Author Topic: Performance fuel  (Read 33076 times)

Offline golfdave

  • Here all the time
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
Re: Performance fuel
« Reply #60 on: 11 April 2020, 14:22 »
Surprised this is still a "debate"..

The higher the octane the more complete the burn & the less the emissions will be...

I've been using Shell Vpower (optimax etc) since it was first available where I am (since well over a decade ago).....

Years ago EVO mag did a proper long term test on several different cars (turbo & nat asp) including borescope inspections & dyno runs etc...& proved that it did make a difference to the engine output as well as response, better economy & cleaner engine insides...


Google brings this huge thread (read the first post) up on a Skoda forum which refences tests etc done by UK based tuners (Thorney Motorsport)..& proves again that higher octane is better...

https://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/222948-proof-that-99-ron-massively-outperforms-95-ron/


Offline monkeyhanger

  • Serious forum addict
  • *
  • Posts: 6,658
Re: Performance fuel
« Reply #61 on: 11 April 2020, 15:13 »
^ All that set of studies really shows is that cars designed to run on RON 98, will underperform using RON95. That's a given. Every single car mentioned in that study is meant to be using higher octane fuel and is down on power when running on RON95 because the ECU retards the timing to make ignition happen sooner in the compression cycle to avoid pre-ignition.

Putting RON98/99 in a car optimised for RON95 will not see appreciable gains in output or economy.

Putting RON99 fuel in a RON95 optimised car may result in a marginally less efficient burn because the fuel is nowhere near the threshold for self detonation. You end up with a slightly less energetic fuel/air mix at the point of spark induced ignition. The differences are small and won't make much difference.

Higher octane fuels are less volatile so that they can be compressed further without preignition. High octane optimised cars run a higher effective compression ratio like for like than those optimised for RON95 fuel.

With variable valve opening and other technologies, RON95 cars can mimic effectively higher compression ratios under very low loads where the fuel:air mix is very lean and unlikely to pre-ignite under the higher effective compression ratio, for economy gains. The Budack cycle mode on the EA888 3b is a prime example.

In much the opposite way, diesel engines could make better use of diesel fuel that is a little more volatile, so higher cetane numbers give a more volatile diesel for a fuller combustion.

If RON95 optimised cars (like the GTIs running lower than the CS) could harness greater gains from running on RON98/99 fuel by detecting the fuel difference and advancing the timing and compressing the fuel further under a higher effective compression ratio, VW would be putting recommendations on the fuel filler cap to use RON98/99, but they don't.
« Last Edit: 11 April 2020, 15:21 by monkeyhanger »
Whey ya bugger! It's finally arrived after an 8 month wait....
MK7 R 5 door, manual, Lapiz Blue, Prets.

Offline golfdave

  • Here all the time
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
Re: Performance fuel
« Reply #62 on: 11 April 2020, 16:12 »

Putting RON98/99 in a car optimised for RON95 will not see appreciable gains in output or economy.

Putting RON99 fuel in a RON95 optimised car may result in a marginally less efficient burn because the fuel is nowhere near the threshold for self detonation. You end up with a slightly less energetic fuel/air mix at the point of spark induced ignition. The differences are small and won't make much difference.


Some of the cars that Evo did the test on basically had "95RON" on the fuel filler caps.....& the MR2 in the above Thorney motorsports test isn't exactly a "98Ron only" candidate... unlike the BMW M3 CSL

& please explain why my MK7 Golf "95Ron" 1.4lt which should have 140ps (138bhp) & 250Nm actually has 167bhp & 267Nm....from Shell vpower & a drop in ITG tri layer foam air filter....if the fuel will do nothing??



« Last Edit: 11 April 2020, 16:26 by golfdave »

Offline monkeyhanger

  • Serious forum addict
  • *
  • Posts: 6,658
Re: Performance fuel
« Reply #63 on: 11 April 2020, 17:52 »

Putting RON98/99 in a car optimised for RON95 will not see appreciable gains in output or economy.

Putting RON99 fuel in a RON95 optimised car may result in a marginally less efficient burn because the fuel is nowhere near the threshold for self detonation. You end up with a slightly less energetic fuel/air mix at the point of spark induced ignition. The differences are small and won't make much difference.


Some of the cars that Evo did the test on basically had "95RON" on the fuel filler caps.....& the MR2 in the above Thorney motorsports test isn't exactly a "98Ron only" candidate... unlike the BMW M3 CSL

& please explain why my MK7 Golf "95Ron" 1.4lt which should have 140ps (138bhp) & 250Nm actually has 167bhp & 267Nm....from Shell vpower & a drop in ITG tri layer foam air filter....if the fuel will do nothing??

There are a number of reasons for your power/torque increase over book:

1. VW are notorious for Conservative power/torque values. Most are over book from the get-go and improve more when running in.
2. Many dynos over-read to flatter the client- it's the difference between the before and after (remaps etc.) that counts).
3. Do you think your filter is doing anything for your output? It's a contributory factor. You can't attribute gains to one variable.when there are multiple variables to consider, unless you've eliminated one at a.time.

Even though.VW outputs are Conservative, I'm dubious that your car is outputting 21% more power over spec, but correspondingly only 7% more torque. More likely putting out 150- 155ps and that dyno is drastically over-reading for the rest.

To quantify your gains that you attribute to the fuel and filter, you should dyno stock with 95RON fuel, then dyno with new filter and 95RON fuel, then dyno again with 98/99RON fuel on the same dyno and note the differences between them.

By your reckoning, there's no need to buy a TCR, just put your filter in a 245ps GTI performance, fill up with Shell V Power and you'll get 296ps.

Not buying it.

Cars set up for RON98/99 can retard timing to run on the lesser stuff at reduced output. Cars set up for RON95 don't advance timing to gain meaningful amounts of power using RON98/99 fuel, which means the extra compressibility of the higher octane fuel is not being utilised.
Whey ya bugger! It's finally arrived after an 8 month wait....
MK7 R 5 door, manual, Lapiz Blue, Prets.

Offline hog_hedge

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 595
Re: Performance fuel
« Reply #64 on: 11 April 2020, 17:58 »
Do they? Where do they say that? Go with the guidance on the fuel filler flap sticker.

https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/need-help/need-help-faqs/owners/Fuel

Offline Adam T7

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,168
Re: Performance fuel
« Reply #65 on: 11 April 2020, 18:57 »
Even if it’s a placebo, I enjoy looking after my cars, so it’s always Shell V Power for me and has been for a few years. I’m not that arsed about economy (its a GTI - it’s supposed to be fun and before the GTI I had a D3 and a D4 Discovery and they have a serious lack of fuel economy) but I am keen to keep everything in the best mechanical order possible - so you pay your money, you take your choice- happy motoring.
MY2019 GTI Mk 7.5 Performance. DSG, 5 Door, Rear Camera, Climate Windscreen and Rear Window Factory Tints, Indium Grey.

Offline mcmaddy

  • Forum addict
  • *
  • Posts: 5,274
Re: Performance fuel
« Reply #66 on: 11 April 2020, 19:04 »
I wonder if the additional additives in vpower will help gpf cars that are no longer dual port?
TCR, Pure Grey, DCC, Dynaudio and Climate Screen.

Offline golfdave

  • Here all the time
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
Re: Performance fuel
« Reply #67 on: 11 April 2020, 19:24 »

There are a number of reasons for your power/torque increase over book:

1. VW are notorious for Conservative power/torque values. Most are over book from the get-go and improve more when running in.
2. Many dynos over-read to flatter the client- it's the difference between the before and after (remaps etc.) that counts).

Even though.VW outputs are Conservative, I'm dubious that your car is outputting 21% more power over spec, but correspondingly only 7% more torque. More likely putting out 150- 155ps and that dyno is drastically over-reading for the rest.

Not buying it.

Cars set up for RON98/99 can retard timing to run on the lesser stuff at reduced output. Cars set up for RON95 don't advance timing to gain meaningful amounts of power using RON98/99 fuel, which means the extra compressibility of the higher octane fuel is not being utilised.

For starters the figures I stated are not Dyno..they are direct readouts on live road data from the ECU...Torque is a direct ECU readout parameter...BHP is accurately calculated from various other sensors/data ..& more accurate than a rolling road dyno as no tyre slip..

My engine is an EA211 light pressure turbo, and bhp will increase easily compared to torque.

I also know of several other EA211 140/150PS engines which have had dyno results before & after remaps…& those which run on 98/99RON BEFORE the remaps always run more BHP & torque than those which are just run on 95RON before the remap....& that's in different countries & dynos & the trend is the same...& those which run 95RON are always close to book figures, or only a few bhp over...

You miss that the fuel door sticker states "95RON Min"...basically that's the lowest grade fuel the ECU will cope with.

The ECU is programmed to respond to 98/99RON grade fuels...& the exhaust cam shaft is variable by 40deg & the inlet camshaft by 50deg...so that's plenty of range to allow the ECU to fully use the advantage of high octane fuel....




Offline mistac

  • GTI forum regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
Re: Performance fuel
« Reply #68 on: 11 April 2020, 19:44 »
Do they? Where do they say that? Go with the guidance on the fuel filler flap sticker.

https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/need-help/need-help-faqs/owners/Fuel

 That’s what I was trying to get at - why do they put they recommend 98 ron on their website but on the fuel filler cap at least with the 20 plate models it say 95 ron ? It just seems Contradictory
GTI 7.5 Performance 5dr DSG Tornado Red - completely standard spec as - it comes out of the tin as they say

Offline Watts

  • Forum addict
  • *
  • Posts: 4,694
Re: Performance fuel
« Reply #69 on: 11 April 2020, 19:55 »
My TCR on the filler cap says 98 RON, min 95 whereas the GTIPP I had said 95 RON min. So the TCR should be 98 but you can get away with 95 whereas a GTIPP will be fine on 95 but 98 would be better. Does it really need to be made any more confusing than that?
2019 Oryx White 5dr TCR.

Was - 2015 Tornado Red 3dr GTI PP, manual, Santiagos, Audi short shifter.