Super or regular?

[AlanD]

TSI is just the new acronym VW have given for the 2.0T engine name. To my knowledge the new engines are still technically FSI. Dont quote me on this.

[Rolfe]

Well now thats the difference we are talking about. The mk5 had the fsi engine and the mk6 has the tsi.

If it were in anyway possible for VW to get better mpg out of the mk6 gti then im sure they would have done it. 95 or 97ron wont make any difference if its set to run on 95

OK, faint but pursuing here.

Three potential advantages to the higher octane have been discussed -

• better fuel economy
• better power/responsiveness
• better for engine health/cleanliness

So we've knocked the "better fuel economy" bit on the head as far as the Mk VI is concerned.  Personally, I think this thing goes like a bat out of hell anyway (based on a short test drive), and I'm not sure I'd be especially interested in giving it a fraction more.  (Back in 1998 my Peugeot wiped the floor with the Golf Mk IV, but it's quite obvious to me that things have moved on and now the Mk VI is considerably nippier than the 11-year-old Peugeot I'm used to.)

So, is the higher octane simply better for your engine?  Like its five portions of fruit and veg a day instead of deep-fried pizza?  Given that the Peugeot has reached its current venerable age on an exclusive diet of "whatever is cheapest", with no engine trouble whatsoever, I'm sceptical.  But I'm interested.

And since I don't actually know what "TSI" is, maybe someone could enlighten me?

Rolfe.

[AlanD]

The TSI stands for "Turbo-Stratified Injection" and is just a new name for the updated 2.0T engine that VW/Audi/Seat/Skoda use. The main principles of how the engine work are the same.

Its really just down to if you want the spend the money. If I was spending 22k + on a nice motor Id want to look after it as best as possible. The car will run perfectly fine on 95RON for all its life, its just down to you if you want to use the higher rated fuel, you wont do any damage using 95RON but as has been said the engine will work more efficiently / cleaner / etc etc etc on the higher stuff. Hell, when my MK5 was standard for its first 4 months I ran it on 95 (being a tight ass) and ever since all my mods Iv run it on 99 to make the most of it all and in an effort to look after the engine as best I can seeing as under that little bit more strain.

[Rolfe]

That's actually back to what my friend's husband was saying some time ago.  However, he also said that as I'd been running the Peugeot on el cheapo for so long by that time he thought there really wasn't any benefit to switching.

I never really understood the theory behind it.  And it's so easy to be caught by the placebo effect when trying different types of fuel, as highlighted above.

Rolfe.

[AlanD]

The fact your Pug wasn't designed to run on the higher stuff is also a factor.

And it's so easy to be caught by the placebo effect when trying different types of fuel, as highlighted above.

I totally agree. Its just habbit now to use 99.

[Rolfe]

The fact your Pug wasn't designed to run on the higher stuff is also a factor.

And it's so easy to be caught by the placebo effect when trying different types of fuel, as highlighted above.

I totally agree. Its just habbit now to use 99.

I don't know what the Pug was designed to use, it's a GTi 2.0 litre 6-gear job.  And it showed the Golf Mk IV a very clean pair of heels.  But as far as I know it doesn't have a turbo.  My friend's husband (who is a surgeon with a Merc, not a car expert) was just pontificating that the most expensive fuel was always the best for the engine, and I was harbouring some doubts.

Would you use the 98 RON in the Mk VI, and if so why?  (Other than habit.)

Rolfe.

[matchboy]

  And it showed the Golf Mk VI a very clean pair of heels. 

you should keep the pug then rolfe!   

[Rolfe]

  And it showed the Golf Mk VI IV a very clean pair of heels. 

you should keep the pug then rolfe!   

Don't you start!  11½ years old, over 118,000 miles, aircon shot, slipping out of third gear, leaky sunroof, various bits a bit loose....and still, it breaks my heart to feed it to the dcrappage scheme. 

The only thing that reconciles me is the anticipation of an even peachier car to replace it.

ETA:  Ah, I see.  Fat-fingers typo corrected!   :embarassed:

Rolfe.

[AlanD]

I refuse to believe that the 160 odd bhp Pug is faster than the 210bhp MK6. The Pug still weighs in at 1.2 ton so isn't super light.

[matchboy]

i know what you mean, sold and said goodbye to my mk 5 gti on monday - nearly shed a tear as they drove it away  :embarassed:

but the thought of a new one is keeping me going too lol!