proof that 99 ron massively outperforms 95 Ron

[vRSy]

Theres alot of threads which are mainly focused on peoples opinions so not exactly factual.

Thorney Motorsport have conducted two large investigations into fuels and their performance,

1 on 95 vs 99 ron fuel on a Focus RS 2.5T

and

1 on the various 99 ron fuels against each other then against BP102

I thought id paste them into here, reference >>here<<

95 vs 99 Ron

Right, so you’ve saved up nearly £30k for a hot hatch, its top dog in the market, goes like the clappers, all the journalists love it and you’re pleased as a pleased thing, whats the first thing you do? Fill it full of cheap fuel. At this point all the car enthusiasts look shocked and say ‘ooh no, not me, I only put in good stuff’ but you’d be amazed how many people, enthusiast owners alike continue to put standard 95 octane fuel into their cars to save £3-4 quid a tank. Now you’d need to be blind not to notice the fact that we recommend the Tesco Momentum 99 fuel, its great, we’ve tested it for years and every test it beats everything else its almost monotonous. Why do we recommend the fuel? Because of data that we’re about to share.

We’ve been developing our Focus RS tuning for some months, with all the testing and development complete we’ve released it all now and we’ve got a brand new car to bolt it all onto, in other words we’re like you, bought a car, modded it and want to get the best out of it. You’ll be able to read about the progress in Fast Ford magazine next month and beyond. For a bit of fun (we knew what the outcome was going to be) we decided to run our new Focus RS in on standard 95 octane fuel. Now Ford to recommend BP Ultimate, which at 97 octane is a bit better but the manual says the car is fine on 95 (as all modern cars must say) so we played our part of joe blow punter and ran the car exclusively, as standard on 95 octane fuel for 2500 miles......and then we dyno’d it.

Ford state 300bhp, well on 95 octane fuel, that Ford state is perfectly fine for the car we barely managed to get 275bhp, so we’ve paid £27k for 90% of the power, does that mean we get £4k back from the dealer? Most high performance cars react in this way, forced induction cars even more so as they generate more heat so you cant blame Ford as such, all manufacturers suffer similar consequences when running lower performance fuels. The issue is relatively simple, an engine is nothing more than a controlled explosion, mix air with fuel and a spark – boom, piston moves down, crank is turned, forward motion is achieved. As with any combined reaction if you enhance any element in that process (other things remaining equal) that enhancement can have a dramatic effect on the result, so if you run with fuel that simply burns hotter and for longer (its called flame rate) the engine will use less of it to achieve the same result (better fuel economy) or be able to make more use of it to get a better result (better power). In detail the cars ECU is simply adjusting the engines fueling mix and ignition advance to make the maximum use of what is available.

So, after 2500 miles on 95 we decided to run on the Momentum 99 fuel, we only did three tanks (we really couldn’t be bothered to wait another 2500 miles before modifying the car) and we ran the car on the dyno again. We took extra care to ensure we dyno’d the cars in the same climatic conditions, same time of day, same barometric pressure and the results are clear to see. Remember this is completely standard car, no mapping no toys just as it came from the dealer. Peak power went from 272bhp to 293bhp – 20bhp for doing nothing more than putting better fuel in the car. MPG also went from an average (dash display so hardly that accurate) 22.3mpg to 24.8mpg and that only took three tanks, its now on 25.6mpg now that its modified. Its a free lunch, it really is. But don’t trust us, try it, just run three tanks through the car, we can guarantee that the car will feel better, you’ll get more power and cover more miles, try it.

Oh, for those who can read dyno charts, yes the power and torque curves do have a hole the size of a planet in them, see the dip at 4500rpm? Intake temperatures. As the car comes on boost the standard intercooler cant cool the intake air fast enough so the cars EU retards ignition to avoid premature detonation, you can feel it on the dyno (less so on the road but its there). Remember this is a standard car on a standard map and the car is backing off because its getting too hot, well if you run more power though it what does it do, get hotter or colder? Yep, hotter. Its for this reason that we are slightly different in our recommendations, we will happily sell you a remap on a standard car, but if you want to do it right then get rid of the standard intercooler, you’ll get more power, more torque even on the standard map (then of course you can add Millteks, Brembos, Bluefin maps etc etc but thats for later in the site, go on, have a read).

Thats dyno proof that on a performance engine, in particular a 'charged' engine that you WILL make more power on 99 ron fuel. It also states that of course your car will run on 95Ron fuel, but the ECU will retard the timimg to adjust to the lower caloric value of the 95 rom fuel, which in this case lost 7% of the power.

That would equate on the 180ps(178hp) Fabia that with 95Ron you would be running around 166hp as a result. (Rough figures of course)

For this following test, you can view it on PDF by clicking the reference limk below which will also show you the dyno graphs showing substantial Bhp differences and differences in the air fuel ratios.

Media Information for Immediate Release 27th August 2006 >>>Reference<<<

After 7 months of intensive testing Thorney Motorsport (TMS) can now categorically confirm what the entire car tuning World already knew – the quality of fuel you use in your car has a direct effect on the level of power your car provides.

TMS specialize in honest, no bullsh*t tuning of BMW’s and Vauxhalls. Our knowledge, skill and attention to detail have given us a reputation of testing without compromise and product development without compare so when we develop any new product we know

it’s the best that can be achieved.

Our move to our new £750,000 custom workshop in Milton Keynes, Bucks gave us the opportunity to try the (then) new 99 Octane fuel available from Tescos (there are three local stores, all of which supply the 99 fuel) so we conducted some early testing and were amazed at the results the fuel gave – the cars drove faster, power delivery picked up quicker and they held the power for longer.

However, anecdotal evidence based on ‘feel’ is not enough for us to rely on so we set about conducting the most in depth fuel test ever done in the UK.

Thorney Motorsport specializes in tuning and enhancing BMW’s and Vauxhall cars. Our specialist cars are the BMW M3, the Vauxhall VX220 and the Vauxhall VXR range. We are accredited with full Vauxhall Motors warranty approval for servicing and repairs, the

only UK tuning firm to have such recognition from any manufacturer. As a consequence of our area of expertise it made sense to test cars we knew well so we chose a 2003 BMW E46 M3 CSL, and as a control car a standard Toyota MR2. We are also testing with a 2006 Vauxhall Astra VXR and will release this data when it is

finalized.

BMW E46 M3 CSL

The BMW was chosen primarily due to our view that it represents the finest engineered 6 cylinder engine ever developed. The S54 engine in CSL form generates 350-360bhp at the flywheel which in itself is an enhancement over the standard M3’s 340bhp. We have

modified this further with our ‘Stage 2’ tuning package where we add a Miltek Sport performance exhaust and race catalytic converter and remap the car’s ECU with advanced engine code to give a flywheel power figure of 380bhp.

Toyota MR2

The Toyota was chosen specifically because the car represents an older vehicle but with a recognized advanced design of engine. Run in purely standard form the vehicle should generate 175 bhp at the flywheel.

The Testing Process

Thorney Motorsport specializes in accurate data collection and vehicle enhancement. Honesty, integrity and transparency are all bywords of our company ethos. We planned the testing (which we imagined could potentially generate politically upsetting results) meticulously so that our data would stand up to scrutiny and expert breakdown.

Each car was initially run for 3 full fuel tanks on Total 95 Octane fuel, different fuel stations were chosen and the cars filled at different times of the day. After three full tanks were consumed by the vehicle we tested the car on the dyno and recorded the data.

Specific data as to weather, barometric reading, humidity, air temperature and engine intake temperature were all recorded.

Next, each car was then run for three full tanks of BP Ultimate 97 Octane fuel and the process repeated. Again all external readings were taken and logged. We then repeated the process again with Shell Optimax and finally Tesco 99 Octane fuel, again we used three full tanks of each fuel between testing and logged all the external and vehicle data on each test. We repeated this process for approximately 8 months. In total the cars were measured between 18-34 times in weathers as varied as 6 to 35 degrees ambient temperature. The Dyno dynamics dyno has an inbuilt compensator to address variance in ambient temperatures but we still ensured that each car was measured in comparable weather

conditions (one of the reasons it all took 8 months)

The Results

The different colour lines represent the different fuels used in the car. The red line at the bottom shows the car running on 95 octane fuel, the jump in power and torque when changing to either Shell Optimax or BP Ultimate is quite significant.

However what we also found was there was another jump when changing to the Tesco 99 Octane fuel (the pink line). So switching from 95 octane fuel to Tesco 99 Octane gave an extra 8.1bhp (almost 5%).

As well as these peak gains the charts show a clear improvement throughout the rev range.

For the E46 M3 CSL the difference was even more pronounced:

The difference between running 95 Octane fuel and a higher octane fuel from BP or Shell was very noticeable on the open road and the dyno confirmed this, the car did indeed very sluggish on the lower octane fuel. Interestingly the BP Ultimate and Shell Optimax performed almost identically, a fact quite evident on the chart; the lines are difficult to

separate.

But what was nice was the extra gains that Tesco 99 Octane fuel gave over and above the BP and Shell fuels. There was a clear improvement in both torque and power that was both evident on the road and the dyno. This apparent gain in power is due to the ECU of the car’s ability to advance the ignition timing to take advantage of the extra power the higher octane offers. Looking at the air/fuel ratio on the charts does show that the higher octane fuel allows a more efficient

burn creating more power.

The chart shows the car’s ECU when running on 95 Octane fuel enriches the fuel mixture (adds fuel) to compensate for the less efficient burn and to avoid early detonation. This extra fuel robs power as the air/fuel mix is less efficient. By changing this fuel to a higher octane the car is able to advance the ignition (essentially using less fuel at higher rpm’s)

to create more power.

The Conclusion

Our role in the motor trade is to enhance motor vehicles beyond the process of compromise that manufacturers have to follow. We use our skills to adapt and extend the operating levels of cars by enhancing their power, their handling and their braking by fulfilling a need from our customers who demand more from their cars. For us and we expept for all the tuning industry any method which facilitates this process of vehicle enhancement (ie it makes it easier for us to do our jobs) should be seen positively. It is clear from the testing that whilst older engines show a clear benefit of running higher octane fuel, more modern, sophisticated engines have the ability to advance their fuel timing to take full advantage of this enhancement to a far greater degree. For the BMW M3 CSL the difference between running 95 octane fuel and Tesco 99 Octane fuel was over 40bhp, that’s over 10%.

It is our fundamental belief and now our clear recommendation to our customers that if they want to maximize the power of their cars, before they even consider using our services to enhance the power of their car further, they should use the best fuel they can buy. The simple fact borne out of our extensive test is that using Tesco 99 Octane fuel will make your car more powerful. It will feel faster, accelerate faster and perform better. If you’re going to tune your car at least give it the best fuel it can run on and in our opinion, based on extensive testing that fuel is Tesco 99 Octane.

As a postscript to the testing we also measured the relative fuel consumption of the cars during the testing with the conclusion that the higher quality fuel did offer a greater mpg than 95 octane fuel. However fuel consumption testing is conducted under different conditions which we (even with our facilities) would be unable to recreate to an extent

we could stand by.

John Thorne, MD Thorney Motorsport

[email protected]

Tel. 01908 238 798

###

www.thorneymotorsport.co.uk

99 Ron fuel shootouts reference >>>HERE<<<

Road car tuning and race car preparation share a lot of common aims. Both are looking to extract as much power out of a given engine as possible, both are looking to extract the best dynamic performance from a chassis for a given purpose, one road, one track, however, the main area of duplicity is the concept of testing.

Thorney Motorsport as a company spends just over 20% of its turnover in testing; new product, new ideas, new lubricants, that’s over £300,000 just on trying new ideas and seeing if they work or not, then refining them for use in either the road or race car development. A little under a year ago we extended this process of testing to fuels, surprisingly no-one (even the fuel companies) had ever conducted open, back to back testing of the main component we all use to extract performance from our road or race cars – the very fuel that makes them go.

The result of that extensive test (the first report can be read HERE) was that the quality of fuel you used in your tank had a direct affect on the actual power output of your car, the difference in power and torque between 95 octane fuel and that tests winner (Tesco 99) was over 10%. Considering people spend thousands of pounds on road car tuning to obtain lesser gains than that and if someone offered us a 10% improvement in power from a race car for nothing more than putting different fuel in the tank we’d take their arm off we thought the information was worth sharing.

Thorney Motorsport are in the business of increasing power for customers cars, there’s nothing magnanimous about our testing of these fuels, from our perspective the better the fuel used by the customer the easier our job is to extract power – we’re not stupid.

The problem (or benefit depending on how you look at it) with testing is that it’s never ending, as soon as you develop one idea another comes along to supersede it, as soon as you recommend one fuel another comes along to beat it so we’ve continued to test and re-test performance fuels as an on going process. Soon after we published our first fuel test report Shell released V Power and then BP released its 102 Octane fuel, as our original testing was conducted on Shells Optimax and BP Ultimate it was only natural that we continue our testing to include these new products.

The Testing Equipment

As before we utilised our state of the art chassis dyno meter – the Dyno Dynamics Low Boy 450 Chassis Dyno. To accurately measure a cars performance you need an accurate vehicle dyno meter (also known as a rolling road) this is a sophisticated piece of equipment that allows you to drive a car as you would on the open road (the wheels turning on rollers) whilst it is strapped in a fixed position, here we are able to accurately measure every output from the car.

Dyno Dynamics are World renowned for creating one of the most accurate dynos available and are used across the globe from everyone from car tuners to fuel suppliers, interestingly it is also the exact same make and model of dyno that BP chose to road show their 102 Octane fuel.

The Dyno Dynamics dyno has a feature called ‘Shootout Mode’ where the operators ability to manipulate or amend readings is locked down, all the measuring features are locked so all the system can do is measure. Such is the company’s faith in the accuracy of their product all the Dyno Dynamics dynos are linked globally and their measurements monitored to ensure accuracy, this has earned them the nickname the ‘Ego Buster’ for the equipments ability to measure data rather than manipulate it.

When cars are driven on the open road they are kept cool by the high volume of air flowing over the vehicle, to replicate this Thorney Motorsport use four one meter diameter fans to generate 120,000cfm (cubic feet per minute) of airflow over the car in our custom designed dyno cell. Two fans are situate behind the vehicle to extract the hot air generated by the vehicle engine and exhaust and two further fans blow air over the vehicle. With all four fans in operation we exchange the entire air contents of the cell every 5 seconds – basically it’s a wind tunnel with a dyno in it. Our dyno is surface mounted to allow airflow under the vehicle (which replicates the road/track) and allows safer strapping of the vehicle to ensure it’s strapped down and not back (which can affect the accuracy of the readings).

On the first test we used three vehicles; a Vauxhall Astra VXR, a Toyota MR2 and a BMW E46 M3 CSL. For the purpose of the extended testing we elected to continue with the BMW as the 6 cylinder S54 engine was the most consistent in the results taking into account ambient and intake air temperature variations. The car was completely standard save for a Milltek Sport exhaust system. The car is also my personal daily drive so an extensive period of fuel measurement could be undertaken.

In the previous testing we conducted we filled the cars three times then tested the fuel, however this time (as we were only running one car) we tested the fuels at regular intervals and regular times of day to ensure near identical ambient conditions and identical engine conditions for accurate comparison. In total (the tests are continuing) the car was run for 11,500 miles with approximately 5,000 of those on Tesco 99, 4,000 on Shell V Power and 2,500 on BP 102. When weather conditions were comparable the car was run on the dyno and the recordings logged. In total the car was run on the dyno over 65 times. The car was tested in ambient temperatures ranging from 6 degrees to 32 degrees with intake temperatures ranging from 11 degrees to 28 degrees.

The red line represents the car run on Shell V Power, the blue line Tesco 99 and the green line BP 102. The difference between Tesco 99 and BP 102 is marginal, the Tesco seemed to perform better at lower rpm with higher power and torque with BP 102 giving slightly higher peak power at high rpm. Surprisingly the Shell V Power under performed throughout the rev range when in direct comparison with the other two fuels.

Torque output for the car mirrored that of power with the BP 102 fuel giving slightly better mid range torque compared to Tesco 99 and quite a lot more than Shell V Power but as the charts show the differences between the three fuels is relatively marginal.

On the road the differences were equally marginal (and also subjective, ‘feel’ whilst a valuable measure is impossible to accurately quantify) with the Tesco 99 and V Power interchangeable in terms of how the car felt under power, however the Shell fuel did give poorer results in terms of consistency. On a few occasions we felt that the car appeared down on power when running V Power but when tested this proved not to be the case, Tesco 99 on the other hand seemed to feel consistent and we rarely had a time where we ‘felt’ the car was under performing from one batch of fuel to the next. BP 102 was the revelation in the ‘feel’ stakes, when we first put the fuel in the car the BMW certainly felt a lot quicker, in fact we were so convinced it was quicker we tested it straight away (normally we ran three tanks worth before doing any testing) and the result was the green line on the above chart, so whilst the car felt quicker the gains on paper were more marginal. This feel for the 102 fuel was short lived however, on several tests of the BP fuel after it had been in the cars tank for a little over a week we found the fuel significantly dropped power, the car felt flat and power dropped by 3-4% compared to a peak run on ‘fresh’ fuel.

All fuels suffer from a process called olefinic breakdown where the relative RON and MON rating drops by the fuels exposure to air, this is why race fuels are always used when completely fresh from the drum as this breakdown can have a dramatic effect on fuel quality. However the process of olefinic breakdown normally takes months in pump fuel so we were surprised at the relative drop in performance of the 102 fuel in such a short time frame.

Another aspect of fuel performance which was more noticeable in this testing was the direct affect of ambient and intake air temperature on the fuels performance. One of the reasons we chose to continue with the CSL in this test was that as a normally aspirated engine there was no turbo charger to affect or be affected by large variances in ambient and intake air temperature. In simple terms all an engine is is a controlled explosion – mix fuel with air then blow it up, the colder the air involved in that process the more oxygen it contains and the more powerful the explosion. This is the reason that some cars (especially turbo charged ones as the turbo charger creates heat) feel a lot quicker in the cold morning run to work than in the drive home in the heat of the afternoon, it's also the reason companies like us spend so much on developing things like charge coolers. With the Tesco 99 and V Power fuels the difference in power from higher ambient and intake temperature runs were in line with expectations; 1.5% drop in power with each 10% increase in intake temperature but with the BP 102 fuel the drop was more dramatic. With each 10% increase in intake temperature power dropped by 3%. This is not to say that the BP fuel didn’t perform in hotter temperatures as the car still felt the quickest when run on the 102 fuel but this performance feel did drop with time in tank and as the temperature rose, at this time we can’t make any formal conclusion on this specific point, needless to say the testing on this point continues.

The General Conclusion

In simple terms, Shell V Power is near identical to the Optimax product that it replaced, in power and ‘feel’ terms it continued to out perform all 95 octane fuels and we’d still recommend owners of all performance cars use the highest quality fuel they can find. However the performance offered by the fuel was sometimes inconsistent.

The Tesco 99 fuel again outperformed V Power in all the tests but the differences between the two fuels were marginal and we doubt most people would tell the difference in their cars on a day to day basis. However the Tesco fuel was the most consistent.

The BP 102 fuel showed the best gains in terms of ‘feel’ and performed better on the dyno and on initial fill up, when the fuel was fresh the power gains were noticeable even above the Tesco 99 fuel. However the gains seemed to dramatically diminish over time or with increases in engine bay temperature a feature which we are continuing to test.

The testing we have conducted deliberately concentrated purely on the performance gains offered by the premium fuels without reference to cost, cost is a financial measure not a performance one. However it would be puerile to simply ignore its reference in testing deigned for the general fuel buying public. In pure cost/performance terms its very hard to beat the Tesco product, on average the Tesco 99 fuel was 5-6% cheaper than the V Power (up to 10% cheaper when compared to some motorway fuel stations). The BP fuel at almost £2.50 a litre was obviously the most expensive and even with our £50,000 per year fuel bill it would be impossible to justify using the fuel with any degree of regularity - £147 to fill the tank of the CSL was even worthy of a picture of the pump price gauge.

[blueR36]

Good post, thanks Simon, I use Shell optimax, I would have to travel 12 miles to a tesco pump so not really worth it

[sharkrider]

good post.

[MartynVRS]

Good post

[vRSy]

However you can save your self a massive £3.15 per tank of fuel if you choose 95 Ron fuel (7p per litre cheaper)

Thats a massive £12.60 over 4 full tanks in a month(350miles/tank = 1400miles/month). So a massive £151 a year. This is what i dont understand, whats £12 when you can afford to drive around in a brand new 180hp car costing 14k+!!

Then theres the 2-3mpg gain you have with 99Ron fuel.

I might need someone to check the following maths, because i've been on the loopy juice today

45 litres = 9.9UK Gallons. An improvement of 2-3mpg equates to 19.8 - 29.7 extra miles per tank on average by using 99 ron fuel.

Over 12 months, assuming 4 tanks per month, that extra 2-3mpg(20-30miles per tank) will have totalled somewhere in the region of 960-1440miles extra you have managed due to being on the higher octane, more efficient fuel.

Had you been on 95 Ron fuel that would have meant to attain the same mileage you would have required an additional 3 tanks of fuel. 95 Ron is £1.32/l. ((£1.32*45L)*3)=£178.

So by spending an extra 7Pence/litre over 12 months. ((£0.07*45)*4)*12 = £151 over the entire year.

So actually by using the higher power, more fuel efficient, cleaner fuel, you save your self £27 over the entire year.

So I ask all the 95Ron crew......Whats the point???

PS If my maths is out, i apologise as im half cut.

[Neily03]

That would equate on the 180ps(178hp) Fabia that with 95Ron you would be running around 166hp as a result. (Rough figures of course)

So the factory figures for the Fabia vRS are done with 99Ron fuel??

[vRSy]

id imagine 98 Ron was used (as stated on the filler cap).

Otherwise they would say 'by using 98 ron you gain power' instead of 'using 95 ron is safe but you will lose power/torque'

if that makes sense :no:

[pearce_jj]

To be fair all that shows is that the B5254T3 engine is set up to run on fuel of that rating to achieve it's stated power, which is hardly surprising. Also I don't think that is a direct injection unit.

Also re fuel consumption, personally I'd be very surprised if there are any savings bearing in mind there is less energy content (all be it very slightly less). Also if it were true surely manufacturers would state 98 RON *only* and claim the resultant 5-10g CO2/km reduction for their marketing.

Edited 26 December, 2011 by pearce_jj

[jonny boy]

Yes, great post

Quick question. If you can't make it to a station with high octane fuel, would an additive (booster) be OK for the odd tank full ?

[vRSy]

To be fair all that shows is that the B5254T3 engine is set up to run on fuel of that rating to achieve it's stated power, which is hardly surprising. Also I don't think that is a direct injection unit.

Also re fuel consumption, personally I'd be very surprised if there are any savings bearing in mind there is less energy content (all be it very slightly less). Also if it were true surely manufacturers would state 98 RON *only* and claim the resultant 5-10g CO2/km reduction for their marketing.

There are definitely savings available from using higher octanefuel in my own personal experience.

You are correct about the energy levels being neigh on identical. But its the extra resistance to detonation that makes the difference, thus in a high compression ratio engine such as this it allows less fuel to be used for an equal output as it performs better under compression.

[Kevsta]

"This dip is characteristic of intake temperatures getting high, the ECU compensates accordingly."

Sorry what the hell does that mean? Does it mean that at those particular revs the air being sucked in to the engine is being heated up, or did they heat up the room?

That statement makes no sense. I would like to see a graph of the air intake temperature taken during the run to confirm that statement.

[the mad monk]

to be fair your comparing a proper fast car rather than a vrs, yes its nippy but not exactly fast and the more performance an engine gives the better the returns

on our engine the returns aren't as good, poss 3/4 bhp more. hardly groundbreaking is it

nobody can say that running 98 ron wont give better bhp and fuel economy but imho its just not worth it

the only reason id consider using it is if its cleaner to my engine over the lifetime that i'd notice it, if i sell it at 50k id like to know it was worth it which ive seen nothing to suggest it would be

yes a performance car would benefit but not a vrs, its NOT a performance car merely a nippy car

thanks for the post but it doesnt convince me at all

[sharkrider]

I disagree, yes the focus is a much higher performing car, but the vRS uses a twincharged 1.4 to give 180bhp, thats alot of power from a 1.4 engine, I would say the quality of fuel is just as important.

[the mad monk]

yes its a lot of power from a 1.4 but its nor a performance car by any means, merely nippy

dont get me wrong i LOVE the car but i know what it is and its limits

[vRSy]

Thats exactly right. The 1.4TSI runs a higher compresssion ratio than the focus to mmake iits power so the use of high octane is even more important to prevent knock.

The fabia makes about 7hp more per litreto make its power than thw focus rs so is more highly strung

Fabia 127hp/litre

Focus RS 120hp/litre

[the mad monk]

also dont forget your comparing a bmw m3, hardly the same

[vRSy]

yes its a lot of power from a 1.4 but its nor a performance car by any means, merely nippy

dont get me wrong i LOVE the car but i know what it is and its limits

But vag have extracted more power per litre than ford did in the focus by using a very high compression engine. High compression engines notoriously suffer more 'knock' thn lower compression engines hence the requirement for high octane fuel, so if anything these engines will benefit more than the focus rs

[the mad monk]

well i guess time will tell. if i keep this 7 years like my mk1 then ill let you know then

[vRSy]

I guess in summary some people are just tight or extremely careful with money and dont see that by spending an extra £3 they might have a bit more power, fuel economy and a cleaner engine.

There's a difference between our views. I'm voicing mine objectively and using proof as well as my past experiences, you guys are voicing yours subjectively based on your opinions with no proof.

Each to their own, everyone has a choice and is fully entitled to takeit

Except I'm right

[R1 4GHA]

What Fuel are people putting in the MK1 VRS's then? Im new to the diesel world,... I found Tesco 99 momentum to be best for petrol

Rich

[R1 4GHA]

Doh! Doesnt help posting in the MK2 section! As for price of fuel im not too bothered about spending the extra few pence,

Rich

[the mad monk]

Except I'm right

not strictly true, youre using examples that dont mirror what our cars will do

compare like for like and ill maybe agree to disagree with you

Edited 26 December, 2011 by the mad monk

[Rob Kirby]

Whats the super fuel at sainsburys ? at the moment its about 4p a litre more then normal fuel... last top up was 1.339 i think

[Fatbloke]

Whats the super fuel at sainsburys ? at the moment its about 4p a litre more then normal fuel... last top up was 1.339 i think

97 ron

[XLBaconDoubleCheese]

I agree with the majority. If I spent £14k on a car that I KNEW would need 98 ron fuel for full power and to look after the engine, the sake of £3 a tank (which I would get back in more MPG) then of course I would fill it with that. Whats the point in buying a hot hatch then using ****e fuel and reduce the power?! I also agree that due to the amount of power extracted from the little 1.4 means this kinda thing is more important than the RS & M3. No brainer IMO