GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk7 => Topic started by: Hawaii-Five-O on 14 July 2013, 11:33
-
Can some of our lucky forum members check what fuel rating the new GTI is supposed to use? I think there should be a sticker on the inside of the fuel filler door (it is on my Scirocco which says 95 RON).
In the GTI PDF brochure it says the fuel grade to use is 95 RON (minimum). However, as it says minimum, does this mean the engine is variable and could benefit from using 98 RON?
-
95 on the filler cap.
I will try 97/98 on the next fill up to see if I notice any difference.
-
best running them on v-power :wink:
-
Watch this and see if you change your mind on your octane rating :wink:
Stick with it, it's fascinating :nerd:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9nhXNarFdg
(Link courtesy of p3asa)
-
And remember there is a part 2 also :laugh:
It does make some interesting viewing though.
-
The guy on the video makes total sense and you are wasting your money with anything more than 95. I agree I run 5 gti's on 99 then tried them all on 95. Made no difference whatsoever to driving or mileage, it's a complete waste of money.
-
The new EA888 has variable cam timing and height. From other things I've read I was lead to believe the higher octane fuels will have an effect on variable timing engines. From the video I guess this might be because varying the cam timing will adjust the compression ratio at the point of ignition (and cam height adjusts the mixture?). Can anyone confirm?
My main confusion is what is the mechanism the ECU uses to determine when to advance the timing? In other words how does it detect/know that the fuel is different? Presumably if your going to get better mpg then you need less fuel to be injected so how does the engine determine this?
Way back in my Chemistry A level I had to design a fuel which included maximising the octane while minimising the cost. From what I recall it was a lot more complex than just adding mtbe or whatever it was he mentioned in the vid. I'm wondering if in the US the fuel is not as complex. The UK fuel 95 or 97/99 had maybe 5-10 different components IIRC.
-
The guy on the video makes total sense and you are wasting your money with anything more than 95. I agree I run 5 gti's on 99 then tried them all on 95. Made no difference whatsoever to driving or mileage, it's a complete waste of money.
Mk5 does not have variable timing. Apples and oranges.
-
The guy on the video makes total sense and you are wasting your money with anything more than 95. I agree I run 5 gti's on 99 then tried them all on 95. Made no difference whatsoever to driving or mileage, it's a complete waste of money.
Mk5 does not have variable timing. Apples and oranges.
I Had 4 mark 5 gti's and had them all remapped and the ed30 had over 300bhp and it made no difference whatsoever. It is complete and utter tosh.
-
I also tried the same with my mk6 gti before remap and after remap, I even used asda petrol and it made no difference with fuel consumption or driving.
-
Quote from the manual
'The vehicle may be filled with petrol that has a higher octane number than the engine requires. However, this does not provide any advantage in terms of fuel consumption or engine output.'
The manual is generic though, not specific to the GTI.
I'll still give it a go and see for myself.
-
Quote from the manual
'The vehicle may be filled with petrol that has a higher octane number than the engine requires. However, this does not provide any advantage in terms of fuel consumption or engine output.'
The manual is generic though, not specific to the GTI.
I'll still give it a go and see for myself.
Yes mate and the guy is 100% right it makes no difference
-
Johnc, demonstrating that higher octane fuel has no discernible effect on non variable timing engines such as the mk5 and mk6 GTI says nothing about the effect it will or will not have on a variable timing engine such as the mk7.
I will find the link later but I have read a pretty scientific long term test where high octane was shown to give benefits to variable timing. Given that it does have an effect I'm trying to understand why it does (see my first post) and if this will apply to the mk7 or not.
-
Have to say, I've tried higher octane fuel in my Mk5 GTI, and in all honesty, if there is a difference, I didn't notice it. The mood you are in on any given day you drive your car will have far more impact on consumption etc. So yeah, for me, complete waste of cash that you'd be better off saving up to have proper engine and exhaust cleaning done.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQghB4asSnI
-
Guys I don't think you have understood the video at all. You keep talking about the mk5, 300hp, remaps etc... none of this is relevant. In addition a test involving a sample of 1 has no scientific validity, even if the detection was better than the feeling of the driver!
The mk7 engine is different. To determine if the 99 fuel will have an effect requires looking at that specific application, not the older, different engines.
High octane fuel has been demonstrated to give improvements in some vehicles (proof to follow when I get home) so the question is will it in the mk7 or not! The video demonstrates why this is not to be assumed to be the case in all vehicles but it is equally wrong to then assume this is not the case in any vehicle.
-
Guys I don't think you have understood the video at all. You keep talking about the mk5, 300hp, remaps etc... none of this is relevant. In addition a test involving a sample of 1 has no scientific validity, even if the detection was better than the feeling of the driver!
The mk7 engine is different. To determine if the 99 fuel will have an effect requires looking at that specific application, not the older, different engines.
High octane fuel has been demonstrated to give improvements in some vehicles (proof to follow when I get home) so the question is will it in the mk7 or not! The video demonstrates why this is not to be assumed to be the case in all vehicles but it is equally wrong to then assume this is not the case in any vehicle.
bill it does not matter if it is a different engine, the car is made to run on 95 so there is your answer, I think you are missing the point
-
The guy on the video makes total sense and you are wasting your money with anything more than 95. I agree I run 5 gti's on 99 then tried them all on 95. Made no difference whatsoever to driving or mileage, it's a complete waste of money.
why does r-tech ask for the car to be run on 98 after a map then :undecided:
-
Another thing to remember with the higher octane fuels is that they're supposed to be cleaner with various additives, this is the main reason i use v power, i used BP fuel save once (one tank) and there was a noticable difference in the way the car ran, whether or not it affected power output i don't know but it felt worse.
I sometimes use Tesco momentum as well and although it feels like it runs a little smoother there is noticably more carbon build up on the exhaust tips than when using v power, these are my own observations and the reasons v power is my prefered fuel.
Oh and Texaco fuel should be banned!! Absolute rubbish! >:(
-
The guy on the video makes total sense and you are wasting your money with anything more than 95. I agree I run 5 gti's on 99 then tried them all on 95. Made no difference whatsoever to driving or mileage, it's a complete waste of money.
why does r-tech ask for the car to be run on 98 after a map then :undecided:
We'll mate I have had every gti remapped and the latest was the ed35 and celtic tuning said it would make no difference. And I tried them all with 99 and 95 and it is complete and utter garbage, I booted the hole out of all my cars even with asda fuel and it was the exact same. So you can spout all your science at me, but with the 5gti and r32 I have found no difference whatsoever, so that is science enough. And my friend still has the 06 plate gti I sold him with over 100thousand miles with asda fuel and it runs perfect. So regards cleaning your engine with 99, no sorry don't see it myself
-
bill it does not matter if it is a different engine, the car is made to run on 95 so there is your answer, I think you are missing the point
I am suggesting that because of the variable timing the car may see improvements with higher octane. This is not the case on older GTIs. I would like to understand if that may is a will or a will not.
The guy on the video makes total sense and you are wasting your money with anything more than 95. I agree I run 5 gti's on 99 then tried them all on 95. Made no difference whatsoever to driving or mileage, it's a complete waste of money.
why does r-tech ask for the car to be run on 98 after a map then :undecided:
If r-tech changes the compression ratio it might need 98, or they might be telling porkies.
-
Another thing to remember with the higher octane fuels is that they're supposed to be cleaner with various additives, this is the main reason i use v power, i used BP fuel save once (one tank) and there was a noticable difference in the way the car ran, whether or not it affected power output i don't know but it felt worse.
I sometimes use Tesco momentum as well and although it feels like it runs a little smoother there is noticably more carbon build up on the exhaust tips than when using v power, these are my own observations and the reasons v power is my
Oh and Texaco fuel should be banned!! Absolute rubbish! >:(
Regarding the one tank fuel, they say that you would need at least 3 full tanks anyway at least to notice any difference with different fuels, unless there was a problem with the fuel itself, there is no way you could notice any difference on one tank
-
bill it does not matter if it is a different engine, the car is made to run on 95 so there is your answer, I think you are missing the point
I am suggesting that because of the variable timing the car may see improvements with higher octane. This is not the case on older GTIs. I would like to understand if that may is a will or a will not.
The guy on the video makes total sense and you are wasting your money with anything more than 95. I agree I run 5 gti's on 99 then tried them all on 95. Made no difference whatsoever to driving or mileage, it's a complete waste of money.
why does r-tech ask for the car to be run on 98 after a map then :undecided:
If r-tech changes the compression ratio it might need 98, or they might be telling porkies.
cant see them having the reputation they have with telling porkies :grin: so it must do something
-
bill it does not matter if it is a different engine, the car is made to run on 95 so there is your answer, I think you are missing the point
I am suggesting that because of the variable timing the car may see improvements with higher octane. This is not the case on older GTIs. I would like to understand if that may is a will or a will not.
The guy on the video makes total sense and you are wasting your money with anything more than 95. I agree I run 5 gti's on 99 then tried them all on 95. Made no difference whatsoever to driving or mileage, it's a complete waste of money.
why does r-tech ask for the car to be run on 98 after a map then :undecided:
If r-tech changes the compression ratio it might need 98, or they might be telling porkies.
cant see them having the reputation they have with telling porkies :grin: so it must do something
Like what? My first gti was remapped and as I said has over 100000 mile on it and still runs like a dream, it was remapped after 2000 miles
-
Cat amongst the pigeons. Hehe
I'm with Johnc41 and the original American video - 95 RON all the way "unless" we get conclusive proof that the new GTI Mk7 can take advantage of higher octane fuels using variable compression ratios :nerd:
-
bill it does not matter if it is a different engine, the car is made to run on 95 so there is your answer, I think you are missing the point
I am suggesting that because of the variable timing the car may see improvements with higher octane. This is not the case on older GTIs. I would like to understand if that may is a will or a will not.
The guy on the video makes total sense and you are wasting your money with anything more than 95. I agree I run 5 gti's on 99 then tried them all on 95. Made no difference whatsoever to driving or mileage, it's a complete waste of money.
why does r-tech ask for the car to be run on 98 after a map then :undecided:
If r-tech changes the compression ratio it might need 98, or they might be telling porkies.
We'll bill my friend has a new Audi with vvt and he says he has tried it and has noticed no difference in power of fuel consumption
[/quote]
-
Another thing to remember with the higher octane fuels is that they're supposed to be cleaner with various additives, this is the main reason i use v power, i used BP fuel save once (one tank) and there was a noticable difference in the way the car ran, whether or not it affected power output i don't know but it felt worse.
I sometimes use Tesco momentum as well and although it feels like it runs a little smoother there is noticably more carbon build up on the exhaust tips than when using v power, these are my own observations and the reasons v power is my
Oh and Texaco fuel should be banned!! Absolute rubbish! >:(
Regarding the one tank fuel, they say that you would need at least 3 full tanks anyway at least to notice any difference with different fuels, unless there was a problem with the fuel itself, there is no way you could notice any difference on one tank
Your obviously correct mate and your opinion is the only one that matters. ::)
Would this be the same "they" that say 99 Ron makes a difference?
-
Another thing to remember with the higher octane fuels is that they're supposed to be cleaner with various additives, this is the main reason i use v power, i used BP fuel save once (one tank) and there was a noticable difference in the way the car ran, whether or not it affected power output i don't know but it felt worse.
I sometimes use Tesco momentum as well and although it feels like it runs a little smoother there is
noticably more carbon build up on the exhaust tips than when using v power, these are my own observations and the reasons v power is my
Oh and Texaco fuel should be banned!! Absolute rubbish! >:(
Regarding the one tank fuel, they say that you would need at least 3 full tanks anyway at least to notice any difference with different fuels, unless there was a problem with the fuel itself, there is no way you could notice any difference on one tank
Your obviously correct mate and your opinion is the only one that matters. ::)
Sure mate whatever
-
I think Jimble your brain is playing tricks with you every time you fill up your car lol
-
John its still not clear to me what your mk5 running like a dream or your mates audi vvt have to do with the mk7 or octane, I'll be interested if you can explain the relevance.
I will gladly post some proof that some cars see improvement when I get home. The question is is the mk7 one of them.
-
I think Jimble your brain is playing tricks with you every time you fill up your car lol
who mapped your car :undecided:
-
I will gladly post some proof that some cars see improvement when I get home. The question is is the mk7 one of them.
Look forward to reading that Bill. I hope the new Mk7 GTI engine is documented so we can put this baby to rest. Can it, or can it not take advantage of higher octane fuels?
-
John its still not clear to me what your mk5 running like a dream or your mates audi vvt have to do with the mk7 or octane, I'll be interested if you can explain the relevance.
I will gladly post some proof that some cars see improvement when I get home. The question is is the mk7 one of them.
The point I was making was that the post said after a car was remapped it needed to be run on 98, but it does not as it made no difference to the gti I had remapped at 2000 miles to the power or fuel consumption or long term reliability. They keep going on about the 98 cleaning your engine but having used cheaper fuel for so long there is no prove it does. You are asking about vvt and I am telling you that in the Audi engine my friend has been trying tesco 99 and has seen no difference. So why would the gti be any better?
-
I think Jimble your brain is playing tricks with you every time you fill up your car lol
Must be! What i don't understand is how you think your right and i'm wrong? I feel a difference, you don't end of!
Enjoy! :-*
-
I think Jimble your brain is playing tricks with you every time you fill up your car lol
Must be! What i don't understand is how you think your right and i'm wrong? I feel a difference, you don't end of!
I am not saying you are wrong, but if your look at using any different fuel then they say it needs 3 full tanks to notice any difference.
-
I think Jimble your brain is playing tricks with you every time you fill up your car lol
who mapped your car :undecided:
All my cars mapped with celtic tuning
-
I think Jimble your brain is playing tricks with you every time you fill up your car lol
who mapped your car :undecided:
All my cars mapped with celtic tuning
an they never recommended you run it on better fuel :smiley:
-
I think Jimble your brain is playing tricks with you every time you fill up your car lol
who mapped your car :undecided:
All my cars mapped with celtic tuning
an they never recommended you run it on better fuel :smiley:
I have had 9 remapps done from Andy at Clydebank from celtic tuning and they have never ever told me to use better fuel, nor did superchips when the done the mark 6 gti said it would make no difference.
-
I think Jimble your brain is playing tricks with you every time you fill up your car lol
who mapped your car :undecided:
All my cars mapped with celtic tuning
an they never recommended you run it on better fuel :smiley:
I have had 9 remapps done from Andy at Clydebank from celtic tuning and they have never ever told me to use better fuel, nor did superchips when the done the mark 6 gti said it would make no difference.
must be why i drove from clydebank to r-tech then :grin: :grin: of coarse better fuel is better for your engine or why would race engine run 102ron
-
I think Jimble your brain is playing tricks with you every time you fill up your car lol
who mapped your car :undecided:
All my cars mapped with celtic tuning
an they never recommended you run it on better fuel :smiley:
I have had 9 remapps done from Andy at Clydebank from celtic tuning and they have never ever told me to use better fuel, nor did superchips when the done the mark 6 gti said it would make no difference.
must be why i drove from clydebank to r-tech then :grin: :grin: of coarse better fuel is better for your engine or why would race engine run 102ron
Mate go and watch the video that is posted, the point here is that if your gti is meant to run 95 then putting 99 in will make no difference to output or consumption, we are not talking about racing cars here. And out the of all the gti's I have had it makes no difference wether you use 99 or 95. It is all tosh
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQghB4asSnI
watch that then :whistle:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQghB4asSnI
watch that then :whistle:
I have seen this video and the mark 5 gti says better using 98' so you are missing the point the mark 6 was 95 recommended, and the point is it was made to run on 95' that why all the other cars in the video had no difference in fuel consumption as it was made to run on 95
-
I have never seen any difference in fuel consumption on the mark 5 unless you drove like a nun
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQghB4asSnI
watch that then :whistle:
I have seen this video and the mark 5 gti says better using 98' so you are missing the point the mark 6 was 95 recommended, and the point is it was made to run on 95' that why all the other cars in the video had no difference in fuel consumption as it was made to run on 95
but all cars had better torque figures an the gti an scoob had more bhp too
-
In my experience it makes no difference and is a complete waste of money, there is loads of videos on you tube that back up what I am saying, so it is a point that nobody is going to win. If you are happy with it then run your cars on it. But I will put in 95 like it says when you open the fuel lid and after a remap it will drive great just like all my gti's.
-
In my experience it makes no difference and is a complete waste of money, there is loads of videos on you tube that back up what I am saying, so it is a point that nobody is going to win. If you are happy with it then run your cars on it. But I will put in 95 like it says when you open the fuel lid and after a remap it will drive great just like all my gti's.
so you might be wrong then :laugh:
-
Lol no mate sorry I don't need videos to back up what I say, I have been driving gti's for years and I know that you are wasting your money mate sorry :smiley:
-
Lol no mate sorry I don't need videos to back up what I say, I have been driving gti's for years and I know that you are wasting your money mate sorry :smiley:
so have most of us on here its a golf forum :grin: :grin: but i will stick to v-power nitro in my car
-
Yeah mate I know most of us here have, but you are right because you watched that video so everyone go and get your v power and fly past me lol, enjoy mate :smiley:
-
Yeah might I know most of us here have, but you are right because you watched that video so everyone go and get your v power and fly past me lol, enjoy mate :smiley:
never once said im 100% right :smug: just posted the video to show different ppl say different things to the american
-
My mates S3 runs like a bag of sh!t on anything but the good stuff
-
My mates S3 runs like a bag of sh!t on anything but the good stuff
What is your S3's official RON rating Rhyso?
-
...My main confusion is what is the mechanism the ECU uses to determine when to advance the timing? In other words how does it detect/know that the fuel is different? Presumably if your going to get better mpg then you need less fuel to be injected so how does the engine determine this?
On my G40 which was custom mapped, the main thing to help the ecu back off the timing was the knock sensor.
I know I could push the settings that little bit further when I was running on 98RON, than the usual 95RON. Probably didnt make much difference with performance or economy, just piece of mind that I was well within what the ECU wanted or could do.
-
Chaps,
1. As p3asa's excellent video explains its pointless to assume a car will run better on high octane fuel. Unless the compression ratio is changed it won't matter.
2. There might, however, be other benefits.
3. As John and others have pointed out its often hard to see any difference suggesting if there is one its small.
However,
4. http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=302977 demonstrated on some cars with VVT improvements are seen scientifically. The new mk7 GTI is the first GTI with VVT so comparisons with mk5/6 don't apply, it's a different engine.
5. http://www.golfgtiforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=256725.msg2357665#msg2357665 suggests fuel economy and power should be up with the EA888 using high octane.
6. Remaps may or may not mean the fuel should be changed, depends on the compression ratio post remap.
7. It's gonna be hard to prove as we'd need large sample sizes to overcome variations due to driving style etc... Obviously we'll all have our opinions and will act on them but for proof we need more than 1 data point.
I guess a bunch of us using v-power or something could compare stats to a bunch on regular fuel. Or we could all just do what we want and forget about it. :whistle:
EDIT: forgot my conclusion...
The mk7 should benefit from high octane fuel in theory. There is little value using data based on other cars, you've got to look at the mk7 itself as its engine setup and ECU behaviour is specific to it. We can't prove the theory is correct without lots of data points, but we also can't just assume any benefits exist.
-
My mates S3 runs like a bag of sh!t on anything but the good stuff
What is your S3's official RON rating Rhyso?
Dunno. I dont own an S3 :grin:
Fairly sure its 98 though. Its virtually the same motor as in the E30 which im fairly sure is optimised for 98 ron
-
Interesting debate ... I guess it all depends on what VW recommend as the optimal fuel for the new GTI.
Sounds like this is 95 RON ?
However VW did recommend 98 RON for both the Mk 5 Edition 30 and Mk 6 Golf R so I think that's where the confusion lies. 95 RON would work OK in these engines, but the ECU retarded the ignition.
5th Gear tested the Mk 6 Gti ED 35 with loads of different petrol last year and Vpower came out on top with the greater bhp on a rolling road, but VBH couldn't sense it while driving :grin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTaBngvsPrc
Here's a summary :-
Five fuels tested on a Golf GTi ED 35 and BHP measured on a rolling road
Results :-
1. Shell V-Power 240.9 bhp
2. Esso Supreme 240.5 bhp
3. BP Ultimate 236.7 bhp
4. BP (95 RON) 236.1 bhp
5. Asda (95 RON) 235.8 bhp
My Mk 6 Golf R sticker :-
(http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i64/Jerry_G/FuelCap.jpg)
Thorney Motorsport did a lot of fuel testing a few years ago and VPower and Tesco 99 always gave slightly better bhp on a measured dynanometer :
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motoring/high-octane-equals-better-mpg
-
Interesting debate ... I guess it all depends on what VW recommend as the optimal fuel for the new GTI.
Sounds like this is 95 RON ?
However VW did recommend 98 RON for both the Mk 5 Edition 30 and Mk 6 Golf R so I think that's where the confusion lies. 95 RON would work OK in these engines, but the ECU retarded the ignition.
5th Gear tested the Mk 6 Gti with loads of different petrol last year and Vpower came out on top with the greater bhp on a rolling road, but VBH couldn't sense it while driving :grin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTaBngvsPrc
My Mk 6 Golf R sticker :-
(http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i64/Jerry_G/FuelCap.jpg)
Thorney Motorsport did a lot of fuel testing a few years ago and VPower and Tesco 99 always gave slightly better bhp on a measured dynanometer :
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motoring/high-octane-equals-better-mpg
Yes they did but did you read all the forum, they fell out with tesco and are now telling people not to use tesco 99. And you are right about the mk6 r with 98. The mark 6 gti engine E888 engine was different to the r and recommended 95 Ron
-
Just shows you the difference the fuels make in terms of bhp. Ill be using v power and nothing else.
-
Yes they did but did you read all the forum, they fell out with tesco and are now telling people not to use tesco 99. And you are right about the mk6 r with 98. The mark 6 gti engine E888 engine was different to the r and recommended 95 Ron
Yes, I know. Tesco dropped them as a sponsor and they fell out. it could have been sour grapes some say :grin: :wink:
-
Interesting debate ... I guess it all depends on what VW recommend as the optimal fuel for the new GTI.
Sounds like this is 95 RON ?
However VW did recommend 98 RON for both the Mk 5 Edition 30 and Mk 6 Golf R so I think that's where the confusion lies. 95 RON would work OK in these engines, but the ECU retarded the ignition.
5th Gear tested the Mk 6 Gti ED 35 with loads of different petrol last year and Vpower came out on top with the greater bhp on a rolling road, but VBH couldn't sense it while driving :grin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTaBngvsPrc
Here's a summary :-
Five fuels tested on a Golf GTi ED 35 and BHP measured on a rolling road
Results :-
1. Shell V-Power 240.9 bhp
2. Esso Supreme 240.5 bhp
3. BP Ultimate 236.7 bhp
4. BP (95 RON) 236.1 bhp
5. Asda (95 RON) 235.8 bhp
My Mk 6 Golf R sticker :-
(http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i64/Jerry_G/FuelCap.jpg)
Thorney Motorsport did a lot of fuel testing a few years ago and VPower and Tesco 99 always gave slightly better bhp on a measured dynanometer :
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motoring/high-octane-equals-better-mpg
That is one clean filler cap JonnyG
-
I really can't see improved performance for using RON 98 fuel when the car is optimised for RON 95. If it ran better on RON 98 then VW would be recommending the use of RON 98. Not saying RON 98 will do any harm, it's likely money for nowt though. Shoe on the other foot, running RON 95 on a car rated RON 98 (recommended) will result in slightly reduced functionality (power/economy). I wonder whether VAG has dropped to 95 recommended for newer engines following the misfire issues on the 1.4TSI (twin charge 160PS) leading to cracked piston crowns when using RON 95 (recommended RON 98). VAG seem to be ditching it for the 1.8TSI (turbo only) on cars with enough room under the bonnet to accomodate it (A1, Ibiza and Polo retain the 1.4TSI for the performance models).
-
I really can't see improved performance for using RON 98 fuel when the car is optimised for RON 95. If it ran better on RON 98 then VW would be recommending the use of RON 98. Not saying RON 98 will do any harm, it's likely money for nowt though. Shoe on the other foot, running RON 95 on a car rated RON 98 (recommended) will result in slightly reduced functionality (power/economy). I wonder whether VAG has dropped to 95 recommended for newer engines following the misfire issues on the 1.4TSI (twin charge 160PS) leading to cracked piston crowns when using RON 95 (recommended RON 98). VAG seem to be ditching it for the 1.8TSI (turbo only) on cars with enough room under the bonnet to accomodate it (A1, Ibiza and Polo retain the 1.4TSI for the performance models).
Totally agree
-
VW don't recommend using 95ron, it's a minimum requirement....
(http://i762.photobucket.com/albums/xx265/blaarp1/d248ee924f01b5e9fd7968750a249084_zps6c43bc3b.jpg)
-
VW don't recommend using 95ron, it's a minimum requirement....
[img width=736 height=981]http://i762.photobucket.com/albums/xx265/blaarp1/d248ee924f01b5e9fd7968750a249084_zps6c43bc3b.jpg[/
We'll I am sure they would recommend 98 just like the mk5 if it was better
-
So why did they "recommend" 98 for the mk5 then?
-
I really can't see improved performance for using RON 98 fuel when the car is optimised for RON 95. If it ran better on RON 98 then VW would be recommending the use of RON 98. Not saying RON 98 will do any harm, it's likely money for nowt though. Shoe on the other foot, running RON 95 on a car rated RON 98 (recommended) will result in slightly reduced functionality (power/economy). I wonder whether VAG has dropped to 95 recommended for newer engines following the misfire issues on the 1.4TSI (twin charge 160PS) leading to cracked piston crowns when using RON 95 (recommended RON 98). VAG seem to be ditching it for the 1.8TSI (turbo only) on cars with enough room under the bonnet to accomodate it (A1, Ibiza and Polo retain the 1.4TSI for the performance models).
I currently run a 1.4 TSI 160PS Turbo/Supercharger engine and it clearly states the use if 95 RON inside the filler cap, not 98 RON as you suggest. I've run it for four year on 95 RON its never misfired once.
-
So why did they "recommend" 98 for the mk5 then?
It was made to run on 98 the mk5, if you look you will see that they changed the new engine in the mk6 to run on Ron 95 as it said on my fuel lid, to save money on pointless 98
-
I really can't see improved performance for using RON 98 fuel when the car is optimised for RON 95. If it ran better on RON 98 then VW would be recommending the use of RON 98. Not saying RON 98 will do any harm, it's likely money for nowt though. Shoe on the other foot, running RON 95 on a car rated RON 98 (recommended) will result in slightly reduced functionality (power/economy). I wonder whether VAG has dropped to 95 recommended for newer engines following the misfire issues on the 1.4TSI (twin charge 160PS) leading to cracked piston crowns when using RON 95 (recommended RON 98). VAG seem to be ditching it for the 1.8TSI (turbo only) on cars with enough room under the bonnet to accomodate it (A1, Ibiza and Polo retain the 1.4TSI for the performance models).
I currently run a 1.4 TSI 160PS Turbo/Supercharger engine and it clearly states the use if 95 RON inside the filler cap, not 98 RON as you suggest. I've run it for four year on 95 RON its never misfired once.
That issue mainly affected people who flitted between 95 and 98, and some of them had coilpack issues too. VAG are definitely moving away from the 1.4 twin-charge where it is practical for them to do so (size constraints willing). Not saying they were all bad, or even most, but a higher than normal level of issues with that engine. The same misfiring issues were virtually unseen with the 2.0TSI 200/210PS engine.
-
If VW state 95 as a minimum (which they do) but do not recommend 98 in any of their brochure material, then I think it's safe to assume that output, mpg and CO2 figures are based on RON 95 fuel use. If you could get higher output or mpg with the routine use of RON 98, i'd expect VW to be making that clear in their literature (quite prominently), hence i've assumed no benefits of using RON 98 fuel.
-
So why did they "recommend" 98 for the mk5 then?
In the old MK5 brochures said Fuel grade, minimum:
5) 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 FSI engine, Ultra Low Sulphur Petrol (ULSP) must be used.
However the cap had a big 98 RON label.
-
If VW state 95 as a minimum (which they do) but do not recommend 98 in any of their brochure material, then I think it's safe to assume that output, mpg and CO2 figures are based on RON 95 fuel use. If you could get higher output or mpg with the routine use of RON 98, i'd expect VW to be making that clear in their literature (quite prominently), hence i've assumed no benefits of using RON 98 fuel.
I don't think anyone would mention it in their brochures because it would be hard to clarify any claims, I think they say minimum 95 but I am pretty sure in any high performance turbo engine, 98 Ron would give slightly higher power output because it burns hotter than 95. I don't know the science but I used to run my fiat coupe turbo on 98 when I could and it ran smoother and faster, it might be that these days it makes little difference.. I think it is also cleaner for the engine than 95 because of the higher temperatures.. I think modern ecu can identify the Ron rating and adapt the engine to optimize output.
That's my understanding but maybe I am deluded :laugh:
-
It remains engine specific;
Old EA113 RON 98
New EA888 RON 95
Search for bpy_10-00.pdf in Google
-
The manual isn't going to be doing anything but stating the minimum because the purpose is simply to tell you how to operate the vehicle. VW don't have the capability to acquire and test all the different potential fuels their customers might use (which might even change in the future) and discuss the possible pros and cons, its not what they get paid for either so why would they even try? They're just stating the minimum octane number for the engine's compression ratio.
-
Thanks Bill, I knew I had seen the "evidence" somewhere!
Look in your manuals everyone, here is the EA113 from the MK5
(http://ds.dial.pipex.com/prod/dialspace/town/parade/aq57/car/ea113.JPG)
I suspect the MK6 will state JUST 95.
Can someone with a MK7 look please?
-
I'll take a look in a while...
98-Ron petrol isn't even available here in the ROI as far as I know!
-
Read another article (American Car and Driver I think). Couple of caveats first. Its US fuel (if you can call it that), and they seemed interested in power only and don't mention or test mpg.
The key points, firstly regarding engines designed to be able to run on "regular" (which for Americans seems to be 85-87 :shocked:) as opposed to "premium" (which is a measly 91!):
in some engines designed for regular fuel, you can advance the timing if you burn premium, but whether this will yield additional power varies from engine to engine.
Regarding how the engine sensors detect the octane:
Relying on these sensors, the engine controller can keep each cylinder's spark timing advanced right to the hairy edge of knock, providing peak efficiency on any fuel
...
only a few vehicles calibrated for regular fuel can advance timing beyond their nominal ideal setting when burning premium.
And their track and road testing results:
Our tests confirm that for most cars there is no compelling reason to buy more expensive fuel than the factory recommends, as any performance gain realized will surely be far less than the percentage hike in price.
So still inconclusive. Regarding power (with sh!tty US fuel and presumably engines that expect it) you don't get any gains in non performance or in older tech cars. No tests were done on something similar to the GTI though.
Regarding the science, it seems to me that technically the GTI engine can make use of the higher octane fuel, but again any power or mpg (or cleaning) improvements are unproven and even if they exist do they cover the higher fuel cost? We just don't know.
EDIT:
Also does anyone know how the hell they get away with 91 in the US? Their premium is significantly worse than the worst EU fuel. Seems mad. Also makes it hard to get decent info because I'm actually highly sceptical about how much of this will apply to our situation.
-
Read another article (American Car and Driver I think). Couple of caveats first. Its US fuel (if you can call it that), and they seemed interested in power only and don't mention or test mpg.
The key points, firstly regarding engines designed to be able to run on "regular" (which for Americans seems to be 85-87 :shocked:) as opposed to "premium" (which is a measly 91!):
I suppose we have to get something for our exra £4 a gallon! :whistle:
-
I suppose we have to get something for our exra £4 a gallon! :whistle:
Yeah. While I was browsing around I came across this US motorist being interviewed:
So yeah, we’re at $69 for 15 gallons of gas. It’s getting kind of crazy. I’m still kind of going, oh boy, am I really doing this?
Right, so that is 70p per litre you're paying there. Half the cost we pay. :huh: Not to mention you can buy your GTI for half what we pay too... (though like with their fuel its an inferior car too).
Fuel should cost 80p per litre, that is what it cost when I started driving. All this tax they charge is BS. It never should have gone over £1 and all the howling and screaming back when it did looks almost comical as each week I pay £1.40 now. We all stand there at the pumps. In silence. An impotent rage slowly boiling beneath the surface as we hand our plastic money over and for the thousandth time explain that we do not have a spy loyalty card.
And another thing, why must I pay VAT on fuel duty?
-
I suppose we have to get something for our exra £4 a gallon! :whistle:
Yeah. While I was browsing around I came across this US motorist being interviewed:
So yeah, we’re at $69 for 15 gallons of gas. It’s getting kind of crazy. I’m still kind of going, oh boy, am I really doing this?
Right, so that is 70p per litre you're paying there. Half the cost we pay. :huh: Not to mention you can buy your GTI for half what we pay too... (though like with their fuel its an inferior car too).
Fuel should cost 80p per litre, that is what it cost when I started driving. All this tax they charge is BS. It never should have gone over £1 and all the howling and screaming back when it did looks almost comical as each week I pay £1.40 now. We all stand there at the pumps. In silence. An impotent rage slowly boiling beneath the surface as we hand our plastic money over and for the thousandth time explain that we do not have a spy loyalty card.
And another thing, why must I pay VAT on fuel duty?
Now when I have to replace a tyre it doesn't seem so expensive - it's less than 2 tanks of Diesel per tyre.
It's worse when they ask you whether you want a VAT receipt at the filling station. VAT receipt? I F!%@ing wish someone else was paying for it!
-
The way the Americans measure RON and the Europeans is different. Look it up on wikipedia - it has it right for once.
-
Here is the MK6 one which basically says, whatever it says on the fuel lid.
In the bottom right it then states, any higher octane will have no effect on performance or economy.
(http://www.thewindinglane.co.uk/images/mk6gti/misc/fuel.jpg)
-
Right, I looked through the MK7 GTI manual and I couldn't find any table like the above in it. All I found was this:
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y171/joeA3/GTI/null_zpsc38d3a24.jpg) (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/joeA3/media/GTI/null_zpsc38d3a24.jpg.html)
And inside the fuel flap:
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y171/joeA3/GTI/null_zps8609ab67.jpg) (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/joeA3/media/GTI/null_zps8609ab67.jpg.html)
-
And inside the fuel flap:
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y171/joeA3/GTI/null_zps8609ab67.jpg) (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/joeA3/media/GTI/null_zps8609ab67.jpg.html)
Nice work Joe. That's all the proof we need. 95RON it is (using 98 or 99 will offer no advantage in terms of fuel economy or engine output).
Nuff said.
-
Cheers Joe. That's all the proof we need. 95RON it is!
Unfortunately not for a few reasons:
1. How would you reconcile this with tests showing mpg or power improvements? Obviously the mk7 GTI has not been tested... so you might reconcile it that way.
2. Frankly this should be viewed as a disclaimer put into (all?) manuals, rather than a definitive engineering comment. Looking at this realistically, who even writes the manuals and how concerned would that person be with ensuring that they have up to date accurate information on the effect of a wide range of available premium fuels, vs not getting sued for making false claims? What would you do in this situation, copy the safe statement from the mk6 manual or refuse to sign off on anything until a comprehensive test was done on a range of premium fuels? I don't think we can consider this to be a comment on high octane because that is not its purpose so it would be wrong and misleading to look at it like that.
3. There are other (advertised) benefits than mpg or power.
I remain unconvinced that the high octane fuels will be benefit to the mk7 GTI, it just hasn't been proven, but there has been no convincing argument to say they would not have any benefit thus far either! However, given this situation I'm leaning toward sticking with 95 rather than my previous thought to go with a premium brand, but I'm not 100% decided either way yet. I wish I could do a real world test myself... but that would be only one data point.
-
Once again, perhaps best not to over-think it - I know that's difficult for you guys waiting 6 months for your cars :laugh:
I ran a MKV GTI for 4 years and only ever used 95 RON (mainly cos that's all you can get here). The car never missed a beat and never felt lacking in performance. Actually, on a trip north, I did fill it with "premium" and noticed no difference whatsoever.
-
At last all the prove that we need from vw stating what most of us were talking about. Glad it is cleared up Joe. 95 Ron as the tin says :smiley:
-
At last all the prove that we need from vw stating what most of us were talking about. Glad it is cleared up Joe. 95 Ron as the tin says :smiley:
Dude, you've stated your opinion very firmly and if you want to pick a piece of evidence that you interpret as supporting your view and then to consider it the last word in confirmation that your view is right then that is up to you. Its bloody bad science and awful logic mind you, but if that's what makes you happy... Make the theory fit the facts, not the facts to fit the theory.
Joe, you're probably right about taking this too seriously.
-
At last all the prove that we need from vw stating what most of us were talking about. Glad it is cleared up Joe. 95 Ron as the tin says :smiley:
Dude, you've stated your opinion very firmly and if you want to pick a piece of evidence that you interpret as supporting your view and then to consider it the last word in confirmation that your view is right then that is up to you. Its bloody bad science and awful logic mind you, but if that's what makes you happy... Make the theory fit the facts, not the facts to fit the theory.
Joe, you're probably right about taking this too seriously.
No disrespect Bill but having done my own tests over the last 10years regarding this topic I make my judgement on what I find not on science. And the fact that vw make the car in the first place, I am more likely to believe what they are telling me as to regards of what fuel I put in my car. I have always been a firm believer that unless your car asks for 98 then it is ridiculous to put it in your car in the first place. And yes it is just my opinion
-
Right, I looked through the MK7 GTI manual and I couldn't find any table like the above in it. All I found was this:
And inside the fuel flap:
Thanks Joe, my pic came from a separate booklet called technical data, does the MK7 one, it looks like this;
(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/VW-Golf-Technical-Data-Manual-Glove-Box-/00/s/MTYwMFgxMTk1/z/HpgAAOxyY9VRREku/$T2eC16JHJIYE9qUcNbEdBRREkuE3q!~~60_35.JPG)
-
There is no separate booklet. I have one thick manual and just 2 smaller booklets for Service schedule and the Radio / Nav.
-
No disrespect Bill but having done my own tests over the last 10years regarding this topic I make my judgement on what I find not on science. And the fact that vw make the car in the first place, I am more likely to believe what they are telling me as to regards of what fuel I put in my car. I have always been a firm believer that unless your car asks for 98 then it is ridiculous to put it in your car in the first place. And yes it is just my opinion
I will bow to your tests then as I've not done any myself. You're probably right about not using it if the car doesn't ask for it. Its the question of if you do use it does it have any effect that I don't think we've answered.
-
I think this needs to be said again as reading a few posts folks are still referring to their mk 4, 5 + 6 GTIs.
Previous generation golfs will not see any performance differences when increasing the octane of the fuel as they do not have variable valve timing. You cannot base your response to the OPs question on your experiences with these engines.
You need variable valve timing to take advantage of a higher octane fuel. This allows the ECU to advance the spark, burning the fuel faster/sooner and hence the valves have to keep up.
The new GTI has variable valve timing and so will see an improvement from higher octane fuel. ( the manual above is obviously an arse covering/default bit of writing )
All engines that can vary the timing of the valves and the firing of cylinders will produces more power with a higher octane fuel - up to the limits of how much advance the engine can physically produce (200 octane fuel is probably a waste)
Whether the increase in power is significant is the question. I suspect not in the new gti. 4 cylinders and 2 l only, there is not that much more energy being released. The more cylinders and the greater the volume the greater the increase.
There is no replacement for displacement!
-
I have no idea about mpg effects. I do not know enough about the different types of injection and their effects on economy. Ill get the books out.
-
I think this needs to be said again as reading a few posts folks are still referring to their mk 4, 5 + 6 GTIs.
Previous generation golfs will not see any performance differences when increasing the octane of the fuel as they do not have variable valve timing. You cannot base your response to the OPs question on your experiences with these engines.
You need variable valve timing to take advantage of a higher octane fuel. This allows the ECU to advance the spark, burning the fuel faster/sooner and hence the valves have to keep up.
The new GTI has variable valve timing and so will see an improvement from higher octane fuel. ( the manual above is obviously an arse covering/default bit of writing )
All engines that can vary the timing of the valves and the firing of cylinders will produces more power with a higher octane fuel - up to the limits of how much advance the engine can physically produce (200 octane fuel is probably a waste)
Whether the increase in power is significant is the question. I suspect not in the new gti. 4 cylinders and 2 l only, there is not that much more energy being released. The more cylinders and the greater the volume the greater the increase.
There is no replacement for displacement!
200 octane fuel would undoubtedly shag the engine - it is aviation fuel (Avgas).
Octane rating is a measure of how far you can compress the fuel mix before it ignites without a spark. Compress a low octane fuel too far and the compression ignites it (like diesel ignition) out of sync with the engine, causing your "knocking".
Higher octane fuels are of benefit to engines with a higher compression ratio - compressing the gas further and then igniting it to get a bigger expansion on ignition. Using RON98 in a car optimised for 95 just means that when it is compressed as far as the engine will let it and then you ignite it via modified timing, you will get your combustion. A car running RON 98 when it is optimised with RON95 will be inefficient because the compression ratio will not be as high for the fuel/air mix. Less compression means a less energetic ignition - don't forget it is expansion of ignited gases which powers your car. Less expansion (because the compression ratio was lower prior to ignition) means less power. Try sitting on a balloon to pop it - it makes a bang. Try sitting on a balloon with more air in it (higher compression ratio) - it makes a bigger bang.
Higher octane fuels are all about increased efficiency in higher output engines that are designed to take advantage of the higher resistance to compression ignition.
If VW could show gains of any kind (power or efficiency) in using RON 98/99, they'd be boasting about it and encouraging you to use RON98, but letting you know that if you can only get hold of RON95 then the car will do fine with it.
I do wonder whether anyone's ever looked into sparkless petrol combustion - running the car like a diesel, purely on compression for ignition, like controlled and in-sync "knocking". Maybe petrol is a little more unpredicatable exactly when it is going to ignite under compression.
-
I think this needs to be said again as reading a few posts folks are still referring to their mk 4, 5 + 6 GTIs.
Previous generation golfs will not see any performance differences when increasing the octane of the fuel as they do not have variable valve timing. You cannot base your response to the OPs question on your experiences with these engines.
You need variable valve timing to take advantage of a higher octane fuel. This allows the ECU to advance the spark, burning the fuel faster/sooner and hence the valves have to keep up.
The new GTI has variable valve timing and so will see an improvement from higher octane fuel. ( the manual above is obviously an arse covering/default bit of writing )
All engines that can vary the timing of the valves and the firing of cylinders will produces more power with a higher octane fuel - up to the limits of how much advance the engine can physically produce (200 octane fuel is probably a waste)
Whether the increase in power is significant is the question. I suspect not in the new gti. 4 cylinders and 2 l only, there is not that much more energy being released. The more cylinders and the greater the volume the greater the increase.
There is no replacement for displacement!
200 octane fuel would undoubtedly shag the engine - it is aviation fuel (Avgas).
Octane rating is a measure of how far you can compress the fuel mix before it ignites without a spark. Compress a low octane fuel too far and the compression ignites it (like diesel ignition) out of sync with the engine, causing your "knocking".
Higher octane fuels are of benefit to engines with a higher compression ratio - compressing the gas further and then igniting it to get a bigger expansion on ignition. Using RON98 in a car optimised for 95 just means that when it is compressed as far as the engine will let it and then you ignite it via modified timing, you will get your combustion. A car running RON 98 when it is optimised with RON95 will be inefficient because the compression ratio will not be as high for the fuel/air mix. Less compression means a less energetic ignition - don't forget it is expansion of ignited gases which powers your car. Less expansion (because the compression ratio was lower prior to ignition) means less power. Try sitting on a balloon to pop it - it makes a bang. Try sitting on a balloon with more air in it (higher compression ratio) - it makes a bigger bang.
Higher octane fuels are all about increased efficiency in higher output engines that are designed to take advantage of the higher resistance to compression ignition.
If VW could show gains of any kind (power or efficiency) in using RON 98/99, they'd be boasting about it and encouraging you to use RON98, but letting you know that if you can only get hold of RON95 then the car will do fine with it.
I do wonder whether anyone's ever looked into sparkless petrol combustion - running the car like a diesel, purely on compression for ignition, like controlled and in-sync "knocking". Maybe petrol is a little more unpredicatable exactly when it is going to ignite under compression.
Totally agree with you, why would vw put 95ron and tell you that it is pointless using 98ron, I am sure they would know. And the reason people are talking about the mark 5 is because vw did recommend 98 for that car. So there is your answer.
-
Johnc41, please have a read about this subject you are obviously missing things still. An engine can be tuned for 95RON or 98RON or 102RON or whatever. If a non VVT engine is tuned for 95RON it will not produce an improvement with 98RON. If an non VVT engine is tuned for 98RON it will not perform better with 102RON but WILL perform WORSE with 95RON.
The mk6 engine is the same as the mk5, but the valve timings were tuned to 95RON but the charge was altered (increase in boost amongst other tweeks) to produce the power increase.
Monkeyhanger, yes i know 200 octane fuel is not for car use it was an exaggeration to the extreme for explanation purposes.
Good explanation of octane rating, to complete it i wanted to add that 95RON fuel in a 98RON tuned engine will potentially ignite early as the compression will be higher than the 95RON fuel is 'designed' for.
They are developing a compression only petrol engine its called homogeneous charge compression ignition HCCI. The problem is the conditions inside the cylinder vary a lot (pressure, temperature etc) and as you said the higher volatility of petroleum makes it difficult to control (you have to actively alter the charge, which is hard to do in real time), and the compression ratios are sky high, and require ridiculously strong blocks, pistons etc.
As to why VW aren't boasting about an increase in power, it might as the increase is so small that it is statistically insignificant. Or that the power produced by engine with 98RON fuel is stepping on the toes of some of the more expensive VAG range.....
-
Johnc41, please have a read about this subject you are obviously missing things still. An engine can be tuned for 95RON or 98RON or 102RON or whatever. If a non VVT engine is tuned for 95RON it will not produce an improvement with 98RON. If an non VVT engine is tuned for 98RON it will not perform better with 102RON but WILL perform WORSE with 95RON.
The mk6 engine is the same as the mk5, but the valve timings were tuned to 95RON but the charge was altered (increase in boost amongst other tweeks) to produce the power increase.
Monkeyhanger, yes i know 200 octane fuel is not for car use it was an exaggeration to the extreme for explanation purposes.
Good explanation of octane rating, to complete it i wanted to add that 95RON fuel in a 98RON tuned engine will potentially ignite early as the compression will be higher than the 95RON fuel is 'designed' for.
They are developing a compression only petrol engine its called homogeneous charge compression ignition HCCI. The problem is the conditions inside the cylinder vary a lot (pressure, temperature etc) and as you said the higher volatility of petroleum makes it difficult to control (you have to actively alter the charge, which is hard to do in real time), and the compression ratios are sky high, and require ridiculously strong blocks, pistons etc.
As to why VW aren't boasting about an increase in power, it might as the increase is so small that it is statistically insignificant. Or that the power produced by engine with 98RON fuel is stepping on the toes of some of the more expensive VAG range.....
I am not missing any point, the point is that vw have said you will get no more power or consumption from the mk7 gti with 98 Ron. What else do you want to dispute, it is there in black and white.
They make the car so I am sure they have a better idea than all the inconclusive bs tests we have to endure. Sorry but I will just put in my new gti what vw have advised.
-
The dispute is that VW have lots of motives for not declaring that the higher octane fuel increases the power and that engines of the design in the new GTi produce more power with higher octane fuel.
You stick with what the manual says and be happy.
For those of us that are interested, we will just have to rolling road the car with the different fuel grades to find out conclusively. I predict 15bhp maximum power increase from 95ron to 98ron at the same conditions. 230 > 245 bhp maximum.
-
You stick with what the manual says and be happy.
He is interpreting the comment in the manual to back his opinion and is blind that it might be interpreted in another way. I think if someone was really in search of the truth they'd consider it more carefully, but if they just want to feel comfortable with a decision already made thats fine...
We still lack conclusive proof of course.
-
You stick with what the manual says and be happy.
He is interpreting the comment in the manual to back his opinion and is blind that it might be interpreted in another way. I think if someone was really in search of the truth they'd consider it more carefully, but if they just want to feel comfortable with a decision already made thats fine...
We still lack conclusive proof of course.
No Bill sorry as I told you before I don't need any manual to back up my opinion. And the bottom line Bill is if you are so interested in performance and miles per gallon, then get a remap as I have done and for the £300 you will get proper performance and mpg. Even if your wonderful science does work and you did get bit more performance, in the real world the gains are so insignificant that you would be very very hard pushed to notice the difference. One thing you are correct about is that Joe is right,we are looking into it far to deep.
-
The dispute is that VW have lots of motives for not declaring that the higher octane fuel increases the power and that engines of the design in the new GTi produce more power with higher octane fuel.
You stick with what the manual says and be happy.
For those of us that are interested, we will just have to rolling road the car with the different fuel grades to find out conclusively. I predict 15bhp maximum power increase from 95ron to 98ron at the same conditions. 230 > 245 bhp maximum.
[/
I will mate and save myself money and get a remap and notice significant changes not bs changes that I would never notice in the real world.
-
Johnc41, How long you gonna wait until you remap? Do you use someone local to you in Scotland? Can you switch your remap off for warranty work/servicing?
-
Johnc41, How long you gonna wait until you remap? Do you use someone local to you in Scotland? Can you switch your remap off for warranty work/servicing?
Hi mate going to get it done right away, every gti I have bought It has been new and had it remapped just after 500miles. I alway use a4udi in Clydebank, it is celtic tuning maps and I have had 9 done with him, and never had any problems.
I have never had a map scrubbed on a service so I don't bother, but Andy said it would be ok and in the off chance he would map it free of charge. They are brilliant. I had 2 vw cc and 2 mercs as we'll and it totally changed the cars.
-
Johnc41, How long you gonna wait until you remap? Do you use someone local to you in Scotland? Can you switch your remap off for warranty work/servicing?
Hi mate going to get it done right away, every gti I have bought It has been new and had it remapped just after 500miles. I alway use a4udi in Clydebank, it is celtic tuning maps and I have had 9 done with him, and never had any problems.
I have never had a map scrubbed on a service so I don't bother, but Andy said it would be ok and in the off chance he would map it free of charge. They are brilliant. I had 2 vw cc and 2 mercs as we'll and it totally changed the cars.
Hi John,
I would be really interested to hear the results after your remap. I'm quite close to Clydebank and could be tempted to go down the remap route
-
Johnc41, How long you gonna wait until you remap? Do you use someone local to you in Scotland? Can you switch your remap off for warranty work/servicing?
Hi mate going to get it done right away, every gti I have bought It has been new and had it remapped just after 500miles. I alway use a4udi in Clydebank, it is celtic tuning maps and I have had 9 done with him, and never had any problems.
I have never had a map scrubbed on a service so I don't bother, but Andy said it would be ok and in the off chance he would map it free of charge. They are brilliant. I had 2 vw cc and 2 mercs as we'll and it totally changed the cars.
Hi John,
I would be really interested to hear the results after your remap. I'm quite close to Clydebank and could be tempted to go down the remap route
although a for audi is a top wee garage and andy is a nice guy an very helpfull dont think i would be getting him to map any of my cars,if i wanted a generic map the revo dealer is closer than a for audi who would do the same job :smiley:
-
Johnc41, How long you gonna wait until you remap? Do you use someone local to you in Scotland? Can you switch your remap off for warranty work/servicing?
Hi mate going to get it done right away, every gti I have bought It has been new and had it remapped just after 500miles. I alway use a4udi in Clydebank, it is celtic tuning maps and I have had 9 done with him, and never had any problems.
I have never had a map scrubbed on a service so I don't bother, but Andy said it would be ok and in the off chance he would map it free of charge. They are brilliant. I had 2 vw cc and 2 mercs as we'll and it totally changed the cars.
Hi John,
I would be really interested to hear the results after your remap. I'm quite close to Clydebank and could be tempted to go down the remap route
Hi I will do mate and don't listen to Barrym as the results are excellent mate trust me I have had remapps done at superchips for my gti and had to get it done by celtic tuning and it blew the superchips map away. Celtic tuning remapps are superb mate. Can't beat them. I will keep you posted. And not many cars have passed me after every remapp. Honestly the bs you have to listen to on here is unreal
-
Johnc41, How long you gonna wait until you remap? Do you use someone local to you in Scotland? Can you switch your remap off for warranty work/servicing?
Hi mate going to get it done right away, every gti I have bought It has been new and had it remapped just after 500miles. I alway use a4udi in Clydebank, it is celtic tuning maps and I have had 9 done with him, and never had any problems.
I have never had a map scrubbed on a service so I don't bother, but Andy said it would be ok and in the off chance he would map it free of charge. They are brilliant. I had 2 vw cc and 2 mercs as we'll and it totally changed the cars.
Hi John,
I would be really interested to hear the results after your remap. I'm quite close to Clydebank and could be tempted to go down the remap route
Hi I will do mate and don't listen to Barrym as the results are excellent mate trust me I have had remapps done at superchips for my gti and had to get it done by celtic tuning and it blew the superchips map away. Celtic tuning remapps are superb mate. Can't beat them. I will keep you posted. And not many cars have passed me after every remapp. Honestly the bs you have to listen to on here is unreal
:grin: :grin: love the wee dig there john an i wouldnt go shouting about the place you get your maps done to loud feel free to pm :grin: :grin: an why get a superchip map when your shouting that the celtic maps are better or did you not know about them when you got the superchip map