# Using 97 or higher octane fuel



## ricey90 (Sep 14, 2015)

Just wondered if anybody was using the higher octane fuels on the mk 3 ? does this affect the erformance or fuel economy?


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

Hi, If it's designed for 97+ & you don't use it, you will loose performance & engine won't be as efficient so MPG will suffer.
Hoggy.


----------



## ricey90 (Sep 14, 2015)

well it says use 95.....but i just wondered if anybody ever did use 97+ and if it had any bad effects?


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

ricey90 said:


> well it says use 95.....but i just wondered if anybody ever did use 97+ and if it had any bad effects?


Hi, If designed for 95 then unless ECU can advance Ign timing to suit 97+, you won't see any difference in performance.
Hoggy.


----------



## SpudZ (Jul 15, 2012)

ricey90 said:


> Just wondered if anybody was using the higher octane fuels on the mk 3 ? does this affect the erformance or fuel economy?


No I haven't, but if I had I fear I'd be wasting my loot! Think placebo.


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

This might help:






I'd stick with the better fuels as they have more advanced cleaning agents in them.


----------



## ricey90 (Sep 14, 2015)

Thanks for that.....at 10p a litre more i think i will stick to the regular 95 then


----------



## sherry13 (Oct 8, 2013)

I used the posh petrol for the first time at the weekend and seemed to get more fuel efficiency out of it, though not sure if that is how it is supposed to work or just coincidence. The car seemed happier with it.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Delta4 (Jun 19, 2015)

For any one that has'nt used v power or similar ignore the nay sayers and tight wads buy it try it and come to your own conclusion.


----------



## TRTT (Sep 16, 2015)

I think I see a noticeable difference between the standard 95 and the 98 advanced option we get here in Germany & Luxembourg, but mainly in economy rather than performance. Deciphering hard data vs a placeob effect is somewhat more challenging however! :lol:


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

If your car is designed to run on higher octane fuel then you should get more power and better mpg by using it. Gauging any power increase is difficult and its easy to kid yourself that you now have more umph. However mpg can be measured and from my experience the additional cost of buying higher octane fuel is more than offset by the improved mpg gained by using it.
You are looking at about 3 tankfuls of high octane fuel before the full benefits kick in. You need to lose the low octane fuel in your tank and it takes a while for the engine management system to adapt to the high octane fuel.
However if your car is not designed to run on higher octane fuels then you are just wasting your money buying it. Unless you believe all the hype that's put out about Shell Nitro etc.


----------



## GoTeamGb2012 (Dec 27, 2012)

I don't advise it. I have a TTS and says 97+, anything lower and reduced performance. I was recently across in Ireland for holiday where they don't really do high octane stuff and boy did it show. Couldn't wait to get back across the border to fill up with premium. Once back on the good stuff it was like someone flicked a switch and i had my TTS back again. Was minor but enough to be annoying and mpg was markedly worse


----------



## ChrisH (Jul 19, 2007)

If it says 95 on the fuel cap as on the 2.0 model then I see no reason for using a higher octane. If TTS requires 97 then it will obviously not run so well on lower octane.

My three pennies worth on the subject:- 
I tried a few tanks of the highest octane available in Germany in my last (981) Cayman and it made no difference to mpg at all. I was not ringing its neck so cant tell whether it revved out above 6000 any better, 120-130 mph on autobahns is quick enough for me for short stretches before the limited speed sections.

If you want to love your TT engine more by using 98 or above then by all means use it, but I think its all in the mind.


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

ChrisH said:


> If it says 95 on the fuel cap as on the 2.0 model then I see no reason for using a higher octane. If TTS requires 97 then it will obviously not run so well on lower octane.
> 
> My three pennies worth on the subject:-
> I tried a few tanks of the highest octane available in Germany in my last (981) Cayman and it made no difference to mpg at all. I was not ringing its neck so cant tell whether it revved out above 6000 any better, 120-130 mph on autobahns is quick enough for me for short stretches before the limited speed sections.
> ...


You're forgetting that the Porsch 981 is N/A compared to the TT.A forced induction engine requires a better quality fuel i.e,a higher octane rating to avoid detonation.In practice the ECU won't let the engine pre detonate on a modern turbocharged engine as the timing will be pulled back.It will be felt as a "lack" of power and depends on the individual as to whether this will be realised behind the wheel.


----------



## ChrisH (Jul 19, 2007)

leopard said:


> ChrisH said:
> 
> 
> > If it says 95 on the fuel cap as on the 2.0 model then I see no reason for using a higher octane. If TTS requires 97 then it will obviously not run so well on lower octane.
> ...


I don't see your point as it makes no difference whether N/A or Turbo design. If it says 95 on the fuel cap then there is no point in using a higher octane. On the TTS it says 97 on the fuel cap then it wont perform as well on 95 as the timing will be retarded as you say. I am making the point there is no point in using higher octane than recommended.

Infact the 981 has a 98 Octane label but they say you can use 95 with lower performance, this was not my experience. There are always those who like to love their cars by feeding them only the best.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

leopard said:


> This might help:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't have sound currently, but the results are on a 2012 GTI E35 rated at 232bhp:

Shell V-Power: 240.9 bhp (+5.1) 9p
Esso Supreme: 240.5 bhp (+4.7) 8p
BP Ultimate: 236.7 bhp (+0.9) 11p
BP Unleaded: 236.1 bhp (+0.3) 3p
Asda Unleaded: 235.8 bhp

The second figure is the bhp difference from Asda, and the third is the price premium over Asda.

I'm a sucker for V-Power in my MK1. I'm also a sucker for the marketing that premium fuels put premium stuff to help with keeping the engine clean burning etc. For less than £5 per fill-up, I don't let it bother me.


----------



## SpudZ (Jul 15, 2012)

97+? Are you sure?

I'm positive mine says 95.....


----------



## Critter10 (Nov 4, 2010)

At one time I had a copy of the workshop manual for the MK2. It stated quite clearly that the TTS ran optimally on 98 RON+, but would run on 95 RON though the ECU would automatically adjust both power and fuel economy. I'm assuming the TTS MK3 is the same. In the UK, unless I'm mistaken, most super unleaded is 97 RON with the exception of Shell V Power and Tesco Momentum which I believe are both 99 RON. I'm also guessing that's where the 97+ comes from, in recognition of what's available in the UK. I personally have always put V Power in my car and currently average 34.6 mpg. I'd be interested to know how other MK3 TTS drivers are getting on, particularly those using 95 RON fuel - what sort of MPG are you averaging?


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

Hi, OP states his MK 3 shows to use 95, not 97 like other TT marques, so if that is correct for the MK 3 then no point in using 97+ unless having re-mapped to use 97+
Hoggy.


----------



## stueychewy (Oct 6, 2015)

Critter10 said:


> I personally have always put V Power in my car and currently average 34.6 mpg. I'd be interested to know how other MK3 TTS drivers are getting on, particularly those using 95 RON fuel - what sort of MPG are you averaging?


The manual for the Mk3 says 95 RON and I am getting 39-40mpg with 1600 miles on the clock.

But then most of my mileage is motorway driving.


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

Hoggy said:


> Hi, OP states his MK 3 shows to use 95, not 97 like other TT marques, so if that is correct for the MK 3 then no point in using 97+ unless having re-mapped to use 97+
> Hoggy.


The video that I supplied in which "Fifth Gear" tests different petrols test this on a Golf Ed 35, which in the sales brochure states 95 ron.

They got a ~ 5 bhp increase using the V-Power,so I would suggest that the better the fuel the better the performance.


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

leopard said:


> Hoggy said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, OP states his MK 3 shows to use 95, not 97 like other TT marques, so if that is correct for the MK 3 then no point in using 97+ unless having re-mapped to use 97+
> ...


Hi, Sales brochure info may be different to the sticker on the actual car, but I agree if ECU can advance the Ign timing then more power should result.
Hoggy.


----------



## ChrisH (Jul 19, 2007)

stueychewy said:


> Critter10 said:
> 
> 
> > I personally have always put V Power in my car and currently average 34.6 mpg. I'd be interested to know how other MK3 TTS drivers are getting on, particularly those using 95 RON fuel - what sort of MPG are you averaging?
> ...


I use 95 and with similar miles on the clock it's doing 42 mpg overall and plenty of power.


----------



## Critter10 (Nov 4, 2010)

Hoggy said:


> Hi, OP states his MK 3 shows to use 95, not 97 like other TT marques, so if that is correct for the MK 3 then no point in using 97+ unless having re-mapped to use 97+
> Hoggy.


Understood from the OP's question, but the TTS states "98 RON - 95 RON minimum". My observation and follow-up question were specifically in respect of the MK3 TTS. I'm assuming those that have responded so far on fuel consumption have the standard model? Would be really interested in what fuel/mpg TTS owners are using/getting.


----------



## SpudZ (Jul 15, 2012)

Long term consumption when I checked last night was bang on 30mpg. That includes the pdi etc so would expect it to be nearer 32. Have used 95 Ron from new.


----------



## ChrisH (Jul 19, 2007)

Critter10 said:


> Hoggy said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, OP states his MK 3 shows to use 95, not 97 like other TT marques, so if that is correct for the MK 3 then no point in using 97+ unless having re-mapped to use 97+
> ...


My Mk III 2.0 S-Line is showing 42mpg overall average with 1700 mls on the clock. I believe the FWD feature helps the mpg with lower drive line losses and overall weight v's the TTS. I am using 95 fuel as recommended.


----------



## ROBH49 (Jun 13, 2013)

I do a mixture of A roads and dual carriageways on my 13 mile a day round trip to work and I`m averaging around 28mpg and this is using Shell V Power so not that good to be honest.

I can get that up to around 35mpg on a long run thou, this might get better when she beds in a little, I have only covered just short of 1400 miles from new and always run on Shell V Power and these figures are without ringing its neck.


----------



## TRTT (Sep 16, 2015)

There's just 1 more reason to go for Shell V-Power (in Luxembourg at least)...


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

We had Lego cars from Shell a while ago in the UK - not sure they're doing anything currently here.


Lego Ferrari 458 Italia by Dash, on Flickr


----------



## TRTT (Sep 16, 2015)

Had those last year...kids loved them...


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Pfft, sod the kids. I loved them


----------



## noname (Aug 20, 2015)

TRTT said:


> There's just 1 more reason to go for Shell V-Power (in Luxembourg at least)...


I have these..but I think I miss one or two models..now I think shell doesn't give these cars anymore..
they have the engine sound and pulling back the car, it'll recharge a spring to accelerate!


----------



## ttsroadsternewbie (Feb 13, 2016)

This is from my 16 plate TTS which i picked up only a few days ago. Looks like it wants 98 RON but accepts a minimum of 95? At least that what I think it's saying...


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

ttsroadsternewbie said:


> This is from my 16 plate TTS which i picked up only a few days ago. Looks like it wants 98 RON but accepts a minimum of 95? At least that what I think it's saying...


Hi, Designed to use 98 so will run more efficiently than using 95 which will cause some power loss, as Ign timing will be retarded to prevent pinking. (Knock) 
Hoggy.


----------



## ianle (Apr 2, 2015)

I 'think' my TTS goes better with super unleaded but I have no real proof. With about £3 difference in a tank, and I fill up twice per month, I'll take the potential placebo effect for £6 per month in a £100.

Ian.


----------



## noname (Aug 20, 2015)

I can say that my road to work, some km on a highway then other in an urban road, so constant speed, better fuel gains about 1.2 km/l..I'll try again with other conditions or use


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

Never understand people who buy a turbo charged performance car then put 95 ron fuel in when its designed for 98 ron but each to his own and all that.


----------



## jc74 (Jul 6, 2014)

blagman said:


> Never understand people who buy a turbo charged performance car then put 95 ron fuel in when its designed for 98 ron but each to his own and all that.


Would be interesting if someone could measure power output of a TT running 98 RON vs a TTS running 95 RON! Perhaps something like 240bhp vs 280bhp?


----------



## PJV997 (Dec 17, 2010)

jc74 said:


> blagman said:
> 
> 
> > Never understand people who buy a turbo charged performance car then put 95 ron fuel in when its designed for 98 ron but each to his own and all that.
> ...


I'd be surprised if it was more than a few percent difference


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Not easy to measure any power output change without special equipment but you can measure mpg differences with some degree of accuracy. With my previous Sirocco mpg during urban driving went from 30 mpg on 95 octane to 33 mpg on V-power - which more than covered the extra cost of V-power. That would be about a 10% improvement in mpg.
Don't know if you can extrapolate those figures to get an indication of power differences.

Of course I don't put high octane petrol in my TT as the engine isn't designed to run on it so it would be a waste of money for absolutely no benefit.


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

jc74 said:


> blagman said:
> 
> 
> > Never understand people who buy a turbo charged performance car then put 95 ron fuel in when its designed for 98 ron but each to his own and all that.
> ...


More like 2 or 3 HP at the top at optimum revs/max power. I use V Power and when on holiday in remotish places in Europe use 95 as that's all you can get, it makes no noticeable difference to either performance or fuel economy. And that's on a mapped car.

But just can't bring myself to use anything else when V Power is available.


----------



## ChrisH (Jul 19, 2007)

CWM3 said:


> jc74 said:
> 
> 
> > blagman said:
> ...


As I said before its all in the mind, if it makes you feel better to treat your car with V power then pay the extra for the 98 "better" fuel and get the free cuddly toy. 
Please tell me how you can feel 2 or 3 bhp more at the top end, you guys must drive on a rolling roads at 6k revs all day whereas I drive in congestion most of the time and you can't do more than 70 legally.


----------



## SpudZ (Jul 15, 2012)

98 RON with a full fuel load or 95 RON with 1/2 fuel load. You'd probably get better acceleration & fuel economy with the latter. Add the air con into the mix allied to a passenger as well and I think we'd all be chasing the placebo tail..


----------



## Critter10 (Nov 4, 2010)

SpudZ said:


> 98 RON with a full fuel load or 95 RON with 1/2 fuel load. You'd probably get better acceleration & fuel economy with the latter. Add the air con into the mix allied to a passenger as well and I think we'd all be chasing the placebo tail..


My average MPG, after 8000 miles, is just over 35. I think you said yours was around 30mpg? Our driving styles could, of course, be very different but I'll wager that most of the fuel economy I'm getting is down to the higher octane. As Others have said, why spend a huge amount on the car and feed it cheaper fuel. The TTS is clearly designed to run at its best on 97+ RON, so why skimp?


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Critter10 said:


> SpudZ said:
> 
> 
> > 98 RON with a full fuel load or 95 RON with 1/2 fuel load. You'd probably get better acceleration & fuel economy with the latter. Add the air con into the mix allied to a passenger as well and I think we'd all be chasing the placebo tail..
> ...


#

But if its not a TTS and its not designed to run on high octane then there is absolutely no point in filling up with fuel that costs 9p / litre more. You are just throwing your money away.


----------



## Critter10 (Nov 4, 2010)

ZephyR2 said:


> Critter10 said:
> 
> 
> > SpudZ said:
> ...


Absolutely agree.


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

I get under 30mpg and I don't even have a TTS. I only have the 1.8. Driving style and where you live has a massive effect, so you can't really compare.


----------



## LEIGH-H (Feb 24, 2016)

Given that the engine is largely the same, it's peculiar that the fuel recommendations are different for the standard 2.0 and the TTS. I'm on the fence with regards to performance differences, although clearly higher octane fuel is undeniably more potent and capable of producing higher power where the software is coded to take advantage of the additional potency. It does make me wonder just how far these engines would be apart from each other if their fuel maps were both identical. Perhaps not enough to justify the price difference...

I've previously come across some GTI PP rolling road results (yes, I know *rolling roads*) which tested 3 different fuels, although I can't remember where exactly I saw them. They were then compared to a Golf R using Tesco Momemtum; they showed the Golf producing 240hp on regular 95 and about 250hp on Tesco 99. V Power was about 247hp. I don't know for sure, but I'm assuming the GTI is more-or-less the same map as the TT, certainly it's the same engine. Anyway, it was all pretty close and in reality you probably wouldn't notice any performance difference. The Golf R produced just under 300hp on the Tesco 99 (I know the TTS has a slightly higher peak power than the R).

With a power deficit of less than 50hp it would, in real world driving, probably make the two cars fairly close performance wise. A talented driver would likely be the deciding factor.

Like I say, I'm on the fence but it's an interesting topic.


----------



## LEIGH-H (Feb 24, 2016)

TTimi said:


> I get under 30mpg and I don't even have a TTS. I only have the 1.8. Driving style and where you live has a massive effect, so you can't really compare.


And yours is more aerodynamic than most!


----------



## Ollie W (Oct 4, 2015)

Hmmm, I tried Tesco's Momentum in my TT and it seems more sluggish... maybe I've just got too much in the boot!


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

My journeys are identical basically every day. I might try some tests on the 95 and then the momentum stuff.

See if the mpg on the trip computer is better or worse. I think we should all try.


----------



## LEIGH-H (Feb 24, 2016)

A Tesco Momentum group buy discount? There's an idea!


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

LEIGH-H said:


> A Tesco Momentum group buy discount? There's an idea!


As long as I get the clubcard points! Using my Tesco credit card gets me a crazy amount of points each month!


----------



## LEIGH-H (Feb 24, 2016)

Think of the points you'll get when paying for your first service. Actually best not to give it any thought!


----------

