Premium fuel vs Regular fuel

[JaswinderSingh]

I want to know is there any benefit(Mileage wise, Performance wise) of Premium fuel instead regular fuel.

[Hillbilly]

Well as VW specify it the difference may well be that running lower grade may stuff your motor.

Im not game to try.

Interestingly in the USA the standard grade is only 87 Octane and in one place 86. Premium is 91. Must be slightly different rating to here perhaps. Maybe a US member can tell us.

I did 13700km in a rental Hyundai Tucson and it went like the clappers on it.

[team_v]

VW requires a minimum of 95 Ron.
I would reccomend 98 Ron as it is better for the car and the cost difference is marginal.

If the car is tuned or has a high output it should only run 98 Ron.



The US has a completel different system where they have 91 compared to our 95 and 93 compared to our 98.

[Hillbilly]

VW requires a minimum of 95 Ron.
I would reccomend 98 Ron as it is better for the car and the cost difference is marginal.

If the car is tuned or has a high output it should only run 98 Ron.
The US has a completel different system where they have 91 compared to our 95 and 93 compared to our 98.

Cost is over 10c a litre where we buy it but cheaper than a new motor LOL

Yep thats the ratings in US rental company said run it on the cheapest so I did

[The_Hawk]

I haven't done the tests in a long while (and not in a modern VW), but everytime I have done it in the past it works out that 98 gets more KM per tank and the cost difference works out to be almost NIL or slightly in your favour AND you get to have cleaner burning fuel which is theoretically better for your car...

So at no additional cost in the long term, it's a no brainer for me.

[Amalgam]

Engines are designed to perform at specific octane rating. Most Europeans require 95RON as that is the lowest RON fuel that is available in the EU.

Running your engine on a lower RON fuel may cause your engine to detonate or ping especially under load and acceleration. Most engines can compensate for a lower RON than specified. This should be used only in emergency and only to get you to a petrol station with the correct fuel. Long term use may cause severe engine issues, even failure.

Running your engine on a higher RON fuel may or may not provide any improvement in terms of power or fuel economy.

Premium fuels, especially diesels may or may not contain fuel injector cleaners and other magic potions.

[Creampuff]

tested this many times, 98 gives better fuel economy. Tests were done on TV show 5th gear and only Shell 98 had better performance. I am on my 5th car and will only use 98.

[fred27]

+1 on all the feedback provided, 98 no brainer....

[greg32]

The difference here in Orange is 5c. I haven't noticed any difference between the two. The other point is that 95 is a high turnover at some stations and 98 can be a slow mover and goes stale at the station and no better than 95. The other factor locally is there is no discounting and price cycles so fuel is always at the premium end of the cycle. I see price differences of up to 25c when I go to Sydney.

[stefcio007]

Didn't see too much of a difference between 95 and 98 for fuel economy. I've always filled up 98 at BP, is Shell any better? Is there really a difference between the two 98's?

[kaanage]

Interestingly in the USA the standard grade is only 87 Octane and in one place 86. Premium is 91. Must be slightly different rating to here perhaps.

Our octane numbers are RON (research octane number) while the US use (RON + MON) / 2. MON (motor octane number) is usually about 8 - 10 points lower than RON so their 87 is about the same as 91 here and their 91 is equivalent to 95 here.

[dylan8]

I always try to put 98 in the bora.
Feel there is better economy and performance.

Same in the 6n, will put 98 in for long drives back to the country with better results. I can only imagine the gains are better again if you had a' performance engine'

[warrick]

have to go along with the others,98 = more klms per tank.used it on my last 3 cars with positive results. also being cleaner cant hurt the engine in the long term. performance wise i dont think there is any real advantage unless you have a modified motor.
cheers
warrick

[brad]

OP hasn't actually said what car / engine he has.

When I had the 2.0L NA Mk3.5 it ran best on 95ron e10.

The 1.8tsi has always given the best cents per kilometre with 98ron - in stock or tuned form. For me, best mileage is from Shell 98 but the others aren't far behind.

If I want maximum power then 100ron e10 is fantastic. E85 is even better but eventually you get a CEL because the o2 sensors don't like the oxtgen rich nature of ethanol.

[JustCruisn]

I did the test in my Mazda 121.
From 91 to 95 not much better KM, but resulted in higher overall price per KM.
Then to 98 I found the extra KM reduced the cost per KM. 20% increase in KM but only 12% increase in price. So I stuck with that.
I only run the VWs on 98 as per the sticker.

[Elmura]

If your engine is standard, refer to the minimum octane required for the specific car. Higher octane won't produce more power unless the computer is tuned for it - it is a slower burning fuel that resists detonation. For an engine in good health, putting higher octane than specified should not benefit much relative to increased cost.
However, you should not put lower octane than specified else poor performance, economy & worse will be the result.

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

[wai]

A higher octane rating will mean it can resist detonation more. This would allow the ignition timing to advance more than standard, and this can give you a higher BMEP which will result in more torque.

The problem is that the ECU must be tuned to do that, if not, you will not see any appreciable increase in power.

Now, the only reason I would go for PULP95 is if the only standard ULP you can get is E10. The reason is that E10 will see your consumption go up by around 10% because ethanol has around 30% lower calorific value. As a result, you burn as much fuel as you were with just ULP, plus you are burning 10% ethanol.

The engine needs to be retuned for E10. When ethanol burns, the oxygen atoms are released, and this leans the mixture out. The combustion temperature is higher because of this, and you can have issues.

When I had my Hiace, I tried E10. The engine was rough and pickup was bad. I ran the tank low and filled it with PULP95. The difference was amazing. The engine was smooth and throttle pickup was excellent, just driving out of the service station.

So, you will not get any more power, but if it gets you away from E10, then go for PULP95. No point in wasting your money on PULP98.

[brad]

Why would anyone run 91ron (either e10 or otherwise) in a modern VW vehicle? WTF?

[wai]

Why would anyone run 91ron (either e10 or otherwise) in a modern VW vehicle? WTF?

If that is what the manufacturer recommends, then there is no issue with it. E10 however is a politically concocted attempt to appease certain lobby groups, and is not something I would ever recommend.

[brad]

If that is what the manufacturer recommends, then there is no issue with it. E10 however is a politically concocted attempt to appease certain lobby groups, and is not something I would ever recommend.

That's not the question I asked.

I don't think there has been an VW vehicle in the past 15 years that has had a factory fuel recommendation of less than 95 ron.

[Elmura]

I don't think there has been an VW vehicle in the past 15 years that has had a factory fuel recommendation of less than 95 ron.

United E10 has 95 Octane. There's nothing really wrong with Ethanol - it's simply an alternative fuel source that can be grown rather than mined. It raises octane a few points but has less energy density. Modern engines (last 10 years) are completely capable of handling the fuel's differences as long as it meets the minimum octane requirement.

I don't use it because I'm performance focused. I find even 95 Octane Petrol in my Honda Euro (it's specified requirement) not as good a performer as 98 so whilst fuel consumption improves slightly with 98, throttle response is better and that matters to me. This means either the ECU is really tuned to work with higher octane but given a minimum rating it can work acceptably with; or my pistons & head are coated with years of carbon build up (considering I have new plugs and fuel cleaners run twice a year)

[sports racer]

I wouldn't use Ethanol/petrol mix if you paid me. It's corrosive, that's why it's limited to only 10% of the fuel. Modern cars are built with this in mind but eventually something is going to give.

Some months ago SBS ran a show on the benefits of each grade of petrol and advised 91 octane was suitable for nearly all the cars on Aust roads. The only exception was anyone running a high performance car that could only run on 98. They had access to Govt testing and independent labs and even the commentators were surprised with the results.

However, the recommendations were cost based and none of the testing was done by enthusiasts who don't mind paying more for better performance.

[Hillbilly]

I wouldn't use Ethanol/petrol mix if you paid me. It's corrosive, that's why it's limited to only 10% of the fuel. Modern cars are built with this in mind but eventually something is going to give.

Some months ago SBS ran a show on the benefits of each grade of petrol and advised 91 octane was suitable for nearly all the cars on Aust roads. The only exception was anyone running a high performance car that could only run on 98. They had access to Govt testing and independent labs and even the commentators were surprised with the results.

However, the recommendations were cost based and none of the testing was done by enthusiasts who don't mind paying more for better performance.

The emphasis is on "Nearly all"

If the handbook says "Use 95" Use it. If your motor blows and VW do a fuel test and its 91 it will be "thanks but no thanks. See you"

Believing a TV show is nearly as bad as believing whats on the Internet.