I didn't know people had been using 91RON in the new 17/18 Tiguan and had reported issuesQuote:
Originally Posted by theresanothersteve
Thanks for letting me know
Printable View
I didn't know people had been using 91RON in the new 17/18 Tiguan and had reported issuesQuote:
Originally Posted by theresanothersteve
Thanks for letting me know
Why would anyone use 91 when it clearly states in needs 95? Over the course of 100,000km that's a potential saving of no more than $1500 and a good chance the engine takes a hit. And when it does there's a very good chance they'll deny the warranty claim. Surely they can tell from the ECU logs that the engine was constantly running **** fuel.Quote:
Originally Posted by FastMitch
Baseline:Quote:
Originally Posted by ewok666
91RON Fuel Price: $1.42
95RON Fuel Price: $1.59
Assume 10l/100km (efficiency from all city driving)
Equates to a saving of $170 per year if you avg 10,000 km per year
I find the difference is usually less than 17c but either way: For $170 per year you would risk wrecking the engine???Quote:
Originally Posted by FastMitch
And that's assuming you get the same mileage out of 91!
You maybe right :facepalm:Quote:
Originally Posted by ewok666
I will need to start looking when is the best time to buy 95RON
For the new Tiguan, is there much difference in 95RON between Shell and BP ?
For what it's worth... 12yrs ago I did a review on Optimax Extreme (the 100RON fuel from Shell). This was back in 2006. I had a Nissan 200SX with an SR20DET engine, running an Apexi PowerFC aftermarket ECU. I also had the hand controller hooked up to it.
The car had been tuned to run on 98 octane fuel. When Optimax Extreme came out, I ran my tank down as far as I dared with the fuel light on, put in a quarter of a tank of Optimax Extreme, ran that down as far as I dared go, then filled it all the way up to the top.
The hand controller of the PowerFC can report a knock value. Basically this value is how much detonation there is before top dead center. I forget how it calculates it, but basically you don't want anything over 60. 60 doesn't necessarily mean the car is pinging, but as a guide, you want the knock value to be below 60 to be safe.
Under normal driving conditions, I would see values between 15-25. If I really got my foot into the car (think going up a twisty hill, wide open throttle, full boost etc) - I would see peak knock values of 30-40.
When I did the review of Optimax Extreme - I got stuck into the car - full load, wide open throttle etc.
As part of the write up - I took this photo of my boost gauge. This was the peak boost I hit - which is fairly high for that engine at the time.
http://www.vwwatercooled.com.au/foru...04/boost-1.jpg
This was the highest knock value I got.... a whole 7.
http://www.vwwatercooled.com.au/foru.../powerfc-1.jpg
The difference that 2 extra RON made was incredible.
Now - granted the VW engine is a lot more technologically advanced, and probably has a wide band O2 sensor. But octane still plays a large role. In my Japanese engine, with old technology and a narrow band O2 sensor, under full load my knock value went from 30-40, down to 0-7. I can only imagine what a difference of 3 (95RON -> 98RON) makes. Let alone if someone was running 91RON in their engine which is designed to take a MINIMUM of 95RON.
And last time I checked... a German engine wasn't the cheapest thing to rebuild either.
What's your source on this? I had two work colleagues, one with a Jetta and one with a Golf. Both ended up with a check engine light, rough running and a diagnosis of cracked pistons. They did not use 91 octane fuel.Quote:
Originally Posted by theresanothersteve
The dual charger engines were notorious for the pistons cracking in the ring land area and this occur in markets (eg UK) where 95 octane fuel is default.
95RON is still borderline in them, even when they've had the re-flash done on the ECU to knock the edge off the timing.
I'd strongly recommend 98RON only, in TSI motors.
This, and other forums...Quote:
Originally Posted by prise
I did a lot of research on the twincharger before I bought one. I love the way they drive, but the media is full of VW horror stories. Not trusting the media I conducted research, including with independent VW specialists and some high performance engine types I know.
Interestingly the first incarnation of the twincharger is much as you describe, but around 2011/ 2012 the stories changed from "I had a twincharger and... " to "I know a bloke who has a twincharger and..."
Most horror stories are Golf/ Jetta related, but the motor was used in other bodies later in its life cycle with nowhere near the number of failures. Can you give me verified examples of this happening after the twincharge motor was upgraded? VW is on the nose with the consumer and people love to tell a bad news story.
And Australians are notorious for buying the cheapest fuel they can, manufacturer specifications be buggered. Just about every story I could verify included "I couldn't get 95", "my wife thought 91 was alright" and so on.
I was thinking about this thread as I was filling up the other day.. price difference between 98 to 95 was 6c.
Average of 50l when filling up the price difference is $3 a tank. Lets total that up for a year = $156 a year by going 98..
Doesn't seem like that big a cost saving for a performance car. That's less than 1 replacement tyre with the 20" rims
*Yes, assuming 6c remains the same all year..