explain. What's the benefit?
For the record, I've never put anything but el cheapo unleaded in the Peuteot GTi, and never even looked at what brand it was. Like I said, 118,000 miles and 11 and a half years, and counting.
What benefits do you get from the pricier petrol (as if it wasn't dear enough!), and how does it work?
Rolfe.
Lol, I hear you. Might this be another case of the old placebo effect, Rolfe? :)
-
OK try it yourself.
Put 98/99 RON in your GTI for a few months. Then try a tankful of 95 (don't mix with the 98/99 RON).
Wouldn't advise doing this the other way around as I'm fairly certain the VW FSI engines are designed for 98/99 (although they can run on 95 if needed).
You will notice a loss of performance and economy.
I have done this with a couple of VW FSI engined cars.
Even the wife :kiss: noticed the difference and I didn't tell her about the different petrol so no placebo effect here.
-
OK try it yourself.
Put 98/99 RON in your GTI for a few months. Then try a tankful of 95 (don't mix with the 98/99 RON).
Wouldn't advise doing this the other way around as I'm fairly certain the VW FSI engines are designed for 98/99 (although they can run on 95 if needed).
You will notice a loss of performance and economy.
I have done this with a couple of VW FSI engined cars.
Even the wife :kiss: noticed the difference and I didn't tell her about the different petrol so no placebo effect here.
Agreed.
I ran my old 1.8T (not FSI) on normal and super and couldn't really tell the difference except a little bit on my pocket.
The (mk5 anyway) 2.0T FSI is designed to run on 98 and there really is a difference when you run it on 95. Not so noticable low down the rev range but when you open the taps its like someone has stolen half your engine.
Don't know much about the mk6 engine but if its FSI it almost certainly will be designed to run on a higher octane ie super unleaded.
They can be run perfectly safely on 95 but you miss out on all the fun and economy benefits.
-
MKVI boys... search the MKV thread for all the chat about 95 RON vs 98 RON and what brands are better, etc...
Here: http://www.golfgtiforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=58444.50
The MKV FSi is mapped to run on the higher octane stuff, but it will run on 95 RON, albeit with less power (as the reaction is less explosive) and using more fuel in the process, as the fuel is less efficient. :nerd:
I'm sure VW wouldn't revert to older technology, surely...?
-
OK try it yourself.
Put 98/99 RON in your GTI for a few months. Then try a tankful of 95 (don't mix with the 98/99 RON).
Wouldn't advise doing this the other way around as I'm fairly certain the VW FSI engines are designed for 98/99 (although they can run on 95 if needed).
You will notice a loss of performance and economy.
I have done this with a couple of VW FSI engined cars.
Even the wife :kiss: noticed the difference and I didn't tell her about the different petrol so no placebo effect here.
Lol, ok I promise to give it a try. Anyway, I'm such a nerd, I would probably put 150RON in my GTI if I thought it would give me an extra 2hp ;)
-
So, some say performance benefits, and some say economy benefits.
My auto-nerd friend with whom I spoke about this some time ago actually recommended the 98 for long-term engine health. He said he always used the most expensive petrol in his car (a Merc estate). However, he commented that given how long my Peugeot had been running on 95, he doubted that I'd get any benefit from changing.
Since I haven't tried it, I don't know about performance benefits. Seems to me that the Golf goes like a bat out of hell anyway....
Economy benefits can be so difficult to assess without long-term controlled trials. I notice two factors that seem to make a marked difference. One is the route I drive, and how I drive it, obvious really. Longer journeys at a relatively modest speed (say when held to a 60 limit by traffic conditions) produce quite miraculous improvements. Start trying to get past that traffic though, and see what happens! The other is the temperature, which I haven't heard mentioned. Over many years I've noticed a significant drop in MPG when the weather has been freezing, and a significant rise when there's a heatwave.
Between them, these variables mean that over the years I've had anything from only about 370 miles on a full tank, in freezing weather with a lot of very short journeys, to 500 miles - right now, lovely warm weather and longer journeys often at 60mph. Would have been even more if I hadn't decided to show a few people a clean pair of heels once or twice last week. (Interestingly, this has never varied with the age of the car - I'm getting the best petrol consumption I've ever had right now.)
Seems to me that colder or warmer weather has more of an effect than is often taken into account, and unless a trial is repeated several times in all weathers the results might be misleading. A heatwave just happening to coincide with the change in petrol could fool anyone. It would be interesting to see some official figures from trials controlled for these variables.
As far as my new Golf is concerned, I think I'll ask the dealer what the engine is designed to run on, and give it that.
Unless anyone knows different?
Rolfe.
-
the new Gti does not need to run on 98ron like the mk5 gti used to. 95ron will be fine.
Elaborate please?
As others on here have stated before the petrol cap on the MK5 stated that 97Ron or higher should be used. This is no longer the case with the MK6 engine. The petrol cap now states 95Ron. of course higher can be used, but for what purpose??
might possibly give you a very slightly improved mpg, but at the extra cost there is only one winner :lipsrsealed:
might give you and extra 10bhp, but in all honesty how often are you going to be at 6600rpm using all 210 horses?? :rolleyes:
If an engine is designed to run on it, then by all means use it. If your under the impression that spending more money on an already expensive machine is going to give you some thing better then your slightly deluded. imo of course :smiley:
p.s. Should you feel the need to waste more money on your golf then pls PM me for my bank details.... I CAN/WILL help! :laugh:
-
Rolfe.. I can understand that short journeys in winter would use more fuel. However you are aware that cars are more efficient in winter due to the denser air??
Summer time means that on start up it doesnt need to run at increased fuel for as long a period as in winter. But performance does suffer as a result. :nerd:
-
Rolfe.. I can understand that short journeys in winter would use more fuel. However you are aware that cars are more efficient in winter due to the denser air??
Summer time means that on start up it doesnt need to run at increased fuel for as long a period as in winter. But performance does suffer as a result. :nerd:
That's very interesting. So it's all down to the start-up?
I'm not noticing the difference so much now, with an 11-mile journey to work mostly cruising at 60, as I was in my previous job where I pretty much worked round the corner (about a mile, and yes I should have cycled more). But I'm still getting my best fuel consumption in warm weather for all that. I'm surprised that start-up should make so much difference, especially as the Peugeot has always been a one-turn-of-the-key car.
Rolfe.
-
You will find that over longer journeys the start up doesnt make that much difference... but in winter the car will run on higher fuel (choke) for a slightly longer period. Where as in summer it will be up to full operating temp in little or no time at all.
Not sure about the rest of the guys on here but the decrease in performance on a warm summers day is very noticable.. in fact if I remember correctly there was a discussion about it over on the MK5 board not so long ago.
-
if some of you guys look in your fuel cap, it says min 95 ron. (ok, you can't get much lower than that really)
But you spend enuff money buying the car, I believe its worth giving it the good stuff!.
Problem I findis that I use V-power, and thats 5 miles down the road for me, the nearest is Texaco which is only 97 ron, aswell as BP, tho they still charge even more than the V-power!
-
always used Super unleaded in my 05 GTI. The aircon has never been switched off and the mpg average never dropped below 33/34 mpg....except when I tried ordinary unleaded for 2 weeks..it dropped down to 30/31 .....got used to paying more for the previous car..an impreza turbo....good news if the mk 6 doesnt need it though :smiley:
-
Not read all of it but to clear things up you dont HAVE to use super, the car will run fine on 95RON petrol. The FSI engines are designed to run on the higher RON petrol. Dont bother with BP as its 97RON, my advice is to use either Shell or Tesco which are both 99RON.
Not sure about the rest of the guys on here but the decrease in performance on a warm summers day is very noticable.. in fact if I remember correctly there was a discussion about it over on the MK5 board not so long ago.
Correct, I have also noticed my tubby has just a tad less kick to it when its roasting outside :(
if some of you guys look in your fuel cap, it says min 95 ron. (ok, you can't get much lower than that really)
Really? My MK5 says to use to 98RON petrol, I can only imagine the MK6 will be the same?
-
Can anyone who has got a MKVI GTI check on the fuel flap and see if it says 95Ron or 98Ron?
Cheers
-
(http://i421.photobucket.com/albums/pp300/neo66_bucket/fgh.jpg)
Mk5 tho, not mk6, but hope it helps anyone anyway! :smiley:
-
My Mk5 says 95 Ron on the fuel flap (the same sticker as the Mk6).
That's what it gets in the UK.
When I'm on the Isle of Man I use Shell expensive stuff.
The engine management system is very clever, stuffed with sensors. It just adapts the fuelling and ignition for whatever you put in. The expensive petrol seems to keep the power at peak under all conditions, the 95 Ron can sometimes give a reduced power now and again (if one of the knock sensors reports knocking the ECU acts to look after the engine, straight away).
The biggest difference was after running a full tank of Morrisons I filled with a tank of Asda. The car was really slow for about 15 miles until the ECU had sorted out a decent fuelling/ignition plan.
Next tankful will be Shell expensive on the island. You need every hp you can get to enjoy roads with no speed limit.
-
I always use Tesco 99 octane super unleaded. The car runs much better on it, and it seems to be better at the top end.
-
My Mkv says 98 on the petrol cap too....
There isn't really any debate on this. Its set up to run at optimum power and fuel consumption on 98 or better.
You can use 95 but you will loose power and fuel economy.
On non 98 optimised (non FSI engines) I agree super is a bit of placebo / waste of money bar the effect of the additonal detergents but it is very noticable on these cars if you don't use it.
-
My Mkv says 98 on the petrol cap too....
Mine says 95 not 98, just like the photo by Willzie.
Might be worth checking the flap.
-
Strange how some MK5s say 95 and others say 98?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v92/twior/IMG_1754.jpg)
Note mine says Super PLUS Unleaded where as yours only says Super Unleaded. Strange . . . . .
-
My Mkv says 98 on the petrol cap too....
Mine says 95 not 98, just like the photo by Willzie.
Might be worth checking the flap.
I did you numpty, how do you think I knew that?!
-
I happen to have a brochure for the mk6..
And actually unlike the mk5 (at least the early mk5's it would seem) it doesn't state that 98 is required to achieve the optimum power etc :embarassed:
However, if it still uses FSI I can assure you that 98 makes a hell of a difference.
-
The gadget show ran a test comparing supermarket, BP ultimate and Shell Optimax on three cars, a slow french car, a Mk5 GTI and a Subaru. The test is here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDHwCWdrtdg
I'll not spoil it by telling you the results.
-
Note that Optimax was 98 (and now redundant). V-Power is 99 :D
-
The gadget show ran a test comparing supermarket, BP ultimate and Shell Optimax on three cars, a slow french car, a Mk5 GTI and a Subaru. The test is here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDHwCWdrtdg
I'll not spoil it by telling you the results.
Oooh, I like being educated! :smiley:
So that's the info on performance boosting. Great scientific trial, as a scientist, I like this!
So what about the "cleaner engine" stuff, and the claims about better MPG? Anybody have anything similar?
Rolfe.
-
The cleaner engine claims comes from the fact that have cleaning agents in the fuel which should keep your engine cleaner. A cleaner engine is a more efficient engine.
-
The cleaner engine claims comes from the fact that have cleaning agents in the fuel which should keep your engine cleaner. A cleaner engine is a more efficient engine.
So, in order to benefit from that, is it necessary to use the expensive stuff all the time, from when the engine is new?
Rolfe.
-
I wouldn't say so. If you haven't used it from new and then start using it after a few months use its gets through the system, your ECU adjusts etc etc
As its already been said MK5 and MK6 (GTIs) are designed to run on higher octane fuel so should really be run on it if you want to get the best out your car.
-
Even if it improves fuel economy, I think it would be hard for it to improve it enough to compensate for the higher price at the pump. I could be wrong though.
Rolfe.
-
Where can I get one of those butt dynos that notice an apparent 1-3 bhp increase after using a different fuel.
-
Even if it improves fuel economy, I think it would be hard for it to improve it enough to compensate for the higher price at the pump. I could be wrong though.
Rolfe.
Horses for courses really. Depends if you mind paying a little more or not :undecided:
-
So from that video the engine management needs to adjust to the higher octane petrol being as they reset the engine mangement,if you were to use the lower octane and the switch to the higher how long before the engine adjusts ?.
-
The ICI petrol brand was really just a way for ICI to get rid of unwanted production from the aromatics plant at Wilton. Often the petrol around Teesside, marketed as two or four star was all well over 104 octane.
It took my ECU about 15 miles to adjust between Morrisons and Asda petrol.
-
how do you know when it has adjusted ?
-
how do you know when it has adjusted ?
he doesnt... he just likes to guess
-
thats what i was thinking :grin:
-
how do you know when it has adjusted ?
Morrisons, sharp and nippy
Asda for 15 miles, sluggish, as though the turbo was not working
Asda after 15 miles, just as nippy as the Morrisons
Try it.
-
So from that video the engine management needs to adjust to the higher octane petrol being as they reset the engine mangement,if you were to use the lower octane and the switch to the higher how long before the engine adjusts ?.
It will take a good few tanks for it clean out any of the old crap and for your ECU to start sorting itself out.
-
i suppose there is no point in using it every now and then,sounds like you don`t get the benefits unless you use it all the time.
-
i suppose there is no point in using it every now and then,sounds like you don`t get the benefits unless you use it all the time.
Now and again is fine. You never feel any power loss with the higher octane stuff. You sometimes do with the 95 RON, but not often enough to justify the extra trouble and cost, unless you have some special roads.
-
i suppose there is no point in using it every now and then,sounds like you don`t get the benefits unless you use it all the time.
Now and again is fine. You never feel any power loss with the higher octane stuff. You sometimes do with the 95 RON, but not often enough to justify the extra trouble and cost, unless you have some special roads.
You automatically knew this 'power loss' was the petrol ? I thought the whole point of using super is to 'theoretically' give you more, didnt think the standard stuff dropped power in your car, I would have though it just didnt give you anything extra.
-
There is a big bit of literature somewhere (I think toph knows where it is? ?) on the net that explains how the FSI engine works and the benefits of using the high octane stuff on FSI engines. I canny find it though :(
-
There is a big bit of literature somewhere (I think toph knows where it is? ?) on the net that explains how the FSI engine works and the benefits of using the high octane stuff on FSI engines. I canny find it though :(
I understand that part, but what I dont get is the normal stuff giving you the reverse effect.
-
Id take what Egbert Nosh says with a pinch of salt :D
-
Just to clarify for those of you who dont know....
the 1984cc engine is not in fact the 1984cc ‘TFSI’ engine found in the mk5 GTI but instead the new 1984cc ‘TSI’ engine from the Scirocco. It’s got an extra 10bhp over the mk5 (and the Scirocco for that matter), taking the new GTI up to 207bhp between 5300 and 6200rpm. Peak torque remains at 207lb ft but arrives fractionally earlier at 1700rpm and is held all the way to 5200rpm.
:nerd:
-
Just to clarify for those of you who dont know....
the 1984cc engine is not in fact the 1984cc ‘TFSI’ engine found in the mk5 GTI but instead the new 1984cc ‘TSI’ engine from the Scirocco. It’s got an extra 10bhp over the mk5 (and the Scirocco for that matter), taking the new GTI up to 207bhp between 5300 and 6200rpm. Peak torque remains at 207lb ft but arrives fractionally earlier at 1700rpm and is held all the way to 5200rpm.
:nerd:
You sure about that fella? I thought the MKVI engine was different to the 'roc?
-
Just to clarify for those of you who dont know....
the 1984cc engine is not in fact the 1984cc ‘TFSI’ engine found in the mk5 GTI but instead the new 1984cc ‘TSI’ engine from the Scirocco. It’s got an extra 10bhp over the mk5 (and the Scirocco for that matter), taking the new GTI up to 207bhp between 5300 and 6200rpm. Peak torque remains at 207lb ft but arrives fractionally earlier at 1700rpm and is held all the way to 5200rpm.
:nerd:
You sure about that fella? I thought the MKVI engine was different to the 'roc?
tbh im not sure about the rocco, but know that it is definately different from the mk5. Source was Evo so I expect them to know what they are talking about :smiley:
-
I think it's different from the Roc but apparently the MKVI lump is the EA888 or something like that? Revo said that engine has been used in the USA for the last year or so in Audis. I think that's what he said.
Vague or wot eh? :grin:
-
You will find that over longer journeys the start up doesnt make that much difference... but in winter the car will run on higher fuel (choke) for a slightly longer period. Where as in summer it will be up to full operating temp in little or no time at all.
Not sure about the rest of the guys on here but the decrease in performance on a warm summers day is very noticable.. in fact if I remember correctly there was a discussion about it over on the MK5 board not so long ago.
I can well imagine that in winter, where I used to live, there were weeks when my car wouldn't warm up at all. (My neighbour who was an RAC patrolman said he thought I'd have trouble with my engine because of that, but it never happened.) That could well explain the much poorer economy at that time.
I've never been aware of a loss of performance in the summer though. On the other hand, I don't thrash my car. I don't think the Peugeot has ever been near the red line in its life.
So, if 98 really does improve performance, is there a case for using it in summer only?
Rolfe.
-
I've never been aware of a loss of performance in the summer though. On the other hand, I don't thrash my car. I don't think the Peugeot has ever been near the red line in its life.
Only really applies to cars running turbos.
-
Well, there you go. Had the car over 11 years and have no clue if it has a turbo or not.
Rolfe.
-
lol I didnt have one ;)
-
i suppose there is no point in using it every now and then,sounds like you don`t get the benefits unless you use it all the time.
Now and again is fine. You never feel any power loss with the higher octane stuff. You sometimes do with the 95 RON, but not often enough to justify the extra trouble and cost, unless you have some special roads.
You automatically knew this 'power loss' was the petrol ? I thought the whole point of using super is to 'theoretically' give you more, didnt think the standard stuff dropped power in your car, I would have though it just didnt give you anything extra.
As far as mkv's are concerned he is right. They were set up for 98 so anything less than that results in a reduction in power.
As Alan says its all to do with the way FSI works (which the mk6 also uses - its the way forward!). I remember the blurb he's talking about and all does become clear once you read it...)
-
Just to clarify for those of you who dont know....
the 1984cc engine is not in fact the 1984cc ‘TFSI’ engine found in the mk5 GTI but instead the new 1984cc ‘TSI’ engine from the Scirocco. It’s got an extra 10bhp over the mk5 (and the Scirocco for that matter), taking the new GTI up to 207bhp between 5300 and 6200rpm. Peak torque remains at 207lb ft but arrives fractionally earlier at 1700rpm and is held all the way to 5200rpm.
:nerd:
You sure about that fella? I thought the MKVI engine was different to the 'roc?
tbh im not sure about the rocco, but know that it is definately different from the mk5. Source was Evo so I expect them to know what they are talking about :smiley:
im sure it is the same engine as the rocco but with a extra 10 bhp as you've said, ive read it quite a few places
-
Just to clarify for those of you who dont know....
the 1984cc engine is not in fact the 1984cc ‘TFSI’ engine found in the mk5 GTI but instead the new 1984cc ‘TSI’ engine from the Scirocco. It’s got an extra 10bhp over the mk5 (and the Scirocco for that matter), taking the new GTI up to 207bhp between 5300 and 6200rpm. Peak torque remains at 207lb ft but arrives fractionally earlier at 1700rpm and is held all the way to 5200rpm.
:nerd:
You sure about that fella? I thought the MKVI engine was different to the 'roc?
tbh im not sure about the rocco, but know that it is definately different from the mk5. Source was Evo so I expect them to know what they are talking about :smiley:
im sure it is the same engine as the rocco but with a extra 10 bhp as you've said, ive read it quite a few places
Your probably right, as some of the modified roccos have seen 260bhp after a remap alone. So sounds like it is the same one.
-
(http://i421.photobucket.com/albums/pp300/neo66_bucket/fgh.jpg)
Mk5 tho, not mk6, but hope it helps anyone anyway! :smiley:
Mine is from a 57reg, being a BWA engine, Whats yours Alan D, could it be the AXX (or whatever it is)?Maybe thats why yours has 98% on the fuel cap.
-
aye..mine is an AXX and has 98 specified on the fuel filler cap. Must be the early cars (mines a March 05).
-
Yeah, mines an earlier on on an 05 plate, thats probs what it is then.
-
Just to add a bit of fact to this thread, I looked on the technical pages of the GTi brochure I'm currently salivating over.
Thanks to the knock control, unleaded four star (at least 95 RON) can be used instead of unleaded Super Plus. In order to achieve maximum fuel consumption benefits on the TSI engine, Ultra Low Sulphur Petrol (ULSP) must be used.
Not that that really helps, because it says "can" be used. Doesn't say anything about whether or not you'd get any extra benefit from 98 RON.
And what's that about ULSP? Is that different from bog-standard el cheapo?
Rolfe.
-
Ah ha... Thanks to R32 for pointing out the link the the mk5 GTI Tips and Tricks
Here is the simplified reason why higher octane is better for FSI engines
Regards FSI owners mainly.
The higher the octane rating of the fuel the longer the FSI engine will run in FSI mode.
You see, when the FSI is running in 'Fuel Stratified Injection' mode it creates a lot of NoX (NoX - Very bad as far as emisions go) due to it being such a lean burn, so it has a NoX Cat which abrorbs the NoX, once its full the Nox probe (fancy lambda probe) senses this and the engine switches back to normal running and can safely clear the NoX out with the other gases through the main Cat so it can switch back into in FSI mode again.
The problem with octane levels is, and this is just an example depending on driving styles.
Out of 100 miles average :-
95RON - 90 miles normal, 10 miles FSI (lots of NoX made in FSI mode)
97+RON - 60 miles normal, 40 miles FSI (some NoX made in FSI mode)
Now regardless of what anyone says this is how the engine is built and as its more efficient in FSI mode VW always recommend the highest octane rating for this reason, they did introduce a 1.4FSI for the uk market that is made to run on 95RON fuel for longer but you want to see the size of the NoX Cat, more like a tanker. lol
And after all that, you will get better miles to the gallon running 97+RON regardless of it being an FSI, its they way they are made these days, the ecu recognises when the fuel mixture combusts and will adjust it accordingly, the cheaper the fuel the more retarded the timing, the more retarded the timing the less power, the less power the more you 'need' to put the foot down
-
Cracking find there :cool:
-
Well, that's all about FSI, which I now understand, but the Golf GTi brochure is talking about a TSI engine.
Forgive my ignorance, but can someone explain?
Rolfe.
-
Well now thats the difference we are talking about. The mk5 had the fsi engine and the mk6 has the tsi.
If it were in anyway possible for VW to get better mpg out of the mk6 gti then im sure they would have done it. 95 or 97ron wont make any difference if its set to run on 95 :undecided:
-
TSI is just the new acronym VW have given for the 2.0T engine name. To my knowledge the new engines are still technically FSI. Dont quote me on this.
-
Well now thats the difference we are talking about. The mk5 had the fsi engine and the mk6 has the tsi.
If it were in anyway possible for VW to get better mpg out of the mk6 gti then im sure they would have done it. 95 or 97ron wont make any difference if its set to run on 95 :undecided:
OK, faint but pursuing here.
Three potential advantages to the higher octane have been discussed -
- better fuel economy
- better power/responsiveness
- better for engine health/cleanliness
So we've knocked the "better fuel economy" bit on the head as far as the Mk VI is concerned. Personally, I think this thing goes like a bat out of hell anyway (based on a short test drive), and I'm not sure I'd be especially interested in giving it a fraction more. (Back in 1998 my Peugeot wiped the floor with the Golf Mk IV, but it's quite obvious to me that things have moved on and now the Mk VI is considerably nippier than the 11-year-old Peugeot I'm used to.)
So, is the higher octane simply better for your engine? Like its five portions of fruit and veg a day instead of deep-fried pizza? Given that the Peugeot has reached its current venerable age on an exclusive diet of "whatever is cheapest", with no engine trouble whatsoever, I'm sceptical. But I'm interested.
And since I don't actually know what "TSI" is, maybe someone could enlighten me?
Rolfe.
-
The TSI stands for "Turbo-Stratified Injection" and is just a new name for the updated 2.0T engine that VW/Audi/Seat/Skoda use. The main principles of how the engine work are the same.
Its really just down to if you want the spend the money. If I was spending 22k + on a nice motor Id want to look after it as best as possible. The car will run perfectly fine on 95RON for all its life, its just down to you if you want to use the higher rated fuel, you wont do any damage using 95RON but as has been said the engine will work more efficiently / cleaner / etc etc etc on the higher stuff. Hell, when my MK5 was standard for its first 4 months I ran it on 95 (being a tight ass) and ever since all my mods Iv run it on 99 to make the most of it all and in an effort to look after the engine as best I can seeing as under that little bit more strain.
-
That's actually back to what my friend's husband was saying some time ago. However, he also said that as I'd been running the Peugeot on el cheapo for so long by that time he thought there really wasn't any benefit to switching.
I never really understood the theory behind it. And it's so easy to be caught by the placebo effect when trying different types of fuel, as highlighted above.
Rolfe.
-
The fact your Pug wasn't designed to run on the higher stuff is also a factor.
And it's so easy to be caught by the placebo effect when trying different types of fuel, as highlighted above.
I totally agree. Its just habbit now to use 99.
-
The fact your Pug wasn't designed to run on the higher stuff is also a factor.
And it's so easy to be caught by the placebo effect when trying different types of fuel, as highlighted above.
I totally agree. Its just habbit now to use 99.
I don't know what the Pug was designed to use, it's a GTi 2.0 litre 6-gear job. And it showed the Golf Mk IV a very clean pair of heels. But as far as I know it doesn't have a turbo. My friend's husband (who is a surgeon with a Merc, not a car expert) was just pontificating that the most expensive fuel was always the best for the engine, and I was harbouring some doubts.
Would you use the 98 RON in the Mk VI, and if so why? (Other than habit.)
Rolfe.
-
And it showed the Golf Mk VI a very clean pair of heels.
you should keep the pug then rolfe! :smiley:
-
And it showed the Golf Mk VI IV a very clean pair of heels.
you should keep the pug then rolfe! :smiley:
Don't you start! 11½ years old, over 118,000 miles, aircon shot, slipping out of third gear, leaky sunroof, various bits a bit loose....and still, it breaks my heart to feed it to the dcrappage scheme. :cry:
The only thing that reconciles me is the anticipation of an even peachier car to replace it.
ETA: Ah, I see. Fat-fingers typo corrected! :embarassed:
Rolfe.
-
I refuse to believe that the 160 odd bhp Pug is faster than the 210bhp MK6. The Pug still weighs in at 1.2 ton so isn't super light.
-
i know what you mean, sold and said goodbye to my mk 5 gti on monday - nearly shed a tear as they drove it away :embarassed:
but the thought of a new one is keeping me going too lol!
-
I refuse to believe that the 160 odd bhp Pug is faster than the 210bhp MK6. The Pug still weighs in at 1.2 ton so isn't super light.
maybe miss daisy was driving the gti?!?! :grin:
-
I'm going to put whatever the manual recommends.
Can one of the mk6 owners confirm pls (e.g. Andy?)
-
I refuse to believe that the 160 odd bhp Pug is faster than the 210bhp MK6. The Pug still weighs in at 1.2 ton so isn't super light.
I made a mistake, OK!! I typed the Roman numeral the wrong way round. When the Pug was new, the equivalent Golf was the Mk III. Which I didn't buy. But then shortly afterwards the Mk IV came out, and Clarkson did a head-to-head run-off on them.
The Pug left the Golf Mk 4 standing. In 1998. Look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqgJ5vQkWGc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqgJ5vQkWGc)
Rolfe.
-
That makes much more sense as the MK4 is a heavy old girl with less power.
Didnt mean to bite your head off.
-
That makes much more sense as the MK4 is a heavy old girl with less power.
Didnt mean to bite your head off.
Not at all, my fault entirely. It's too easy to reverse these Roman numerals.
I could tell when I had my test drive of the Mk VI that it goes like a bat out of hell. Self-evidently much faster acceleration than the Pug, though I can't say for sure about top speed as I prefer to keep my licence, thank you.
Hard to know if the Pug is going as fast as it did when new, too. If there has been a gradual change in its 11 years, I wouldn't necessarily notice. It was always a car that you had to deliberately push if you wanted to fly - it isn't nearly so prone to sneaking you up to 95 when you think you're doing 80 as my previous XR2 was.
Rolfe.
-
The MK6 will feel that much quicker (despite the extra 50bhp) as the turbo gives so much more low end torque compared to the N/A lump in the Pug.
-
For those that have them, what petrol are you lot putting into your GTIs?
Is it worth the premium for super? Does it have to be super?
I think the Mk6 might be slightly different. In the Mk5, it was factory mapped to run on 98 RON juice, but I'm lead to believe the Audi-developed 'valvelift' TSI engines in the very latest cars were set for 95 RON - which is standard, not Super unleaded. However, the Mk6 GTI may have been specifically mapped for 98 RON too. What does it say on the fuel filler flap?
-
For those that have them, what petrol are you lot putting into your GTIs?
Is it worth the premium for super? Does it have to be super?
Super, and only use a BP garage. BP Ultimate is all I will be putting in my GTI when I get her.
BP Ultimate is shyte. Way overpriced, and NOT a true 'Super unleaded' - which needs to be 98 RON. BP Ultimate is only 97 RON. The Thorney Motorsport tests proved that BP was rubbish.
-
For those that have them, what petrol are you lot putting into your GTIs?
Is it worth the premium for super? Does it have to be super?
Super, and only use a BP garage. BP Ultimate is all I will be putting in my GTI when I get her.
why BP? I used to use Optimax all the time for my old type r. Tesco does 100 Ron, so thats pretty potent.
Tescos is actually 99 RON (well except from their 97 RON stuff which they still sell at certain places!!!!) - same as V-Power. But Tesco 99 is more stable than V-Power.
-
I've heard all this before from auto nuts, so somebody explain. What's the benefit?
For the record, I've never put anything but el cheapo unleaded in the Peuteot GTi, and never even looked at what brand it was. Like I said, 118,000 miles and 11 and a half years, and counting.
But your Pug was never designed for super unleaded. Modern high performance engines are, especially if they are direct injection.
What benefits do you get from the pricier petrol (as if it wasn't dear enough!), and how does it work?
Higher octane brews can cope with higher combustion chamber pressures, and can run more 'advance' on the ignition timing - meaning more efficient combustion - and more 'bang for your buck', along with greater fuel economy. When you run on a lower octane fuel in an engine designed for high ocatane, the ignition timing has to retard, making the combustion process far less efficient - which means it makes less power, and uses more fuel. And to get the same levels of performance as you would when running on the correct high octane brew, you actually use quite a bit more fuel when using lower octanes.
-
One of our users commented that using higher octane fuel than your engine requires actually gives no benefit and may be a waste of money.
True. Which is why that BP 102 Ultimate is an utter UTTER rip off.
This is because virtually NO engines require 98 RON over 95, and the market for 'super' fuels seems to be based on people's misunderstanding of octane ratings and the placebo effect of filling up with 'more powerful' fuel - making motorists think their engine is running better in some way.
<cough> Horsesh!t ! <cough>
Did you steal that from the PetrolPrices.com website. Because that is BS. Virtually ALL direct injection engines need high octane juice, as do 'high performance' variants of normal engines, such as M3s, and ALL Volkswagen Group V8 engines, along with most of their V6s, and all of their old skool turbo motors!!!!
What do the fuel companies say then, to justify the "increased power" claims for the super grade fuels? Some companies say that while all fuels contain cleaning additives, 'super' fuels contain more or better detergents to keep the injectors cleaner than standard fuel. Others say the fuel is a few percent denser which gives slightly more power per litre. These benefits may be marginal though in comparison to the extra cost involved so it is worth ensuring that your engine will actually benefit before filling up.
Some engines actually do need higher octane fuel, such as race engines with very high compression and some turbocharged engines, such as the import version of the Nissan Skyline. Also, a few vehicles, such as the new BMW K1200R motorbike, can sense knock and adjust their engine tuning to take advantage of higher grade fuels. Another user commented that the 2004 BMW 330 also does this, according to the driver's handbook it makes 231 BHP on 98 octane and 221 BHP on 95. This ability is apparently widespread amongst German performance cars using Bosch / Siemens electronic engine controls.
You have, youv'e ripped that straight from the PetrolPrices.com site. If you are gonna breach copyright like that, at least be decent enough to acknowledge where you stole it from! :rolleyes:
-
VW Golf GTi Mk VI brochure. Page 24.
Technical specification notes.
04) Thanks to the knock control, unleaded four star (at least 95 RON) can be used instead of unleaded Super Plus. In order to achieve maximum fuel consumption benefits on the TSI engine, Ultra Low Sulphur Petrol (ULSP) must be used.
So, it says 95 RON can be used. It says nothing about whether there's any extra benefit to be gained from 98 RON. Why wouldn't they say, if that was the case?
Rolfe.
-
(http://i421.photobucket.com/albums/pp300/neo66_bucket/fgh.jpg)
Mk5 tho, not mk6, but hope it helps anyone anyway! :smiley:
Hmmmm . . . that is different to my Mk5 GTI - mine says 98 RON. The part number for the sticker is '1K0 010 350 S'. The part number from your sticker is ONLY meant for the 1.4 FSI CAXA engine - which defo aint the GTI engine. Looks like Fritz - the Wolfsburg sticker applier had a bad day!
-
Strange how some MK5s say 95 and others say 98?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v92/twior/IMG_1754.jpg)
Note mine says Super PLUS Unleaded where as yours only says Super Unleaded. Strange . . . . .
Yup, that's the correct one for the Mk5 GTI!
-
So from that video the engine management needs to adjust to the higher octane petrol being as they reset the engine mangement,if you were to use the lower octane and the switch to the higher how long before the engine adjusts ?.
It will take a good few tanks for it clean out any of the old crap and for your ECU to start sorting itself out.
That depends on what you mean. The ECU constantly adjusts the timing based on readings from the knock sensor, so will instantly adjust as soon as some poverty-spec fuel reaches the injectors. But if you are talking about how long it takes the ECU to actually 'learn' a 'default' setting, then it is usually just one or two cycles of the ignition.
-
i suppose there is no point in using it every now and then,sounds like you don`t get the benefits unless you use it all the time.
Now and again is fine. You never feel any power loss with the higher octane stuff. You sometimes do with the 95 RON, but not often enough to justify the extra trouble and cost, unless you have some special roads.
You automatically knew this 'power loss' was the petrol ? I thought the whole point of using super is to 'theoretically' give you more, didnt think the standard stuff dropped power in your car, I would have though it just didnt give you anything extra.
Huh - WTF?
Of course lower octane fuel will drop the power! Using higher octane fuel (in a car with an OEM map) will NOT give you more power. You can only get one pint of milk in a one pint bottle!
-
Id take what Egbert Nosh says with a pinch of salt :D
He does talk sense sometimes! :wink: :smiley:
-
Just to clarify for those of you who dont know....
the 1984cc engine is not in fact the 1984cc ‘TFSI’ engine found in the mk5 GTI but instead the new 1984cc ‘TSI’ engine from the Scirocco. It’s got an extra 10bhp over the mk5 (and the Scirocco for that matter), taking the new GTI up to 207bhp between 5300 and 6200rpm. Peak torque remains at 207lb ft but arrives fractionally earlier at 1700rpm and is held all the way to 5200rpm.
:nerd:
You sure about that fella? I thought the MKVI engine was different to the 'roc?
Nope - the Mk6 GTI engine is identical to the current 'Rocco, albeit in a slightly different state of tune. They are both Audi-developed engines, with timing chains rather than belts, VVT on both cams, and use 'valvelift' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Volkswagen_Group_petrol_engines#2.0_TSI.2FTFSI_132-155kW
-
Just to clarify for those of you who dont know....
the 1984cc engine is not in fact the 1984cc ‘TFSI’ engine found in the mk5 GTI but instead the new 1984cc ‘TSI’ engine from the Scirocco. It’s got an extra 10bhp over the mk5 (and the Scirocco for that matter), taking the new GTI up to 207bhp between 5300 and 6200rpm. Peak torque remains at 207lb ft but arrives fractionally earlier at 1700rpm and is held all the way to 5200rpm.
:nerd:
You sure about that fella? I thought the MKVI engine was different to the 'roc?
tbh im not sure about the rocco, but know that it is definately different from the mk5. Source was Evo so I expect them to know what they are talking about :smiley:
Yeah, rite . . . just like their 'wholly unbiased' tyre test. :sick: Evo journos are no better than Max Power muppets - they just get better toys to play with! :angry: Even Volkswagen Driver don't always get things right! :wink:
-
I think it's different from the Roc but apparently the MKVI lump is the EA888 or something like that? Revo said that engine has been used in the USA for the last year or so in Audis. I think that's what he said.
Vague or wot eh? :grin:
Correct, sort of. It is an all new engine developed by Audi, and first used in European Audis. But a few of the very last Yankie Mk5 GTIs also got this new engine. It then went in the new Rocco, and then the Mk6 GTI.
-
aye..mine is an AXX and has 98 specified on the fuel filler cap. Must be the early cars (mines a March 05).
Well mine is a 2007 model year with the BWA - and that has the 98 RON sticker!
-
Well now thats the difference we are talking about. The mk5 had the fsi engine and the mk6 has the tsi.
FSI . . . TSI, tomaeto . . . tomarto - basically the same technology, but just different names. Just like Audi use 'quattro' to describe 4wd - weather it has full time permanent Torsen-based 4wd - or part-time 'on-demand' Haldex-based 4wd. Incidentally, whilst VW call these new engines 'TSI', Audi still call them 'TFSI' . . . go figure!!!
If it were in anyway possible for VW to get better mpg out of the mk6 gti then im sure they would have done it. 95 or 97ron wont make any difference if its set to run on 95 :undecided:
I think VW are now able to achieve maximum economy using 95 RON - max power is another issue though! :wink:
-
TSI is just the new acronym VW have given for the 2.0T engine name. To my knowledge the new engines are still technically FSI. Dont quote me on this.
Yup, spot on there Alan! :afro:
-
:embarassed: iv only skimmed this thread, but iv tried premium fuel all be it only 97 ron. i didnt notice any difference. should i have!and i drive a leon cupra not a mk6 gti
-
The fact your Pug wasn't designed to run on the higher stuff is also a factor.
And it's so easy to be caught by the placebo effect when trying different types of fuel, as highlighted above.
I totally agree. Its just habbit now to use 99.
I don't know what the Pug was designed to use, it's a GTi 2.0 litre 6-gear job. And it showed the Golf Mk IV a very clean pair of heels.
But the Pug probably only weighed the same as two of the Mk4s alloy wheels!! The Mk4 GTI was well-known for being a lardy overweight mofo. Just think who is fastest running 100metres - Lewis Hamilton or John Prescott? Actually, if a pie shop was at the finishing line, then Prezza would prolly win!!! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
Would you use the 98 RON in the Mk VI, and if so why? (Other than habit.)
If the sticker and manuals specifically stated 95 RON, and the car was standard (not remaped or owt), then any decent 95 RON juice would be fine. No supermarket standard unleaded though!
-
:embarassed: iv only skimmed this thread, but iv tried premium fuel all be it only 97 ron. i didnt notice any difference. should i have!and i drive a leon cupra not a mk6 gti
The 1.8 20v Turbo has traditional manifold sited injectors, not direct fuel injection like FSI engines use - and I don't think was specifically OEM mapped to use 95 RON - which would explain why you didn't feel any benefit.
EDIT: corrected wrong RON figure! :embarassed:
-
If the sticker and manuals specifically stated 95 RON, and the car was standard (not remaped or owt), then any decent 95 RON juice would be fine. No supermarket standard unleaded though!
And how do you tell the difference? Just never buy at a supermarket?
Rolfe.
-
ummm somethign i've noticed reading through this, no one has mentioned nicosil.
quite a few enignes now have nicosil coated cylinders / liners. nicosil dosent like sulfer at all. run an engine with nicosil liners on povery speck fuel and it attacks the coating on the liners, once thats gone they wear like crazy. problem come is that you can't fix it you canb rebore them bit no way of reapplying the coating so you need to replace the liners or the whole block as i don't think vw use wet liners at all
-
If the sticker and manuals specifically stated 95 RON, and the car was standard (not remaped or owt), then any decent 95 RON juice would be fine. No supermarket standard unleaded though!
And how do you tell the difference? Just never buy at a supermarket?
Rolfe.
Yeah !!! Most supermarkets don't sell high octane super plus anyway. The only two who do are Sainsburys (97 RON) and Tesco (which is actually 99 RON - and has been proven to be the best juice in the UK - but then Tesco are a major shareholder in Europes largest independent oil company - www.GreenErgy.co.uk).
So if you are keping it in standard tune, then just use the standard unleaded, but from the 'major' oil companies (and Tesco would still be OK). Just avoid Asda, Waitrose, Sainsburys stuff, along with any 'no-make' independent petrol stations which you do seem to find north of the boarder!
-
ummm somethign i've noticed reading through this, no one has mentioned nicosil.
quite a few enignes now have nicosil coated cylinders / liners. nicosil dosent like sulfer at all. run an engine with nicosil liners on povery speck fuel and it attacks the coating on the liners, once thats gone they wear like crazy. problem come is that you can't fix it you canb rebore them bit no way of reapplying the coating so you need to replace the liners or the whole block as i don't think vw use wet liners at all
Errrrr, but that comment only applies if you are in Russia or Zimbabwe, because in the UK and the EU, ALL petrols by law can only be "Ultra Low Sulfur Petrol" (ULSP) - so not an issue!
-
.
-
On the Golf Gti mk6 under the petrol cap it says to use a min 95 ron,i suppose they have kind of left it to the driver to choose
-
i've used super all but about ten times in my impreza wrx- tbh i've noticed very little difference in it power/ fuel economy, and the filler cap says 98+.
in fact running a tank of 95 after 98/99 seems to be better if anything- but the scoob doesn't have a range computer- just a rather uneven fuel gauge.
i'll probably give the gti a test and if i see a benefit out of super i'll use it, otherwise i'm planning to go back to regular
-
It's really hard to fill up with super when you pull in at the petrol station with an empty tank and you know it's going to cost about £40 to fill it up and you have the option of it costing 7% MORE than that!
-
It's really hard to fill up with super when you pull in at the petrol station with an empty tank and you know it's going to cost about £40 to fill it up and you have the option of it costing 7% MORE than that!
£40 quid to fill it up?! how big is the golf's tank? that's a bargain!!
my old 5 series took near 80 quid!
-
FYI Golfs tank is 55 litres.
-
On the Golf Gti mk6 under the petrol cap it says to use a min 95 ron,i suppose they have kind of left it to the driver to choose
OK, thanks for clarifying that Simon.
So yeah, the Mk6 GTI in standard tune should make its max quoted power and performance figures with just 95 RON - though as I previously mentioned, don't use Asda, Sainsburys or other cheapo standard unleaded.
And a couple of tankfuls of V-Power, Tesco 99, Total Excillium or BP Ultimate every now and then should help keep the innards clean.
-
i've used super all but about ten times in my impreza wrx- tbh i've noticed very little difference in it power/ fuel economy, and the filler cap says 98+.
Yes, but what type of 'super'? Becauase they aint all the same. Most supers in the UK are actually only 97 RON - so hardly an increase over the standard 95. But Shell V-Power and Tesco 99 are both 99 RON - which is really quite a difference over 95 RON.
Secondly, because you 'normally' use 95, then your ECU has probably 'adapted' to run with less advance on the timing as its 'default' settings - and when you do occasionally give it a splash of super, the ECU doesn't have long enough to properly adapt, before you end up slinging poverty-spec juice at it again! :evil:
in fact running a tank of 95 after 98/99 seems to be better if anything- but the scoob doesn't have a range computer- just a rather uneven fuel gauge.
That IS a well known phenomenom in that scenario, across most makes of car. The in-depth answer is a bit 'tecchy'.
i'll probably give the gti a test and if i see a benefit out of super i'll use it, otherwise i'm planning to go back to regular
If yours is a Mk6, then it would seem you may not actually notice any benefit with super. :undecided: With a remap though, that is different! :wink: :tongue:
-
It's really hard to fill up with super when you pull in at the petrol station with an empty tank and you know it's going to cost about £40 to fill it up and you have the option of it costing 7% MORE than that!
But on the Mk5 which was specifially OEM set up to use 98 RON, it was well proven that 95 increased fuel consumption, as well as knocking off performance. So six of one, half a dozen of the other! :wink:
-
FYI Golfs tank is 55 litres.
Yeah, but you can also squeze in an extra 10 litres after the 1st click stop. Just search the Mk5 section for some 'cautions' if you do though!
-
Why would you want to do that? Just fill her up till she clicks is surely the easiest and most sensible option?
-
Why would you want to do that? Just fill her up till she clicks is surely the easiest and most sensible option?
Well you can get another 60-70mile range - and if you have a Tesco 5p a litre off voucher, you might as well max out your discount. Anyhooooow, I hate filling em up - rather be driving em!
-
Why would you want to do that? Just fill her up till she clicks is surely the easiest and most sensible option?
Well you can get another 60-70mile range - and if you have a Tesco 5p a litre off voucher, you might as well max out your discount. Anyhooooow, I hate filling em up - rather be driving em!
the tesco 5p off vouchers are a total con. next time you get one, look at the next petrol station near you, i guarantee tesco's will be 3-4p more expensive, so you're only saving 1p. every little helps - total con job.
-
Depends where you live, Shell garage 100 yards from Tesco's exactly same price.
-
down saaaaf its happened everytime i get a voucher, is a total con. but then that's the price i pay for a better standard of life down this way hehe!! :grin:
-
Beter standard of living :smug: Not going to bite with that comment..... At least our drinking water hasn't been through about 4 sets of kidneys :grin:
Anyway local petrol price at both Shell and Tesco 100.3p
-
Beter standard of living :smug: Not going to bite with that comment..... At least our drinking water hasn't been through about 4 sets of kidneys :grin:
Anyway local petrol price at both Shell and Tesco 100.3p
:grin: sorry, couldn't resist it!
-
Why would you want to do that? Just fill her up till she clicks is surely the easiest and most sensible option?
Well you can get another 60-70mile range - and if you have a Tesco 5p a litre off voucher, you might as well max out your discount. Anyhooooow, I hate filling em up - rather be driving em!
the tesco 5p off vouchers are a total con. next time you get one, look at the next petrol station near you, i guarantee tesco's will be 3-4p more expensive, so you're only saving 1p. every little helps - total con job.
Round my way, Tesco juice does vary quite a bit in price. If I go into the city (or its outskirts), Tesco and Shell are generally on par, but any Tescos out in the sticks are usually about 5p a litre more!
BUt anyway, even on the odd occasion when Tescos is more expensive than V-Power, I'll normally always go for the Tesco stuff, because it has been repeatedly proven to be more 'stable' than V-Power. Oh, and SWMBO likes spending my clubcard vouchers, whereas she turns her nose up at the Shell Drivers Club vouchers! :rolleyes: :grin:
-
i've used super all but about ten times in my impreza wrx- tbh i've noticed very little difference in it power/ fuel economy, and the filler cap says 98+.
Yes, but what type of 'super'? Becauase they aint all the same. Most supers in the UK are actually only 97 RON - so hardly an increase over the standard 95. But Shell V-Power and Tesco 99 are both 99 RON - which is really quite a difference over 95 RON.
Secondly, because you 'normally' use 95, then your ECU has probably 'adapted' to run with less advance on the timing as its 'default' settings - and when you do occasionally give it a splash of super, the ECU doesn't have long enough to properly adapt, before you end up slinging poverty-spec juice at it again! :evil:
in fact running a tank of 95 after 98/99 seems to be better if anything- but the scoob doesn't have a range computer- just a rather uneven fuel gauge.
That IS a well known phenomenom in that scenario, across most makes of car. The in-depth answer is a bit 'tecchy'.
i'll probably give the gti a test and if i see a benefit out of super i'll use it, otherwise i'm planning to go back to regular
If yours is a Mk6, then it would seem you may not actually notice any benefit with super. :undecided: With a remap though, that is different! :wink: :tongue:
I use shell v-power or tesco 99, only buy super from bp/esso/ total if i have to and 95 only if i'm out in the sticks with no alternative- so think you got the wrong end of the stick- very little poverty fuel for me!
i was assumed the ecu still thought it was on the good stuff when i put in the normal, but don't understand why it seemed to be better on fuel then?
maybe i'll alternate on the gti
-
Forgot to fill up so had to use the Shell on the way to work this morning. 1.11.9 :shocked:
Stuck in 15 quid and will be using the Tesco later this evening, its always MUCH cheaper.
-
Forgot to fill up so had to use the Shell on the way to work this morning. 1.11.9 :shocked:
Stuck in 15 quid and will be using the Tesco later this evening, its always MUCH cheaper.
Really? Here Shell are about the cheapest. I don't use Tesco because I don't like their business practices.
-
Yeah, I recon the Tesco will be about 108 / 109 tonight when I fill the rest of her up.
-
Yeah, I recon the Tesco will be about 108 / 109 tonight when I fill the rest of her up.
Ok so you'll be saving about 3p per litre. Even with a full 55 litre fill up, that's only 1.65.
Driving around to find the cheapest station will reduce these small savings even further (though the drive will/ should be fun!)
-
Thats a pint in Weatherspoons :D
-
I filled my Peugeot up yesterday, and actually took note of what I was doing for the first time.
Esso garage. £1.02.9 per litre for 95 RON. The only other grade they had was 97 RON, at £1.08.9. So about £3.60 extra for a tankful, and you guys are saying the 97 isn't worth it anyway.
Given that the Mk VI is explicitly stated to require "at least" 95 RON, have we decided whether there's any actual benefit to putting in 98 RON, and if so what is the benefit and how often should we do it?
Rolfe.
-
^ Oh no ! Not again :(
-
I have tried running my MK5 on 97RON and didn't notice any difference to when I ran it on 95. However, if I put Tesco 99 in or Shell V Power it is noticeably better.
My advice would be to run it on 99RON all the time.
-
^ Oh no ! Not again :(
Well, where is there an actual answer to this?
My advice would be to run it on 99RON all the time.
Why?
Rolfe.
-
How many times? Because it has more octane in it which the FSI engine is designed to run on (runs for longer in FSI mode, this has all been said and I cant be assed to find the link). It has cleaning agents in which help keep your engine cleaner, thus more efficient. You get more MPG. Your meant to get more power (all be not much) etc etc etc. You just have to decide if you want to spend that bit more on your fuel or not, it will run perfectly well on 95.
Sorry, Im a bit ratty as its a million degrees in my office.
-
Like all older gti's/vr6's with electronic fuel injection systems, they are set up to run on 98 RON, but will run perfectly on 95 RON with knock control.
Obviously using 95 RON can lead to a small loss of power. The higher the RON figure, the better the fuel can resist detonation, hence being able to advance the ignition timing.
Is this correct?
-
i've used super all but about ten times in my impreza wrx- tbh i've noticed very little difference in it power/ fuel economy, and the filler cap says 98+.
Yes, but what type of 'super'? Becauase they aint all the same. Most supers in the UK are actually only 97 RON - so hardly an increase over the standard 95. But Shell V-Power and Tesco 99 are both 99 RON - which is really quite a difference over 95 RON.
Secondly, because you 'normally' use 95, then your ECU has probably 'adapted' to run with less advance on the timing as its 'default' settings - and when you do occasionally give it a splash of super, the ECU doesn't have long enough to properly adapt, before you end up slinging poverty-spec juice at it again! :evil:
in fact running a tank of 95 after 98/99 seems to be better if anything- but the scoob doesn't have a range computer- just a rather uneven fuel gauge.
That IS a well known phenomenom in that scenario, across most makes of car. The in-depth answer is a bit 'tecchy'.
i'll probably give the gti a test and if i see a benefit out of super i'll use it, otherwise i'm planning to go back to regular
If yours is a Mk6, then it would seem you may not actually notice any benefit with super. :undecided: With a remap though, that is different! :wink: :tongue:
I use shell v-power or tesco 99, only buy super from bp/esso/ total if i have to and 95 only if i'm out in the sticks with no alternative- so think you got the wrong end of the stick- very little poverty fuel for me!
i was assumed the ecu still thought it was on the good stuff when i put in the normal, but don't understand why it seemed to be better on fuel then?
OK, I'll try and explain. Modern ECUs are 'adaptive' (sometimes called 'fuzzy logic') - and this means that as well as providing 'instructions' (for how much fuel to inject, when to inject, what advance on the timing, etc) - they also need to 'learn'. They learn by 'reading' information - the most obvious are things like the MAF, crank and cam position sensors, knock sensors, and the likes (and they also learn throttle pedal actuation, brake pedal actuation, and even steering inputs if ESP is fitted). So once they have learned this stuff, which normally needs at least a couple of engine off/engine on cycles - the ECU can then store a slightly revised 'default' setting.
So if you normally use 99 RON, and drive hard making full use of the '99 RON performance' - the ECU will adapt to provide that level of performance as a default. But then if you stick some 95 RON in the tank - the ECU doesn't get 'told' that you have put 95 RON in - and will continue to try and deliver the 99 RON performance. It will initially try to do this by advancing the ignition timing, but the knock sensor will be constantly instructing to retard the timing - so it then trys the next thing - which is to inject more fuel - creating a richer mixture, which is less prone to knocking. Because the engine continues to 'behave' with an increased fuel delivery rate - the engine will appear to perform the same as if it were still using 99 RON - but the ECU will still know that something now isnt quite correct - but still stores some new 'learnings'. Then you get home, park up, turn off the engine, eat, drink and go to bed. The next time you start the engine, the procedure happens all over again - but this time - has already 'learnt' that it needs less advance, and also 'knows' that it shouldn't have been injecting that much fuel as yesterday - so the performance will progressively drop to suit the 95 juice.
And the same happens in reverse. If your ECU has been used to 95 - by then filling up with 99, you arn't gonna get any increase in performance until the ECU has had a couple of 'cycles' to learn the new settings and adapt accordingly.
Does that help? :smiley:
-
Interesting reading.
Have ecu's always been so adaptive, or is it only newer ones?
-
How many times? Because it has more octane in it which the FSI engine is designed to run on (runs for longer in FSI mode, this has all been said and I cant be assed to find the link). It has cleaning agents in which help keep your engine cleaner, thus more efficient. You get more MPG. Your meant to get more power (all be not much) etc etc etc. You just have to decide if you want to spend that bit more on your fuel or not, it will run perfectly well on 95.
Yes, yes - I agree with all that. But you seem to be forgetting that Audi have developed the latest TSI Mk6 engine to now achieve maximum economy with just 95 RON. So by simply slinging 99 at it will NOT give you any further improvements in fuel economy. The ONLY time using 99 would give improvements in power and/or economy is if it was remaped.
The cleaning agents issue is not so clear cut. Yes, it is generally accepted that the higher quality super unleadeds, such as Shell V-Power, Tesco 99, BP Ultimate, Total Excellium, and the Esso one (whatever it is called!) - all have an 'increased' detergents package. I purposely exluded Sainsburys 97 super unleaded from that, simply because I can find no evidence it has an increased additives pack over its standard 95 unleaded. But is there any hard and fast proof that the standard 95 unleaded from those above, albeit with slightly less detergents, actually causes any noticable build up? :undecided: BP, or Shell, or Esso or the other main oil companies are not going to sell 'sh!t' fuels - and they also rely on their 'brand image' too. :undecided: Whereas - let's say Asda - they are well known for being cheap and basic - and I would also assume their fuels are also 'cheap and basic'. Which is why, when it comes to normal 95 unleaded, with the exception of Tescos (who's fuel is easy to check, because it is made by GreenErgy) - all supermarket fuels should be avoided - because they may not have the same levels of additives (including detergents) as the unleadeds from the normal oil companies.
Sorry, Im a bit ratty as its a million degrees in my office.
Tell me about it, I'm roasting my nads off! :sick:
-
Like all older gti's/vr6's with electronic fuel injection systems, they are set up to run on 98 RON, but will run perfectly on 95 RON with knock control.
Obviously using 95 RON can lead to a small loss of power. The higher the RON figure, the better the fuel can resist detonation, hence being able to advance the ignition timing.
Is this correct?
Your theory is spot on correct - but the new Mk6 GTI as been set with a default base setting for 95 RON. So will not be able to advance the timing far enough to utilise the max potential of any 97/99 brew. HTH
LOL - very off topic - just watching the weakest link, and some contestant works for VW marketing, and she was stating that 'Dave' (meaning independent garages) are a bit 'gruff and grumpy' - wonder where she got that from? :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
-
Interesting reading.
Have ecu's always been so adaptive, or is it only newer ones?
It is generally just the newer ones. All Bosch Motronics are adaptive, whereas their earlier Digifant and Jetronics were not. Obviously, as the different Motronic 'generations' have advanced, they can do more and more things - but they still can't cope with high engine revs. High revving B7 RS4s, R8s and C6 RS6s now need two separate Motronic ECUs - although they both work together, and both have some 'redundancy' back-up for each other! :nerd:
-
How many times? Because it has more octane in it which the FSI engine is designed to run on (runs for longer in FSI mode, this has all been said and I cant be assed to find the link). It has cleaning agents in which help keep your engine cleaner, thus more efficient. You get more MPG. Your meant to get more power (all be not much) etc etc etc. You just have to decide if you want to spend that bit more on your fuel or not, it will run perfectly well on 95.
But you seem to be forgetting that Audi have developed the latest TSI Mk6 engine to now achieve maximum economy with just 95 RON. So by simply slinging 99 at it will NOT give you any further improvements in fuel economy. The ONLY time using 99 would give improvements in power and/or economy is if it was remaped.
You see my confusion?
Rolfe.
-
How many times? Because it has more octane in it which the FSI engine is designed to run on (runs for longer in FSI mode, this has all been said and I cant be assed to find the link). It has cleaning agents in which help keep your engine cleaner, thus more efficient. You get more MPG. Your meant to get more power (all be not much) etc etc etc. You just have to decide if you want to spend that bit more on your fuel or not, it will run perfectly well on 95.
But you seem to be forgetting that Audi have developed the latest TSI Mk6 engine to now achieve maximum economy with just 95 RON. So by simply slinging 99 at it will NOT give you any further improvements in fuel economy. The ONLY time using 99 would give improvements in power and/or economy is if it was remaped.
You see my confusion?
Rolfe.
I think TT has removed the confusion. The strong argument put forwards by us mk5'ers was that high octance fuel increased both performace and MPG, which was true for the mk5 engines. TT has explained why this is no longer true for the mk6. You lucky buggers.
Edit :embarassed:
-
How many times? Because it has more octane in it which the FSI engine is designed to run on (runs for longer in FSI mode, this has all been said and I cant be assed to find the link). It has cleaning agents in which help keep your engine cleaner, thus more efficient. You get more MPG. Your meant to get more power (all be not much) etc etc etc. You just have to decide if you want to spend that bit more on your fuel or not, it will run perfectly well on 95.
But you seem to be forgetting that Audi have developed the latest TSI Mk6 engine to now achieve maximum economy with just 95 RON. So by simply slinging 99 at it will NOT give you any further improvements in fuel economy. The ONLY time using 99 would give improvements in power and/or economy is if it was remaped.
You see my confusion?
Rolfe.
Huh - AlanD was quoting from how the Mk5 GTI was set up, whereas my answer was for the Mk6!
So in a Mk6 GTI - max economy will be gained with 95 RON.
-
How many times? Because it has more octane in it which the FSI engine is designed to run on (runs for longer in FSI mode, this has all been said and I cant be assed to find the link). It has cleaning agents in which help keep your engine cleaner, thus more efficient. You get more MPG. Your meant to get more power (all be not much) etc etc etc. You just have to decide if you want to spend that bit more on your fuel or not, it will run perfectly well on 95.
But you seem to be forgetting that Audi have developed the latest TSI Mk6 engine to now achieve maximum economy with just 95 RON. So by simply slinging 99 at it will NOT give you any further improvements in fuel economy. The ONLY time using 99 would give improvements in power and/or economy is if it was remaped.
You see my confusion?
Rolfe.
Huh - AlanD was quoting from how the Mk5 GTI was set up, whereas my answer was for the Mk6!
So in a Mk6 GTI - max economy will be gained with 95 RON.
You stroppy bastard :tongue: :laugh:
-
thanks TT!!! you have just convinced me I will defo need a remap :evil:
-
thanks TT!!! you have just convinced me I will defo need a remap :evil:
Then lets go £500 each revo lincoln :cool:
-
thanks TT!!! you have just convinced me I will defo need a remap :evil:
Then lets go £500 each revo lincoln :cool:
LOL!! you still trying to get me to drive down to Lincoln?? :tongue:
Dont have the car yet... but Im gonna try find out the closest one to Leeds first. Your not too far from Leeds so I will see if I can haggle a discount first :grin: the more the merrier!!
-
thanks TT!!! you have just convinced me I will defo need a remap :evil:
Then lets go £500 each revo lincoln :cool:
LOL!! you still trying to get me to drive down to Lincoln?? :tongue:
Dont have the car yet... but Im gonna try find out the closest one to Leeds first. Your not too far from Leeds so I will see if I can haggle a discount first :grin: the more the merrier!!
When is it due then?
Maybe you'd be better going to one of the VAG shows, and get a healthy discount on Revo - just like they did at this years GTI International. Mine was so good, I went back the next day in the other set of wheels and got that done too - and wangled an extra discount too. :lipsrsealed:
-
thanks TT!!! you have just convinced me I will defo need a remap :evil:
Then lets go £500 each revo lincoln :cool:
LOL!! you still trying to get me to drive down to Lincoln?? :tongue:
Dont have the car yet... but Im gonna try find out the closest one to Leeds first. Your not too far from Leeds so I will see if I can haggle a discount first :grin: the more the merrier!!
When is it due then?
Maybe you'd be better going to one of the VAG shows, and get a healthy discount on Revo - just like they did at this years GTI International. Mine was so good, I went back the next day in the other set of wheels and got that done too - and wangled an extra discount too. :lipsrsealed:
Just waiting to get a collection date for the R... will schedule delivery of the Gti for the same day if I can :smiley:
Its actually been sat at the dealers for a couple of weeks now :undecided: Did think of getting down to a show but work commitments make it a tad difficult at the mo :sad:
-
How many times? Because it has more octane in it which the FSI engine is designed to run on (runs for longer in FSI mode, this has all been said and I cant be assed to find the link). It has cleaning agents in which help keep your engine cleaner, thus more efficient. You get more MPG. Your meant to get more power (all be not much) etc etc etc. You just have to decide if you want to spend that bit more on your fuel or not, it will run perfectly well on 95.
But you seem to be forgetting that Audi have developed the latest TSI Mk6 engine to now achieve maximum economy with just 95 RON. So by simply slinging 99 at it will NOT give you any further improvements in fuel economy. The ONLY time using 99 would give improvements in power and/or economy is if it was remaped.
You see my confusion?
Rolfe.
Huh - AlanD was quoting from how the Mk5 GTI was set up, whereas my answer was for the Mk6!
So in a Mk6 GTI - max economy will be gained with 95 RON.
Well, at least this looks like a reasonably definitive answer.
I have no idea at all why Alan was quoting from how the Mk5 was set up, in his (rather tetchy) answer to me who has a Mk6 on order (which is kind of why I was asking in the Mk6 forum), but we seem to be clearer now.
So, no advantage in fuel economy, and am I also right that there's no power advantage? Or might there be?
And it's debatable whether there might be an advantage in cleaning the engine, but probably not much difference if one uses quality branded 95 RON rather than cheap supermarket own-brands (excluding Texco's own brand, which is rocket juice).
Am I getting it?
Rolfe.
-
I have no idea at all why Alan was quoting from how the Mk5 was set up, in his (rather tetchy) answer to me who has a Mk6 on order (which is kind of why I was asking in the Mk6 forum), but we seem to be clearer now.
its called 'helping'
seeing as the MK5 and MKVI are so closely related in terms of engineering it would have been reasonable to assume the engine is designed to run on the same brand of fuel but TT has pointed out that its very different
and to be fair he did apologise for being a bit ratty but you seem to have missed that out of your quote
out of interest - why is the MKVI GTI engine designed to run on 95RON?? Is it because of that fuel being more widely available?? Recent credit crunch issues?? :smiley:
-
I have no idea at all why Alan was quoting from how the Mk5 was set up, in his (rather tetchy) answer to me who has a Mk6 on order (which is kind of why I was asking in the Mk6 forum), but we seem to be clearer now.
Rhyso has basically said what I was about to say, most of us on here are just trying to help. I dont know why I bother sometimes in this section. The reason it was such an abrupt reply is because I've actually lost count how many times you have asked the same poxy question with regards to fuel.
-
Lots of good advice on here... but ultimately you make the choice as to which fuel goes in, so if your looking for conclusive proof, then here is probably not the place your going to find it:nerd:
-
How many times? Because it has more octane in it which the FSI engine is designed to run on (runs for longer in FSI mode, this has all been said and I cant be assed to find the link). It has cleaning agents in which help keep your engine cleaner, thus more efficient. You get more MPG. Your meant to get more power (all be not much) etc etc etc. You just have to decide if you want to spend that bit more on your fuel or not, it will run perfectly well on 95.
But you seem to be forgetting that Audi have developed the latest TSI Mk6 engine to now achieve maximum economy with just 95 RON. So by simply slinging 99 at it will NOT give you any further improvements in fuel economy. The ONLY time using 99 would give improvements in power and/or economy is if it was remaped.
You see my confusion?
Rolfe.
Huh - AlanD was quoting from how the Mk5 GTI was set up, whereas my answer was for the Mk6!
So in a Mk6 GTI - max economy will be gained with 95 RON.
Well, at least this looks like a reasonably definitive answer.
:afro: :afro: :afro: :afro:
I have no idea at all why Alan was quoting from how the Mk5 was set up, in his (rather tetchy) answer to me who has a Mk6 on order (which is kind of why I was asking in the Mk6 forum), but we seem to be clearer now.
Well to be fair to Alan, he was probably just presuming that the Mk6 engine would be set up exactly the same as the Mk5 - afterall, they both use FSI and turbos. And technology doesn't usually take a 'step backwards'. :cool:
All entirely innocent, if a little misguided. And Alan isn't usually 'tetchy' either - maybe he was just having a bad day? :huh: :cry:
So, no advantage in fuel economy, and am I also right that there's no power advantage? Or might there be?
Correct on both counts. The only time that using a higher octane on the Mk6 will give you more power is if you had it remapped.
And it's debatable whether there might be an advantage in cleaning the engine, but probably not much difference if one uses quality branded 95 RON rather than cheap supermarket own-brands (excluding Tesco's own brand, which is rocket juice).
Am I getting it?
Rolfe.
Corrected your typo! :kiss:
Ohh, the super unleadeds will be slightly better at cleaning your engines innards, but by how much - that is the difficult question - and purely on the 'cleaning' issue, is difficult to give concrete answer. However, my own personal advice for the Mk6 would be to use normal 95 from the majors or Tesco, but every 4th tankfull, use any of the super unleadeds (and it wouldn't have to be just the 99 RON brews either - BP, Total, Esso - should all be fine).
HTH. :smiley:
-
out of interest - why is the MKVI GTI engine designed to run on 95RON??
Huh - did I not explain that earlier in the thread? :undecided:
Is it because of that fuel being more widely available?? Recent credit crunch issues?? :smiley:
Nope and nope! :tongue:
-
Lots of good advice on here... but ultimately you make the choice as to which fuel goes in, so if your looking for conclusive proof, then here is probably not the place your going to find it:nerd:
Hmmmm . . . whilst I generally agree with you - places like these can help make 'more informed' choices. It is no different to the 'which oil' issue - the book says you can use either 502.00 or 504.00 - but it doesn't tell you which is the BEST oil. :nerd:
-
Did you ? You explained about how its got base settings to use 95, not why they have decided to do this and not stick with the MK5s 98RON settings . . ?
What advantages does it bring to the user apart from the obvious saving in fuel cost in not needing to purchase "super" fuel?
-
out of interest - why is the MKVI GTI engine designed to run on 95RON??
Huh - did I not explain that earlier in the thread? :undecided:
nope just that the Audi developed engine is now set to use 95RON but not the WHY have they done that part :tongue:
-
Did you ? You explained about how its got base settings to use 95, not why they have decided to do this and not stick with the MK5s 98RON settings . . ?
Are you sure? Being is this thread is now 18 pages long, I certainly CBA to read through all that lot again! :tongue:
So . . . . basically, the reason the Mk6 (and just like this new TSI, and its 1.8 variants in Audis) can use 95 for maximum fuel economy is simply down to the fact that Audi must have made advances and improvements in the actual design and specification of this new engine. One of the most common ways is to improve the shape and profile of the combustion chamber through CFD - but unless you have a Mk5 and a Mk6 engine stripped down on the bench side by side - you aint gonna see it. More obvious improvements include a much higher fuel rail pressure - the Mk5 had a max of 110 bar, the Mk6 is 150 bar. Fuel injectors have improved too - Mk5 were five hole and Mk6 are six hole. And then there is the 'valvelift' system. Understand now? :smiley:
However, future developments of this engine, such as an Edition 35, or a Mk3 Audi S3 - when they start ramping up the power, may very well need to 'go back' to using a 98 brew. But for the 'standard' GTI - with its 'ballpark' 200 bhp - the boffins at Audi have achieved the 200 horses from just 95 brew.
Have I missed anything? :smiley:
-
So basically the reason they have done it is because they can, so why not.
I could pick your brains all day lol
-
So basically the reason they have done it is because they can, so why not.
Yup. But if I had said that - it wouldn't have satisfied you! :lipsrsealed:
I could pick your brains all day lol
Nob off!!! :grin: :kiss:
-
I have no idea at all why Alan was quoting from how the Mk5 was set up, in his (rather tetchy) answer to me who has a Mk6 on order (which is kind of why I was asking in the Mk6 forum), but we seem to be clearer now.
Rhyso has basically said what I was about to say, most of us on here are just trying to help. I dont know why I bother sometimes in this section. The reason it was such an abrupt reply is because I've actually lost count how many times you have asked the same poxy question with regards to fuel.
Look, I'm genuinely grateful for everyone's help. Sorry if I asked the question several times, but this is the first time I've had a definite reply. As the thread grew, the position just got more and more convoluted. I'd posted a couple of times that the brochure for the MkVI specifically said 95RON, but still people were talking as if the car was optimised for 98.
T_T has explained it so that even I can follow it, so thanks again to all.
Rolfe.
-
Group hugs and kisses :kiss:
-
:kiss: :kiss:
Rolfe.
-
Group hugs and kisses :kiss:
fcuk off - i hate you all :angry:
Just wait until JKM in October Alan
:kiss: :kiss: :kiss: :kiss: :kiss: :kiss:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
(which is kind of why I was asking in the Mk6 forum)
.....section not forum :tongue: :grin:
-
Whatever.... :rolleyes:
Rolfe.
-
Dan you gheeeeey !! :rolleyes: