GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk6 => Topic started by: gizzywizzy on 14 January 2010, 19:03
-
Where I live we only have the one petrol station and it provides 95ron only. I've been to the nearest town 30 minutes away but have even had a problem getting 98ron there.
My question is will I be doing irrepairable damage to my car? or will it be ok?
So far in 6 months ownership the car has only covered 1600 miles so am hoping the engine is still sound.
Gizzy
-
You been drinking Gizzy ?,i think your on about your Gti ? it is supposed to be run on 95 ron.
-
You been drinking Gizzy ?,i think your on about your Gti ? it is supposed to be run on 95 ron.
Lol, no I've not been drinking I'm using a laptop on my lap and it slipped when I was putting GTI in hence post reads GT.
Someone who has a mk6 GTI near me says I have to put in 98ron or higher to get performance from the car, I have only been able to put 95ron in that is why I was asking.
Look I am female!! I fill it up and off it goes (hopefully) I'm just checking against what I've been told. OK?
Gizzy
-
Sorry i did not realise you were a woman :kiss:,the mk6 gti engine is set up to run on 95 ron,so tell you friend he knows nothing :wink: there was quite along post on this a while back,if you read the inside of the fuel cap cover it says 95 ron.Save yourself some money and stick to 95
-
I remember that post.
Unfortunately I don't agree with the 'results'.
My car runs much better, is smoother and more economical with 99.
I filled up with 95 for the first 2000 miles or so (as that's what is on the filler cap flap). Then I tried 99, MUCH better.
No amount of 'but it's set up for 95' will convince me otherwise.
Just try it for yourselves.
By the way Gizzy you won't harm your car in any way at all by using 95. You'll just get a little less performance/economy.
-
Even the mk5 which was officially set up for 98 ron will run quite happily on 95 with no damage whatsoever except that as stated fuel economy and performance will suffer.
The way the FSI technology works means it will always work better with higher octane fuel. It stays in lean burn mode for longer and delivers more power when you push the pedal.
The mk6's have been designed to give the published fuel economy and performance on 95 as opposed to the mk5 engines which delivered the published power and economy on 98.
-
95 RON is fine for the MKVI GTI. 98 or 99 RON fuel will run better, giving slightly economy/performance.
No amount of 'but it's set up for 95' will convince me otherwise.
It's not set-up specifically for 95 - that's the whole point of FSI - it'll run on any unleaded over 95, but better on a higher octane rated fuel. :nerd:
I've tried regular supermarket brews (95), BP Ultimate 97 (?), V-Power (99) and Tesco Super (99) for extended periods. All were fine, but 99 fuels noticeably better than others. I can't feel a difference between V-power or Tesco Super.
-
Thanks all for your comments and advice.
If I can, I will at some point try 98 or higher just to compare.
Gizzy
-
Thanks all for your comments and advice.
If I can, I will at some point try 98 or higher just to compare.
Gizzy
It'll take 1-2 tankfulls of the jungle juice for the ECU to adapt the FSI to the better performance.
I'd recommend Tesco Super, purely because you can collect clubcard points on the fuel and/or get 5p off a litre if you spend upwards of £50 in store! :cool:
-
Thanks all for your comments and advice.
If I can, I will at some point try 98 or higher just to compare.
Gizzy
or better still actually use the car - under 300miles/month is doing more damage than whatever fuel you are using.
-
or better still actually use the car - under 300miles/month is doing more damage than whatever fuel you are using.
That depends on length, type and number of journeys.
-
or better still actually use the car - under 300miles/month is doing more damage than whatever fuel you are using.
How do you work that out? doesn't say in the handbook "By the way make sure you drive more than 300 miles a month or else!!!!"
-
or better still actually use the car - under 300miles/month is doing more damage than whatever fuel you are using.
How do you work that out? doesn't say in the handbook "By the way make sure you drive more than 300 miles a month or else!!!!"
IF you are using the car ona regular beasis then you can only be doing realtively short journeys incl cold starts, stop/start etc. If its a weekend toy then of course you may be doing one or two long journeys per month.
So far you've averaged around 9 miles per day.
-
"By the way make sure you drive more than 300 miles a month or else!!!!"
:grin: he he
-
or better still actually use the car - under 300miles/month is doing more damage than whatever fuel you are using.
Maybe the engine won't get to it's best but at least the other ancillaries will be getting regular use. Swings and roundabouts and not too much to worry about as there is the small matter of a 3 year warranty :laugh:
Anyway back on topic, my GTI has about 8k now Gizzy, I've used 95,97 and 98 octane and not noticed much difference in every day normal driving. Ragging it would be a different matter maybe but it runs just fine on 95.
-
Many thanks to you all, appreciated. :smiley:
-
Many thanks to you all, appreciated. :smiley:
-
Oh err!! don't know how i posted twice, and no i've not been drinking. :grin:
-
Oh err!! don't know how i posted twice, and no i've not been drinking. :grin:
You sure ? :grin:,i think gizzy you should stick to the 95 ron,you will save yourself money as you don`t seem the type to thrash the living day lights out of your car,with the gti its probably a placebo effect when using higher ron,there were some good videos on you tube done by fifth gear i think ?,it only really made a difference on the really high powered cars.
-
Yeah you're right, i'll thrash the car in the right circumstances! but it's not really the way i drive so yeah 95ron will do for me.
-
Oh err!! don't know how i posted twice, and no i've not been drinking. :grin:
You sure ? :grin:,i think gizzy you should stick to the 95 ron,you will save yourself money as you don`t seem the type to thrash the living day lights out of your car,with the gti its probably a placebo effect when using higher ron,there were some good videos on you tube done by fifth gear i think ?,it only really made a difference on the really high powered cars.
Not sure about the money saving bit. 98/99 will give you better mpg.
As I said earlier I am totally convinced the mk 6 GTI runs better on higher octane fuel.
It would be really good to get some rolling road results for the different octanes to show the doubters.
-
It would be really good to get some rolling road results for the different octanes to show the doubters.
Here you go:
http://www.thorneymotorsport.co.uk/tuning/Fuel_Test_Results.shtml (http://www.thorneymotorsport.co.uk/tuning/Fuel_Test_Results.shtml)
-
It would be really good to get some rolling road results for the different octanes to show the doubters.
Here you go:
http://www.thorneymotorsport.co.uk/tuning/Fuel_Test_Results.shtml (http://www.thorneymotorsport.co.uk/tuning/Fuel_Test_Results.shtml)
Interesting, my GTI friend was right the. I shall have to go eat humble pie.
-
Those tests are done on a dyno, and not on a mk6 GTI - therefore I maintain that VW are correct and it's perfectly okay to run 95RON in normal driving. :lipsrsealed:
Personally I do use the expensive stuff though as I'm running a 98RON map. :cool:
-
Those tests are done on a dyno, and not on a mk6 GTI - therefore I maintain that VW are correct and it's perfectly okay to run 95RON in normal driving. :lipsrsealed:
Personally I do use the expensive stuff though as I'm running a 98RON map. :cool:
Of course it is, thats not in question, its perfectly OK to run the mk5 GTI on 95 but you won't realise the engines full potential. With the mk6, the stated performace / economy figures are based on 95 ron fuel. Due to the way Fuel Stratified Injection works, the higher the ron rating, the better the economy and performace will be. This isn't necesserily true for 'old school' injection systems but it is for petrol direct injection.
Whether the cost of the higher ron cancells out any ecomomy gains is another matter.
Coming from a mk5 perspective: There is a big difference in performace when I've run on 95 - not particularly noticable at lower 'town' rpm's but very very noticable at the higher end of the rev range. The difference in fuel economy though was slight.
-
Those tests are done on a dyno, and not on a mk6 GTI - therefore I maintain that VW are correct and it's perfectly okay to run 95RON in normal driving. :lipsrsealed:
Personally I do use the expensive stuff though as I'm running a 98RON map. :cool:
Of course it is, thats not in question, its perfectly OK to run the mk5 GTI on 95 but you won't realise the engines full potential. With the mk6, the stated performace / economy figures are based on 95 ron fuel. Due to the way Fuel Stratified Injection works, the higher the ron rating, the better the economy and performace will be. This isn't necesserily true for 'old school' injection systems but it is for petrol direct injection.
Whether the cost of the higher ron cancells out any ecomomy gains is another matter.
Coming from a mk5 perspective: There is a big difference in performace when I've run on 95 - not particularly noticable at lower 'town' rpm's but very very noticable at the higher end of the rev range. The difference in fuel economy though was slight.
The old school injection on my Mk2 GTI was happier on 98 RON too, both in performance and economy.
I guess the Mk5 has to retard it's ignition timing when using 95 RON, hence the more noticeable drop in performance? Similarly, as the Mk6 is built to use the lower octane, it benefits more from remapping to run on 98 RON.
-
Those tests are done on a dyno, and not on a mk6 GTI - therefore I maintain that VW are correct and it's perfectly okay to run 95RON in normal driving. :lipsrsealed:
Personally I do use the expensive stuff though as I'm running a 98RON map. :cool:
Of course it is, thats not in question, its perfectly OK to run the mk5 GTI on 95 but you won't realise the engines full potential. With the mk6, the stated performace / economy figures are based on 95 ron fuel. Due to the way Fuel Stratified Injection works, the higher the ron rating, the better the economy and performace will be. This isn't necesserily true for 'old school' injection systems but it is for petrol direct injection.
Whether the cost of the higher ron cancells out any ecomomy gains is another matter.
Coming from a mk5 perspective: There is a big difference in performace when I've run on 95 - not particularly noticable at lower 'town' rpm's but very very noticable at the higher end of the rev range. The difference in fuel economy though was slight.
The old school injection on my Mk2 GTI was happier on 98 RON too, both in performance and economy.
I guess the Mk5 has to retard it's ignition timing when using 95 RON, hence the more noticeable drop in performance? Similarly, as the Mk6 is built to use the lower octane, it benefits more from remapping to run on 98 RON.
Indeed - I believe it does. There was a link to a very good explanation of what FSI was all about and why it made such a difference using high octane fuel but I cant find it at the moment. Whenever I tried 98 with my mk4 1.8T I could never really notice a difference - if anything it felt a little better on 95. But the change with the mk5 is very noticable.
Edit: found the explanation
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.
The above was written when the mk5 was released but is still relevant.
-
Edit: found the explanation
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.
So in the Mk5, NOx emissions mean that the injectors can't run in stratified (lean) mode as often when using 95 RON fuel and this is why fuel consumption increases. The lean burning means the ignition has to retard with 95 RON (to prevent detonation) and that is why power is reduced.
On the Mk6 presumably using 97-99 RON would have the same effects (increased power/economy), so 210bhp is just the starting point :smiley:
-
So in the Mk5, NOx emissions mean that the injectors can't run in stratified (lean) mode as often when using 95 RON fuel and this is why fuel consumption increases. The lean burning means the ignition has to retard with 95 RON (to prevent detonation) and that is why power is reduced.
On the Mk6 presumably using 97-99 RON would have the same effects (increased power/economy), so 210bhp is just the starting point :smiley:
Thats my view on it aswell. :smiley:
-
If using 98 ron was beneficial Vw would recommend you use it,if its more economical and you get higher performance then why don`t they tell you to use it?,its only more economical if the extra miles per gallon you get out weighs the price difference.The fact they say use 95 says it all.
-
Except Simon the evidence that has already been presented in this thread actually PROVES you're wrong.
-
The tests were not done on a MK6 GTI ,i agree you probably get a slight increase in bhp(very slight) and maybe one or two more miles to the gallon,but it is not more econmical,if you want to pay 10p a ltr extra for a minor increase in bhp thats fine,but it is costing you more money, otherwise they would never sell any 95ron and VW would tell you to use 98ron.
-
Simon, the test proved in two totally different vehicles that there is a marked difference. In addition given the information on FSI engines already provided it is clear that whilst they can be run on 95 and indeed some of the MKV GTIs have a stick that says run on 95 in the filler cap, they run better on 98/99.
In addition the PROOF I spoke of shows an increase of over 10% on the BHP figure!
In addition longer term it has been shown that you are more likely to have issues with the MKV engine if you've used 95.
There's no way I'd consider buying a performance vehicle and sticking 95 in. You're spending all that money on the car, spend a little more for quality fuel.
-
I tried some of the tesco super ul in my mk6 gti and to be honest i could not tell any difference,i was checking the tyre pressures on my 2.0ltr fsi touran today when i looked for the pressure amounts behind the fuel cap i noticed it had 98 in large bold and 95 in brackets,i`ve always used 95 in that.
-
So your argument is based on the totally unscientific approach of what you "feel" and you think that's more relevant than the tests linked to previously where they used calibrated equipment and were meticulous in their experiment?
Fair enough, not exactly what I'd call proof though!
-
So your argument is based on the totally unscientific approach of what you "feel" and you think that's more relevant than the tests linked to previously where they used calibrated equipment and were meticulous in their experiment?
Fair enough, not exactly what I'd call proof though!
Nope,thats not what i said all i will say is it can not be more econmical or there would be no need for the cheaper 95 that VW recommend
-
VW recommend a minimum of 95 RON. The mk6 will run just fine on that.
However if you want more bhp and mpg then you should use 98/99 RON.
It's up to you if you think it's worth it or not. To me it is.
-
Except Simon, we've seen evidence that there is a significant BHP improvement and in addition given how the FSI engine works, the higher octane fuel will improve economy. Whether improved economy and performance are worth the cost is up to the individual. However why buy a performance car and run it beneath its performance level?
-
i except the slight increases and your opinion,but the slightly better mpg does not out weigh the extra cost at the pump,or like i say there would be no need for 95 ron.
-
The combined benefit of more BHP and better economy (no matter how slight) is for the individual to decide, however although you can get by just fine using 95, 98/99 is far better.
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.
-
Listen, I am telling you all now the 99ron fuel from Shell or Tesco, DOES make a big difference to my GTI's performence, The pickup in the gears is alot quicker pulls though the range faster.
FACT,
-
If using 98 ron was beneficial Vw would recommend you use it,if its more economical and you get higher performance then why don`t they tell you to use it?,its only more economical if the extra miles per gallon you get out weighs the price difference.The fact they say use 95 says it all.
A lot of people weren't very happy that they 'had' to run their mk5's on the good stuff. Especially given that its not widely available once you get out of cities. Rural GTI owners felt slightly cheated that their cars couldn't make the 'stated' power / economy etc. VW addressed this and got more power and better economy in comparison to the mkv out of the cheaper petrol. Everyones happy. Doesn't mean you cant get more performance / economy by using higher ron petrol. :wink:
-
Doesn't mean you cant get more performance / economy by using higher ron petrol. :wink:
Agreed. Any car with ECU-controlled variable ignition timing, provided the map allows sufficient advance, will see gains in power and economy when using fuel with a higher octane rating.
-
Chaps. The Revo site states that "three performance modes, supported by Revo Select and Select Plus switches" for 95ron, 98ron and 100ron. If the ECU is capable of detecting and dealing with different fuel grades why do they offer the different maps?
-
Chaps. The Revo site states that "three performance modes, supported by Revo Select and Select Plus switches" for 95ron, 98ron and 100ron. If the ECU is capable of detecting and dealing with different fuel grades why do they offer the different maps?
Agreed. Any car with ECU-controlled variable ignition timing, provided the map allows sufficient advance, will see gains in power and economy when using fuel with a higher octane rating.
I am not an expert in ECU mapping, however I do know the ECU doesn't detect the fuel RON, it reacts to the consequences of using a particular octane rating within the limits of the ignition, fuelling and inlet pressure maps. Remember Revo are increasing boost pressure as well as fuelling and ignition advance, etc, so maybe they can take full advantage of the increased resistance to detonation of each higher RON fuel without being concerned that the owner might put a low octane fuel in.
But you'd have to talk to someone who plays with ECU's like Revo to get a proper answer.
-
As well as that, when VW sell the GTI it has a lot of compromises built into it to allow for poor quality fuel which may be availble in certain countries, the extremes of weather from one coutry to another, making it as reliable as possible given that some people maybe wont service it right etc etc. If you take away a lot of these uncertainties, good fuel, temperate climate, good servicing regime you can start to take away the compromises from the map that restricts power. Hence Revo.
Of course they do more than just cut out compromises but its much easier to write a focussed map when you assume your petrol quality is fixed and not floating from 95 to 100...