GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk5 => Topic started by: andrewparker on 25 September 2008, 11:25
-
http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=18722 (http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=18722)
-
Can open - worms everywhere :lipsrsealed:
-
I guess it would be interesting if they had tested it on some more performance orientated cars, instead of ones which are designed to run on 95RON anyway...
-
i think its true and i have noticed that if i put v power in the car i get 30+ mpg doing normal stuff but when its running tesco 99 i have been getting 27mpg and thats driving the same and doing the same journeys :huh:
-
A load of rubbish imo. A focus 1.6 wtf are they talking about, nobody would bother putting super unleaded in a car like that so why use it in the test. The main cars that benefit from super unleaded are high performance/tuned cars. Turbos and sc cars respond better in terms of performance increases with super unleaded.
-
without any "scientific" data and testing methods it's hard to say whether they have/have not any benefits. The article is a bit sparse on details so will reserve judgement until a more scientific article is produced and will continue to fill her up with V-Power.
-
Complete rubbish. V-power was found to give a subaru imprezza sti (hawkeye) 10bhp increase against 95 ron on a standard car! With performance cars (of which a 1.6 focus is not, and so should not be given 'performance fuels'!) you will see a good increase. I got a few extra bhp and torque when i was mapped on v-power and i dont even have a turbo!
-
"It found that the VW Golf’s hi-tech 1.4TSI engine responded well to Shell V-Power, but there was little to choose between super fuels and ordinary petrol when it came to economy and emissions."
So is that the combined supercarger and turbo test that they did :grin:
They say in that statement that the TSI responded well to V-Power, so I'm assuming it was actually more power! Which if I'm not mistaken would be a benefit and ergo NOT a waste of money!
-
My reply on pistonheads is applicable to you lot to.
"I think you're all missing the point. Your average Which? reader drives a 1.6 Astra/Focus/Golf/Civic etc etc. For their readership (and 90% + of road users) it clearly is a waste of money. No where int hat article does it say you should use 95 in a car rated to take 98+. Infact I'm pretty sure the article even says that for performance cars it can make a difference."
Nick
-
If you look on the fuel cap of the GTI it recommends 98 ron, the engine performs at its best with this fuel. Why buy a performance car and put lower grade fuel in it
1. You are not getting the best out of the car
2. You may be harming the engine in the long run
I notice a difference in performance when I have neen caught short and had to put lower grade fuel in mine. The car feels very sluggish when running on this.
-
FSI works better on higher octane fuel - it all comes down to the type of engine.
Quote "'For many cars it’s a waste of money paying over the odds for so-called "super fuels"
-
Absolutely useless test. The cars used were totally unsuitable for such fuels (apart from the Golf).
-
Absolutely useless test. The cars used were totally unsuitable for such fuels (apart from the Golf).
Which was the whole point of the article. If it had been in Max Power, Car, Redline etc etc your point would be valid but as I said above it was in Which? were most of the readers are Mr and Mrs average who drive an normal saloon, estate, hatch or MPV.
Context people, CONTEXT!
Nick
-
Which? Car recommended that motorists would do better to drive less frequently
Well don't they just deserve the Nobel fcking prize for that astonishing discovery!
-
....
Nick - since when have us lot been interested in being like Mr & Mrs Average? Our context is the GTI, and in the Mk5 forum the FSI engine.
Revo, for example, tune specifically for getting the best out of the VW recommended octane fuel.
:afro:
-
Which? Car recommended that motorists would do better to drive less frequently
Well don't they just deserve the Nobel fcking prize for that astonishing discovery!
....That's excellent! It means that there'll be less of Mr & Mrs Average driving around on the roads - :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:
-
....
Nick - since when have us lot been interested in being like Mr & Mrs Average? Our context is the GTI, and in the Mk5 forum the FSI engine.
Revo, for example, tune specifically for getting the best out of the VW recommended octane fuel.
:afro:
I realise that mate but people seem to be slating the article for being rubbish as super fuels are good for performance related engines. The article is written to explain that super fuels are of no benefit for normal engines. Therefore the article is in fact correct in it's conclusion.
Nick
-
....
Nick - since when have us lot been interested in being like Mr & Mrs Average? Our context is the GTI, and in the Mk5 forum the FSI engine.
Revo, for example, tune specifically for getting the best out of the VW recommended octane fuel.
:afro:
I realise that mate but people seem to be slating the article for being rubbish as super fuels are good for performance related engines. The article is written to explain that super fuels are of no benefit for normal engines. Therefore the article is in fact correct in it's conclusion.
Nick
....You're not wrong, Nick! :cool:
The original poster has put a spin on his topic title which communicates the wrong idea to us here drinking petrol and bathing in V-Power.
:afro:
-
I've done my own 'highly scientific' tests on super fuels. Up until I bought my mkII as the daily driver I've been running my 911 daily for 2 years at 10k miles p/a. Its designed to run on 95 Ron, so I've started merrily filling up on any brand 95 Ron, usually Sainsburys or BP for the Nectar points. Whatever driving style I adopted it would return 300 to a full tank. I then started filling up on 97 Ron, basically because the price difference at one point was marginal. The first time I did this it recorded 320 on a full tank, so there after I alternated between the two octanes and like clockwork it would generally run an extra 20 miles on the stronger stuff. Performance wise, I had dyno'd 3 times in 2 years, twice on 95 and once on 97, on all occasions it knocked out 241 bhp +/- 1 bhp. So from my own experience I would say you are quite likely to increase your miles per tank, but BHP, doubtful. Maybe on modern stuff the ECU can adjust itself for the stronger stuff, I know on the Motronic my 911 uses there is a little adjusting screw within the ECU for fuel quality, but then I'm not going to remove and open it up depending on which fuel I fill.
Anyway, if you want better mpg, buy a different car, the Gti does the same miles as the Porsche does for £40 less per tank.
-
whatever they say mine feels quicker on Tesco 99, as for economy if i wanted that i wouldnt have a GTi
-
It would have been more interesting if the test had called into question and examined the way Super Fuels are marketed to the general public.
Are they marketed to everyone? Or are they marketed to people with performance orientated vehicles?
If it is the former than I agree that the test has some validity, but if it is the latter then I think they missed the point.
-
I get the point about 90% average Joe , so theres no problem there.
As per the PH threads , Thorney Motorsport did some extensive tests on fuels and DID find a difference.
http://www.thorneymotorsport.co.uk/tuning/Fuel_Test_Results.shtml (http://www.thorneymotorsport.co.uk/tuning/Fuel_Test_Results.shtml)
As for me I definitely get more PSI on 99 Tesco.
-
FSI works better on higher octane fuel - it all comes down to the type of engine.
Completely Correct :smiley:
-
Why have they gone for a cheap headline "Waste of Money" when they could have simply informed people that Super fuels need only be put into performance vehicles?
Mind you if the journos at WHAT CAR? had any intelligence they would be working for EVO.
-
NO WAY!!! this has just been on radio 1 news beat :shocked:
-
NO WAY!!! this has just been on radio 1 news beat :shocked:
....Then Which Car (or whatever they are called) need to be sued big time by the fuel companies for publishing untrue, misleading, and damaging information. Their actions would appear to be resulting in the public believing that Super fuels are a waste of money and even a con.
-
Utter horse sh1te
My Volvo T4 runs on Shell V-Power and my Scoobie beforehand on normal 95 unleaded the car feels flat.
As has already been said, pointless in Mr Average Joes family shopper - these fuels are for "proper" performance cars not Chaved Corsas & Mrs Jones going down the post office :rolleyes:
-
it also had some guy form shell speaking on their behalf, he didnt really put up a big fight :undecided: :huh:
-
Utter horse sh1te
My Volvo T4 runs on Shell V-Power and my Scoobie beforehand on normal 95 unleaded the car feels flat.
As has already been said, pointless in Mr Average Joes family shopper - these fuels are for "proper" performance cars not Chaved Corsas & Mrs Jones going down the post office :rolleyes:
i wont take offence :grin: :grin: :grin:
-
it also had some guy form shell speaking on their behalf, he didnt really put up a big fight :undecided: :huh:
because he knows how pointless it is putting V-Power into a car designed to run on 95 RON which is what the test was about
-
it also had some guy form shell speaking on their behalf, he didnt really put up a big fight :undecided: :huh:
because he knows how pointless it is putting V-Power into a car designed to run on 95 RON which is what the test was about
....Agreed. But the issue is the misleading and libellous statement that Super fuels are a waste of money, worded in the headline (according to the OP) to imply that it's generic and not specific.
How about someone posting a link to this written article?
-
If I had run my former car on 95 ron it wouldn't have been long before a piston melted, or the big ends went. I fitted a knocklink to the car and tested using 95, and optimax as it was at the time. Needless to say there was a hell of a lot of activity on the knocklink when the 95 was in the tank. I also recall a test EVO magazine done comparing V-Power, BP ultimate and normal unleaded, and a GTI was one of the test cars. I think the BP ultimate showed the highest increase in hp. Got the mag somewhere, might dig it out for a look.
-
If I had run my former car on 95 ron it wouldn't have been long before a piston melted, or the big ends went. I fitted a knocklink to the car and tested using 95, and optimax as it was at the time. Needless to say there was a hell of a lot of activity on the knocklink when the 95 was in the tank. I also recall a test EVO magazine done comparing V-Power, BP ultimate and normal unleaded, and a GTI was one of the test cars. I think the BP ultimate showed the highest increase in hp. Got the mag somewhere, might dig it out for a look.
BP ultimate is cr@p!! but i have my own reason for hating bp :angry: :angry:
-
As I understand it running 95 octane, even for extended periods will not damage the engine on the Golf GTI or any car running knock-sensors.
The car is set up for 98 octane and will run at its best on that brew. If the knock sensors detect knock, the ECU will back off the timing in stages until there is no knock and then slowly advance it again until knock is detected and then the ECU will back off the timing etc.
Equally, running the Golf GTI (or almost any standard road car) on higher octanes (i.e. >98) will not be of benefit (it's unlikely to be detrimental either) because almost all of these "negative feedback" type systems will not advance the timing to take account of higher octane fuels.
My DC-2 Integras felt awesome on 98 and awful on 95 octane. My S2000 was a little more subtle but I could tell the difference. My Jag S-Type R really didn't like the weak stuff but would still run. I can't comment on my Golf as it has only ever had 97 or better...
I suppose what I'm saying is that "Super" fuels will not gain you power but using normal in these types of car will lose you some - depending on the nature of tune and the knock sensor/ECU programming it could be quite a lot...
-
As I understand it running 95 octane, even for extended periods will not damage the engine on the Golf GTI or any car running knock-sensors.
The car is set up for 98 octane and will run at its best on that brew. If the knock sensors detect knock, the ECU will back off the timing in stages until there is no knock and then slowly advance it again until knock is detected and then the ECU will back off the timing etc.
Equally, running the Golf GTI (or almost any standard road car) on higher octanes (i.e. >98) will not be of benefit (it's unlikely to be detrimental either) because almost all of these "negative feedback" type systems will not advance the timing to take account of higher octane fuels.
My DC-2 Integras felt awesome on 98 and awful on 95 octane. My S2000 was a little more subtle but I could tell the difference. My Jag S-Type R really didn't like the weak stuff but would still run. I can't comment on my Golf as it has only ever had 97 or better...
I suppose what I'm saying is that "Super" fuels will not gain you power but using normal in these types of car will lose you some - depending on the nature of tune and the knock sensor/ECU programming it could be quite a lot...
....Exactly! In a nutshell! :afro:
-
Absolute rubbish.The RS4 is defo quicker smoother and more responsive than the odd time ive been caught short and hadto put 95 ron in.
BP ulimate also gives me betta MPG FACT.
Its only effective in performance engines IMO. A 1.6 FOCUS WTF!!! :sick:
Crissy
-
In SA we dont get "Performance Fuels".
We get unleaded and thats that. Same price wherever you go and we have never noticed any difference in the GTi's power...
Mike
-
I ran my mk4 1.8T on 95 and this car on opti since that is the fuel they were set up for.
This I think is the key to the whole debate as Corgi illustrated.
-
Which? Car recommended that motorists would do better to drive less frequently
Well don't they just deserve the Nobel fcking prize for that astonishing discovery!
I just woke my Mrs up after I read that by laughing out hideously loud.. She's not impressed.. :undecided: :grin: