95 ron a no no for the 182?
Green sticker inside the filler cap says 98 RON Unleaded (could say 97, can't remember without looking). This will be a guideline from Renault I expect. Therefore it's possible to assume they mapped it to 98 or a higher octane. 95 RON won't harm it though.
I doubt its maped for 98 cos 98 was not even available in this country when the 172 came.
At least I think thats the case as most supers are 97 and optimax/vpower wasn't out 10 years ago.
Also it wont be maped for 98 cos just because it says 98 on the pump(or whatever) doesn't mean its actually 98. Petrol can and does go off over time and the RON decreases with time. I know renault are pretty stupid but they wunt make an engine that would damage from the quality of fuel in a given market.
They probably just recomend 98 cos it will run a little better.
Interestingly the best 197 I have seen at RS Tuning was standard and running 95 ron and it ran 184bhp, the worse that day was a maped one with a s/s exhasut running VPower and that ran 175bhp.
At least I think thats the case as most supers are 97 and optimax/vpower wasn't out 10 years ago.
Also it wont be maped for 98 cos just because it says 98 on the pump(or whatever) doesn't mean its actually 98. Petrol can and does go off over time and the RON decreases with time. I know renault are pretty stupid but they wunt make an engine that would damage from the quality of fuel in a given market.
They probably just recomend 98 cos it will run a little better.
Interestingly the best 197 I have seen at RS Tuning was standard and running 95 ron and it ran 184bhp, the worse that day was a maped one with a s/s exhasut running VPower and that ran 175bhp.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2008
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 0
I believe the ECU adjusts depending on the petrol. You just need to run a few tanks through to get it used to what you're using. Saying that on a 2.0 NA engine it's not going to make much difference. Personally I use Vpower to keep the engine running smoothly and keep it "clean"
mada88 said:
The car was designed to run on higher octane and loves V power and even if you drive it hard you should get 300 miles out of tank maybe a bit more if you get an RS Tuner remap such as the JMS tuning one.
www.jmstuning.co.uk
Didn't 5th gear do a test on if a higher RON is better?
iirc the results were no difference on a n/a engine, a bit better on a golf gti mkV, and something like a scooby running much better on optimax. Think the conclusion was that only super high performance really benefits. Can't find the video online though :?
EDIT - I still put in super/Vpower/optimax anway cos think it's better for it, if not producing more power
iirc the results were no difference on a n/a engine, a bit better on a golf gti mkV, and something like a scooby running much better on optimax. Think the conclusion was that only super high performance really benefits. Can't find the video online though :?
EDIT - I still put in super/Vpower/optimax anway cos think it's better for it, if not producing more power
On modern cars running a knock sensor the car should run pretty much upto knock by advancing the ignition, by using a lower octane fuel knock happens earlier and therefore cars runs less advance and will make less power. On a N/A car the difference is small and possibly imperceivable to most drivers, on turbo cars where knock is much more critical higher octane fuels make a pretty big difference.
On the new Golf GTi 2L FSI engine VW owners have had engine failures due to using lower octane fuel, can't remember reason why off hand without researching it, head or valve failure springs to min, was documented in I think Auto Express consumer report thing where they take on the manufacturers on behalf of owners with problems, OK not the best motoring journal, but VW did acknowledge it and say it was down to fuel used by the owner.
Even on older cars without knock the benefits can be felt more through the additives they add to stuff like V-power when you strip engines down they are perceivably cleaner inside, meaning engines were running better.
Forgot to add, long before the unleaded days you used to get 2star, 3star, 4star and 5 star fuel. 5 star fuel was equivalent to about 102Ron in todays modern fuel. IIRC my 1971 Beetle was meant to run on 3star fuel, but by time I had the car no such thing exsisted only 4 star and unleaded.
On the new Golf GTi 2L FSI engine VW owners have had engine failures due to using lower octane fuel, can't remember reason why off hand without researching it, head or valve failure springs to min, was documented in I think Auto Express consumer report thing where they take on the manufacturers on behalf of owners with problems, OK not the best motoring journal, but VW did acknowledge it and say it was down to fuel used by the owner.
Even on older cars without knock the benefits can be felt more through the additives they add to stuff like V-power when you strip engines down they are perceivably cleaner inside, meaning engines were running better.
Forgot to add, long before the unleaded days you used to get 2star, 3star, 4star and 5 star fuel. 5 star fuel was equivalent to about 102Ron in todays modern fuel. IIRC my 1971 Beetle was meant to run on 3star fuel, but by time I had the car no such thing exsisted only 4 star and unleaded.
ALways ran mine on 99 due to the hilarious mis-spelt "99 RON Recommanded (sic)" sticker on the filler cap.
I'm too dumb to question orders, even badly-spelt ones.
I'm too dumb to question orders, even badly-spelt ones.
It will be safe to run on 95, there wont be any real performance benefit running on 99, but iv done not far off 40k in my PH1, and iv tired all different types of fuel, and mine ran the worse on 95, and once swapping to one of the higher octane fuels, the idle is noticably better, and it drives alot smoother.
Also iv found on average i get 3-5mpg more on super than i do on 95, so the extra cost isnt too bad.
Also on a personal note, i cant see why anyone would want to put 95 in, i mean we spend £££££ modifying our cars, we spend £££ on genuine parts, filters, and oil too, but then pass the better fuel to run cheaper fuel, when your saving barely nothing once you have taken the better mpg from the super into account.
Its like buying cheap oil,or tyres to save your self a few quid, rather then getting the best for your car.
Also iv found on average i get 3-5mpg more on super than i do on 95, so the extra cost isnt too bad.
Also on a personal note, i cant see why anyone would want to put 95 in, i mean we spend £££££ modifying our cars, we spend £££ on genuine parts, filters, and oil too, but then pass the better fuel to run cheaper fuel, when your saving barely nothing once you have taken the better mpg from the super into account.
Its like buying cheap oil,or tyres to save your self a few quid, rather then getting the best for your car.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2008
- Messages
- 95
- Reaction score
- 3
Got to say it winds me up when my missus puts 95RON in her 182 cup! Bloody woman drivers!
I've run for decent lengths of time on both fuels, and in all honesty have never really noticed a great deal of difference in either mpg or performance, I reckon I notice a bigger difference between a nice cold crisp morning and not so cold damp morning than I do between different fuels. Evo did a report a while back, and I can remember them mentioning about fuel going off and how what can be more important is how busy the forecourt is. I won't touch tesco 99 by me, everytime I use it the pump takes ages to get going, which the staff have told me is the pump priming itself through lack of use.
I'm actually thinking the other way around at the moment. Vpower is 7p premium by me, so 7p of £1.15 is less percentage wise then 7p of 96p. But I'm sure before too long shell will increase the premium of Vpower over 95, and then I'm likely to go back to running 95 ron and pulling the sticker off the inside of the fuel flap so I don't feel guilty of depriving the trophy of what it wants.