95 ron

Seal_LCR

Active Member
Jun 4, 2012
2,600
5
Redditch
Mty12345 post explains it well and I don't see why anyone would use 95 in there car when proved it is cheaper at the pump but costs you more in the long run.
 

traumapat

Leon Cupra IHI
Jul 24, 2005
5,925
4
sunny sussex
Ahhhh ok. Well that's good to know as you've done a thorough test as well. So maybe the high octane does what it says on the tin.
Still very mixed and conflicting results with regards to the standard maps though. If I get caught short I may run a tank of premium to see how it works for me.

youll need 2 tanks for it to fully adapt so the odd tank of premium will be a waste of money. (that in itself proves theres a difference)

Im not sure how much power youll lose on 95 but imagine the knock sensor will be hard at work.

Just to throw another vienese whirl at it..... my engine has done 90k with periods of standing. Its had the head off and sump and its been commented on how fresh the engine looks for 90k. Im convienced thats the vpower with its detergents. :)
 

kosymodo

Active Member
Jun 10, 2012
75
5
Warminster
Just wondering what with all this talk of MPG...

What are people's views on how much to fill the tank to get optimum MPG? Do people generally rim the tank, or fill up more regularly?

Rationale behind me asking is this principle - fuel is heavy, so by filling the car up you're adding quite a weight. The less fuel your car has in it, the more efficiently it drives. Thus filling up more often and putting less in will make the car run more efficiently.

Opinions requested! :) :thumbup:
 

traumapat

Leon Cupra IHI
Jul 24, 2005
5,925
4
sunny sussex
Its not really an issue now... car drinks so much ive binned the tank and instead have a nimrod fuel tanker flying low in front which im permenantly hooked to, its works great without the extra fuel weight but parking is tricky.
 

Seal_LCR

Active Member
Jun 4, 2012
2,600
5
Redditch
Can't see how the car would run any better having half a tank or a fuel tank. Apart from a little less weight! Personally I just fill up as them it's longer til the next one ;)
 

Wolvo-Oleg

Active Member
Mar 4, 2012
304
0
Wolves
Fpmsl, this thread is amazing.

As for adapting to 95/98 ron, after £20 of 95 ron it took mine 50 miles (ish) of VPower to return to normal
 

Wolvo-Oleg

Active Member
Mar 4, 2012
304
0
Wolves
logged with vagcom? how did you know it had returned to the previous parameters?

No mate, not vag com.

I used to do a 12.5 mile commute, 25 miles a day.

On 98 ron I got 32 Mpg, on 95 I got 27-28mgp.

On the first day using 98 ron again, I got 28mpg (25 miles)

Second day I got 30 mpg (50 miles)

On the third day, my MPG returned to 32. I had done just under 80 miles.
 

DOLBY

Active Member
Jun 24, 2006
2,934
98
North of London
www.facebook.com
i agree, i dont believe in all that adaption stuff. As soon as you put the 95 in it feels crap...especially if you decide to 'floor it', the car instantly feels sluggish.

And vice versa, put a tank of 99 in and the car feels instantly eager. I have never really believed the adaption process at all.
 

Wolvo-Oleg

Active Member
Mar 4, 2012
304
0
Wolves
To be honest I don't eat many sweet things at all these days, I've terrible teeth so I tend to not aggravate them! And I'm only 24 lol.

However as a youth I did love a good Boost bar! Do you remember those Wonka one's? Purple with the little green nerds in them?

They were flat the **** out!
 

Wolvo-Oleg

Active Member
Mar 4, 2012
304
0
Wolves
Oh mate, my friend had these things in a little pot the other day, I swear to god they were not fit for human consumption!!

How bout crisps man, do you remember these bad boys??



brannigans_roast_beef.jpg
 

Wolvo-Oleg

Active Member
Mar 4, 2012
304
0
Wolves
i agree, i dont believe in all that adaption stuff. As soon as you put the 95 in it feels crap...especially if you decide to 'floor it', the car instantly feels sluggish.

And vice versa, put a tank of 99 in and the car feels instantly eager. I have never really believed the adaption process at all.

I'm with you mate, you can tell instantly that you've removed it's privileges :lol:

The MPG does take time to adapt, however as I say, it's less than most would have you believe, a lot less. But the car does feel differently instantly
 

traumapat

Leon Cupra IHI
Jul 24, 2005
5,925
4
sunny sussex
i agree, i dont believe in all that adaption stuff. As soon as you put the 95 in it feels crap...especially if you decide to 'floor it', the car instantly feels sluggish.

And vice versa, put a tank of 99 in and the car feels instantly eager. I have never really believed the adaption process at all.

thats because your knock sensor **** itself and instantly adapted or it would have been limp mode/engine damage.

then stick vpower in... the ecu doesnt know this and still thinks the fuel is 95. it gradually adapts over time.
 

traumapat

Leon Cupra IHI
Jul 24, 2005
5,925
4
sunny sussex
No mate, not vag com.

I used to do a 12.5 mile commute, 25 miles a day.

On 98 ron I got 32 Mpg, on 95 I got 27-28mgp.

On the first day using 98 ron again, I got 28mpg (25 miles)

Second day I got 30 mpg (50 miles)

On the third day, my MPG returned to 32. I had done just under 80 miles.

Im not talking about the fuelling adaption such as the knock sensor or though its obviously a biggy, but exhaust temps, fuelling, engine response will all adapt to optimise the new fuel.

youve pretty much made the car a new map, and that will take longer than 50miles to be optimised fully.

Its a pity you didnt reset the battery on the above example between fuels as it would have a bit more meaning. youve also not compared it to the power gains or losses with each fuel. that might sound irrelevant but id like to know how hard the engine was having to work to produce x power?

Mines always had good stuff ever since its first map. Their words to me were... stick a couple of tanks of optimax through it before you bring it up. I get a staggering 24mpg on a good day :D
 

toocoolpash

Active Member
Jul 4, 2012
257
0
Birmingham
I always ran my LCR on v-power because i felt it was better for the car and power. I wasn't interested in the mpg as i do about 50 miles a week. I once used the cheap stuff (as the good stuff was unavailable) and it gave me a fault code due to my sports cat. I recently had it mapped (stage 2) at stealth racing and not only did he map it on 95 ( it wan out of fuel when they had it "/ ) as he said it was best to map on 95 (obv not to get the best possible figures) but he also made it a de-cat map which meant i could now run it on cheap fuel with out the warning light coming on. Obviously i questioned the fact that 95 isn't brilliant but in his own words were.."If your just commuting then use 95, if you want to give it some beans use 98" he also said it would take 15 miles or so to adapt. Since this i have been using 95 ( Due to pressure from mrs..as i just spent 2 and a half grand on it and this saving in fuel seemed to be a little light for her ) however having read this thread i will put in some v-power and compare the mpg.. i'm currently getting 27mpg driving normal with the occasional joy ride. However if the theory is correct i can try justify the price difference to the mrs and weep the rewards of the extra horses too.. should be in the mid 290's then :D
Probably should note that with the better acceleration id more than likely drive more like a boy racer destroying any benefits of improved mpg ha ha
 
Adrian Flux insurance services - discount for forum members.