MK5 Golf GTI

All Things Mk5 => Mk5 General Area => Topic started by: Ads22 on September 14, 2017, 06:16:32 pm

Title: 95 vs 99 ron - Worth the extra cost
Post by: Ads22 on September 14, 2017, 06:16:32 pm
Ive been looking into how to improve the MPG since discovering that the GTi is quite sensitive to fuel brands and types. Ive managed to hit 34 average on a long with mixed roads. I found on supermarket fuel is runs like crap compared to Shell, BP ect unsurprisingly. So ive heard, the AXX engine was designed to run on 99 ron fuel. My car mainly does short journeys but does anyone use exclusively higher octane fuel? If so what brand and is it worth the extra cost over 95ron.
Title: Re: 95 vs 99 ron - Worth the extra cost
Post by: neilw on September 14, 2017, 06:44:59 pm
I managed a 40mpg run on V-Power, on a 35mile trip on a quiet motorway. Getting rid of the pre-cat made a significant difference.

The engines are supposed to have 98, so I normally stick with that, (Or Esso 97) sometimes.
Title: Re: 95 vs 99 ron - Worth the extra cost
Post by: willni on September 14, 2017, 07:19:46 pm
I only use 99 BP Ultimate, just all round better for the engine don't do long miles in it so can't comment on milage but in my 1.4 beater I get better mpg and more miles from 99 vs 95 about 80 extra miles a tank.

Although I think the pumps affect fuel price, I have 2 fuel pumps I only go to because any of the others charge me £7 extra...not even joking 10 people have said to exact same to me about the same pumps
Title: Re: 95 vs 99 ron - Worth the extra cost
Post by: f00glee on September 14, 2017, 07:33:32 pm
Even before having mine stage 1 mapped (now requires 99RON exclusively). I only ever used V power or tesco momentum 99. BP ultimate is 97, not 99.

I think the consensus is that it makes some difference in terms of MPG even on a std map so you may break even with cost. Other benefits of cleaning agents etc play a factor too.

Now I'm mapped and pre cat out, I regularly see 45 mpg on a 15 mile trip up the A10 near Cambridge (sat at 50 mph). Long term average is approaching 35mpg and an 80mph motorway run for any kind of distance returns ~38mpg. Pretty happy with these numbers  :happy2:
Title: Re: 95 vs 99 ron - Worth the extra cost
Post by: Lewo on September 14, 2017, 09:21:43 pm
I thought BP ultimate was 97?
Title: Re: 95 vs 99 ron - Worth the extra cost
Post by: DavGTI on September 14, 2017, 10:41:56 pm
Yeah BP ultimate is 97ron. I'm from Northern Ireland and I'm pretty confident 97 Ron is the highest we can get over here.
Title: Re: 95 vs 99 ron - Worth the extra cost
Post by: richtung on September 15, 2017, 09:45:27 am
For those who are Costco Members, the Costco Fuel Stations now have 99 RON Premium Unleaded fuel.

I believe this is the same stuff as the Tesco 99 Ron Momentum.

The cost is about £1.17 a litres (as of Monday 11th Sept) which is roughly the same as normal unleaded from regular stations.

Hope this helps.

Rich
Title: Re: 95 vs 99 ron - Worth the extra cost
Post by: willni on September 15, 2017, 09:51:41 am
BP ranges between 97-99 they advertise as 97, so they can't get done by trading standards if it's less


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: 95 vs 99 ron - Worth the extra cost
Post by: pudding on September 15, 2017, 10:23:54 am
Even before having mine stage 1 mapped (now requires 99RON exclusively). I only ever used V power or tesco momentum 99. BP ultimate is 97, not 99.

I think the consensus is that it makes some difference in terms of MPG even on a std map so you may break even with cost. Other benefits of cleaning agents etc play a factor too.

Now I'm mapped and pre cat out, I regularly see 45 mpg on a 15 mile trip up the A10 near Cambridge (sat at 50 mph). Long term average is approaching 35mpg and an 80mph motorway run for any kind of distance returns ~38mpg. Pretty happy with these numbers  :happy2:

Is your map really 99 specific?  Must have a lot of timing!  I can use 95 on my stage 1 tune no probs and have done many times :smiley:

Good mpg.  I never drive slow enough to see anything above 30 on the short term average, but my long term average is hanging around 31mpg at the moment.  Was 27 before I replaced the cam sensor  :smiley:
Title: Re: 95 vs 99 ron - Worth the extra cost
Post by: shoaybmakda on September 15, 2017, 11:05:36 am
Standard car here bar the intake and cat back - only use momentum from Tesco.

Was 1.17p per litre as of last Sunday (Tesco Hamilton/wigston in Leicester) so not much more expensive than standard petrol. It’s recommended for a reason I guess so I just stick with it.

The mrs mini on the other hand gets Tesco’s finest standard diesel lol
Title: Re: 95 vs 99 ron - Worth the extra cost
Post by: PatchySan on September 15, 2017, 11:29:46 am
For those who are Costco Members, the Costco Fuel Stations now have 99 RON Premium Unleaded fuel.

I believe this is the same stuff as the Tesco 99 Ron Momentum.

The cost is about £1.17 a litres (as of Monday 11th Sept) which is roughly the same as normal unleaded from regular stations.

Hope this helps.

Rich

Wow that's gone up quite a bit since I last filled up on the 1st Sept (£1.12) for Super Unleaded at Costco! Must have been the crazy weather in the Americas which is driving up oil prices.

UPDATE: Decided to pop by into my local Costco for a price check and fill up, it has gone up but by a penny! £1.13 for Super Unleaded 99 RON :happy2:
Title: Re: 95 vs 99 ron - Worth the extra cost
Post by: MIJ_JAGGER on September 15, 2017, 11:45:34 am
Shell V-power nitro+-x for me at £1.30 I think it was last week
Received my reward voucher for £8 which helps
Title: Re: 95 vs 99 ron - Worth the extra cost
Post by: dronners on September 15, 2017, 12:31:07 pm
i use v power since its the only premium fuel in town really otherwise id use tesco momentum its always a lot cheaper than shell
Title: Re: 95 vs 99 ron - Worth the extra cost
Post by: Leco_GTI on September 15, 2017, 01:01:39 pm
V-Power £1.34 last Wednesday in West London so I just put regular fuel this time. I always use V-Power since I bought the car 8 months ago.

I had the pre-cat removed a few weeks ago but I didn't notice any improvement in fuel consumption.
Title: Re: 95 vs 99 ron - Worth the extra cost
Post by: TheBALDpuma on September 15, 2017, 04:48:20 pm
I've got a Pirelli Edition and I run both and don't see a lot of difference in efficiency, or performance using different fuels.  It is mapped to run on 98/99 but runs fine on 99, so I expect there is a difference in performance but day to day it isn't noticable.  As for economy I expect it does make a small difference too but it's masked by other factors that it's not noticable (tempreture, driving conditions, traffic etc.)

I do use V power maybe one in 3 or 4 tanks for the cleaning benefits though.
Title: Re: 95 vs 99 ron - Worth the extra cost
Post by: f00glee on September 18, 2017, 09:09:41 pm
Even before having mine stage 1 mapped (now requires 99RON exclusively). I only ever used V power or tesco momentum 99. BP ultimate is 97, not 99.

I think the consensus is that it makes some difference in terms of MPG even on a std map so you may break even with cost. Other benefits of cleaning agents etc play a factor too.

Now I'm mapped and pre cat out, I regularly see 45 mpg on a 15 mile trip up the A10 near Cambridge (sat at 50 mph). Long term average is approaching 35mpg and an 80mph motorway run for any kind of distance returns ~38mpg. Pretty happy with these numbers  :happy2:

Is your map really 99 specific?  Must have a lot of timing!  I can use 95 on my stage 1 tune no probs and have done many times :smiley:

Good mpg.  I never drive slow enough to see anything above 30 on the short term average, but my long term average is hanging around 31mpg at the moment.  Was 27 before I replaced the cam sensor  :smiley:

I would assume so. The guys at r tech request 99RON fuel before mapping so I guess that's what the map is based on!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: 95 vs 99 ron - Worth the extra cost
Post by: pudding on September 19, 2017, 02:16:41 pm
Don't R-Tech maps come with 5 switchable maps for lower octane?
Title: Re: 95 vs 99 ron - Worth the extra cost
Post by: f00glee on September 19, 2017, 05:09:06 pm
Don't R-Tech maps come with 5 switchable maps for lower octane?

You're right about the switchable maps being present, but for me octane wasn't a consideration/ever mentioned (other than specifying 99 had to be in the tank). I wanted to be able to drop the power temporarily if my clutch starts to struggle at some point in the future (std clutch) or if I have to let someone else drive for any reason...

For me map 1 is "stock" power, 4 has torque capped below 300lbft and 5 delivers the full beans 320odd lbft. 2 and 3 aren't so much "proper" maps - just map 4 again with further reduced boost levels to bring the torque down even more. HP comes down with the reduced torque. Obviously the car sits in 5 99.9% of the time :D though it is fun dropping it into map 1 for a few minutes to be reminded how much oomph has been gained.

Sorry for the slight thread hijack!






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: 95 vs 99 ron - Worth the extra cost
Post by: Molesy on September 19, 2017, 06:54:09 pm
My car lives on Shell Nitro+, i can tell the difference with other cheaper supermarket fuels so they only go in if nothing else is around. I'm lucky that I drive past a Shell, Esso and BP on the way to work and the Shell is generally the cheapest!
Title: Re: 95 vs 99 ron - Worth the extra cost
Post by: gtipirelli on September 19, 2017, 07:28:58 pm
I have a mapped Pirelli edition and it just feels flat on 95 Ron fuel. It really takes off on momentum 99 so always use that

No idea if I get better mpg. The performance on tap is more important