GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk7 => Topic started by: Sootchucker on 09 March 2022, 11:10
-
Hi guys, I know there have been tons of threads on this in the past, so pease excuse me. I have run the GTI since day one on super unleaded 99 Ron (mainly Tesco Momentum). However with fuel prices rocketing lately, and there being a good 7p per liter between both, I've started wondering if it's worth changing to standard 95 Ron.
I know the car will run on it, but with the 95 Ron being an E10 mix I'm wondering if the worse MPG from using 95 Ron, balances itself from the higher costs of 99 ron (approx £3.15 extra per tank) ?
Thoughts please ?
-
Hi guys, I know there have been tons of threads on this in the past, so pease excuse me. I have run the GTI since day one on super unleaded 99 Ron (mainly Tesco Momentum). However with fuel prices rocketing lately, and there being a good 7p per liter between both, I've started wondering if it's worth changing to standard 95 Ron.
I know the car will run on it, but with the 95 Ron being an E10 mix I'm wondering if the worse MPG from using 95 Ron, balances itself from the higher costs of 99 ron (approx £3.15 extra per tank) ?
Thoughts please ?
I'd run 4-6 tanks of E10 and see how the real mileage changes for you between now and the last tank of E10, you can analysis percentages and mpg's but real world will be difference.
Also I filled up with 97 Ron last week while E10 fuel was £1.54 my E5 was £1.57, the E5 rose 3p a litre and the E10 rose 5p.
-
I think you would have nothing to lose to see what happens as an experiment. You would probably need to run a couple of tanks through to let the car adjust properly to the new RON rating and get 'steady state' data to compare.
-
Different car I know, but we have a 2013 Polo 1.0TSI for everyday driving around. I mistakenly filled it with super the other week. It had done 420 miles on the previous tank, with a range of 20 miles left. I wondered if the super would give better economy, so said nothing to my wife in case it influenced here driving style. Once the tank of super had got down to 25 miles to go, it had done the grand total of 410 miles. Not conclusive proof, and I know others say it needs 3 or 4 fills of super before you see any difference, but I will be more careful which pump I pick up from now on.
-
When faced with the shattering worry of having to save approx the cost of one pretentious paper cup coffee per tankful over the cost of a higher octane fuel there are probably a few things to consider.
Firstly, is my car tuned for SUL or does the fuel cap just recommend 95 anyway?
Am I on minimum wage struggling to feed and heat the family, or did I spend tens of thousands on a car then heap a load of extras into the mix and only use the highest quality maintenance and cleaning products?
What will I actually do with that £3.50 I saved and why was I putting 99 in it anyway when the cap recommended 95?
Will I do enough miles a year to actually gain more than about £50 by switching fuels and therefore how do I find the link to the forum charity to spread my newfound wealth?
:whistle:
-
I got my Mk7.5 in December 2020 and since then I've only put one tank of Super Unleaded in it. Regularly get 370-390 miles from a tank of normal unleaded.
Only used Super a handful of times in my Mk7 in the six years I owned it.
Used it about every fifth tankful when I had a Mk5.
-
Exonian nailed it.
Great answer.
However if you really are that hard up but don’t want to neglect your p&j, Esso E10 fuel actually has very little ethanol in it. The E10 rating means up to 10%
-
All meant in jest as I’ve known Sootchucker on the forums since at least the mk5 days when he had a black(?) GT TDI with a really nice spec, and he’s a really nice guy who looks after his cars with utmost pride.
Well, not all in jest as the forum charity was a serious bit and the underlying message was from the heart.
That’s a really interesting fact about the Esso fuel having much less E10 in JMS, and one well worth bearing in mind.
Something I missed off my last post due to time constraints was to add in about driving style making a difference too, not just to outright economy in either direction, but also as to whether you’d see any benefit at all in a GTI tuned for 95 RON in running 98/99 if the car was generally driven at low revs and using moderate throttle.
Combine an economical driving style (brisk but not using high revs) with lower octane fuel, use anticipation and light braking, then all together you’d see a reasonable saving (or levelling off more accurately) at the pumps as fuel costs rise ever upwards.
Last week I put in 35 ish litres at 156.9p per litre and last night 40 ish litres went it at 162.9p, in normal times that would bother me but to be honest I’ve been glued to newsfeeds 24/7 in disbelief/horror/anger at events unfolding hour by hour like many others here I’ll assume. We’ve just got to be grateful for our own small mercies right now.
-
Totally agree. I do so few miles now that I will continue to fill up with Shell V-Power E5 99 RON and give the price a cursory glance and sigh. Tank lasts me over a month.
If I was doing the near 20K pa mileage of about 6 years ago, I’d probably have a different view.
Lots more disturbing events in the world to worry about sadly☹️
-
Getting out in the car is great particularly as my OH is suffering from some mental health issues at the moment which can make being in the house rather traumatic most days. She always feels better when we go somewhere so we get out a lot right now so a few quid extra on a tank is not an issue.
As to the original question, there is about a 3% decrease in economy with E10 and a negligible improvement with SU. So I would estimate you are going to lose around 1 mpg or 11 miles per 11g tank which at an average of 35mpg means a range drop from 385 to 374 miles. So assuming fuel prices of £1.55/£1.62 per litre, that means £77.50/£81 per tank. On the two fuels then you are getting 4.83/4.75 miles per £1. So not really all that much in it and presumably there is a good reason why you have been using SU from day one? That won't have changed and you've been happy spending the difference so far so I'd say carry on.
-
Totally agree. I do so few miles now that I will continue to fill up with Shell V-Power E5 99 RON and give the price a cursory glance and sigh. Tank lasts me over a month.
If I was doing the near 20K pa mileage of about 6 years ago, I’d probably have a different view.
Lots more disturbing events in the world to worry about sadly☹️
I believe E10 deteriorates more easily than E5 so probably a sensible choice. Let's hope world events improve quickly and the latest horrors stop soon.
-
All meant in jest as I’ve known Sootchucker on the forums since at least the mk5 days when he had a black(?) GT TDI with a really nice spec, and he’s a really nice guy who looks after his cars with utmost pride.
Aww...shucks...love you too Exonian ;D ;D ;D
You mean this one
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51929121372_3146049c95_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2n7NjAQ)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51929116597_0f625178fb_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2n7Nibv)
-
Thanks for all the replies. As I'm not destitute (yet) - think I'll stick to the Super Unleaded for the few extra quid a tank.
-
That’s the beauty!
Takes me right back to the ukmkiv’s days.
-
That’s the beauty!
Takes me right back to the ukmkiv’s days.
Yes, it looks great. Reminds me of my mk5 Golf GT - the 170ps diesel version. Mine was also a five door manual in deep black pearl, but it had the standard 17” Classix alloys and a grey interior.
-
If you've never seen it, this Fifth Gear piece from 2016 (using a Golf GTI, edition 35) is worth a look. Yes, you can measure small differences in BHP on a rolling road but could a driver (even a good one like Vicky B-H) detect any performance differences in everyday driving? The experiment was not without its flaws (see the comments below the YT video) but I think her conclusion was still correct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8L-X89duEs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8L-X89duEs)
-
With fuel prices as they are I am putting in the cheapest I can find and then driving steadily. If I lose a couple of BHP due to using regular unleaded it doesn't matter too much on the commute.
As for MPG I haven't saved anywhere near enough on that to make up for the extra initial cost
-
I worry about the level of detergents etc in the cheapest supermarket fuels and long term what effect that could have on carbon build up. I tend to keep my cars for long term so not an mpg issue and will just use my bus pass occasionally 😄 to keep costs down.
-
I worry about the level of detergents etc in the cheapest supermarket fuels and long term what effect that could have on carbon build up. I tend to keep my cars for long term so not an mpg issue and will just use my bus pass occasionally 😄 to keep costs down.
My lad had, and now I have a 2009 2.0TSI Scirocco which has done around 130,000 miles now. I doubt that's been run religiously on 'premium' fuel. It has the signs of carbon build up, which is no more than a slight misfire when starting from stone cold. It's really not an issue and doesn't affect how the car drives at all.
-
I worry about the level of detergents etc in the cheapest supermarket fuels and long term what effect that could have on carbon build up. I tend to keep my cars for long term so not an mpg issue and will just use my bus pass occasionally 😄 to keep costs down.
My lad had, and now I have a 2009 2.0TSI Scirocco which has done around 130,000 miles now. I doubt that's been run religiously on 'premium' fuel. It has the signs of carbon build up, which is no more than a slight misfire when starting from stone cold. It's really not an issue and doesn't affect how the car drives at all.
Did you ever consider getting it walnut blasted?
-
Why? Apart from the non-issue of a slight cold misfire, it's perfectly fine. The last time I looked, the job was £4-500.
-
I worry about the level of detergents etc in the cheapest supermarket fuels and long term what effect that could have on carbon build up. I tend to keep my cars for long term so not an mpg issue and will just use my bus pass occasionally 😄 to keep costs down.
I could be wrong but I don't think it makes any difference for carbon build when post-WLTP GTI PP like yours don't have port injection anymore and because of that, there is no fuel being sprayed on intake valves.
-
Right, today I started an experiment. I ran my car until the light came on and filled up with Esso synergy +99 which is allegedly 0% ethanol.
Price wise it worked out at 7% more expensive than the E10 which I was using before.
I am hoping to break even almost due to getting better MPG, but I won't hold my breath.
In mixed driving before I had been averaging 32.5mpg on the E10 so will report back with my findings.
-
Right, today I started an experiment. I ran my car until the light came on and filled up with Esso synergy +99 which is allegedly 0% ethanol.
Price wise it worked out at 7% more expensive than the E10 which I was using before.
I am hoping to break even almost due to getting better MPG, but I won't hold my breath.
In mixed driving before I had been averaging 32.5mpg on the E10 so will report back with my findings.
I did this by mistake in our little 1.2 TSI Polo. Over one tankful, there was no improvement in economy at all. However, some have said that if there are any improvements to be had, they will be seen after 3-4 fill ups.
-
I will just have to see, it is going to be hard to get a fair comparison as the weather is colder now than it was last week when i was running the E10.
In theory you should notice a difference straight away as pure unleaded has a higher energy content, but I can understand why a couple of fills might be needed to gain the best effect.
If nothing else it should help keep the engine innards a bit cleaner, but I am skeptical about that too if I am honest.
-
Misses got 270 miles from the last tank of E10, shocking :embarrassed:
-
Misses got 270 miles from the last tank of E10, shocking :embarrassed:
Really! I'm on 350, with 70 left on the range...
-
Misses got 270 miles from the last tank of E10, shocking :embarrassed:
Does she drive everywhere in 1st?
-
So far my findings are as follows.
Long term average on E10 in mixed drivng 32.5mpg
The average of the last few days doing the same journeys on E0 Esso 28.2mpg
So the E0 might actually be worse.
I cannot detect any difference in performance on my car.
-
So far my findings are as follows.
Long term average on E10 in mixed drivng 32.5mpg
The average of the last few days doing the same journeys on E0 Esso 28.2mpg
So the E0 might actually be worse.
I cannot detect any difference in performance on my car.
You won't. Nobody does. You are right to be sceptical about the "keeping the engine innards cleaner" bit too.
All marketing hype. This whole debate is characterised by an almost complete lack of proper scientific evidence.
-
So far my findings are as follows.
Long term average on E10 in mixed drivng 32.5mpg
The average of the last few days doing the same journeys on E0 Esso 28.2mpg
So the E0 might actually be worse.
I cannot detect any difference in performance on my car.
is this the first tank you're using?
-
Yes the first tank.
I know some say that it takes a couple of tanks for the car to adjust, but considering that the fuel is meant to have a higher energy content I would have thought it would have made some difference straight away. I am also still way off needing to fill up again, so cannot do a proper calculation until then.
-
It’ll be very difficult to do an objective mpg comparison test for E10 v’s E0 fuels - especially after just one tankful of E0 as there’ll be many potential variables that could influence the results - e.g.
- weather conditions
- distance over which mpg was calculated for each fuel type
- routes travelled and the traffic volume
- speed
- tyre pressures
- whether or not stop start is used
- number of cold starts, gear changes, brake applications
- number / weight of passengers and their luggage in the car
- same driver or different drivers / different driving styles used
There’ll no doubt be others too.
-
I thought high ethanol fuels had more stored power? that's why cars wanting a very high output use it - dragsters
The ethanol is not good for engines kept in storage or low usage due to it's water absorption characteristics i.e. lawnmowers.
Higher octane is better for anti-knock and therefore re-mapped cars.
In my observations I most certainly get slightly better mpg with SUL that when I ran for a week on the E10 during the shortage.