# Permium gas vs. mid-grade



## goatman1 (Aug 12, 2007)

I am a new CC owner (one week) and a new VW owner so sorry if this has been asked before but for the sake of time, if there any noticeable performance or mileage difference if I use mid-grade gas rather them Premium?


----------



## justinclark (Oct 5, 2009)

Been discussed a bit - use premium for sure!


----------



## GERMANCARMAN (Jul 22, 2002)

I have to agree, that is what they tell you to use, the cost is really not that much different.


----------



## M3Tech (Jan 26, 2007)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (goatman1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *goatman1* »_I am a new CC owner (one week) and a new VW owner so sorry if this has been asked before but for the sake of time, if there any noticeable performance or mileage difference if I use mid-grade gas rather them Premium? 

I did not notice any drastic performance difference between 93 and 87 octane in 44,000 miles with a 2008 Passat B6. And after 1,500 miles in a 2010 CC DSG using 87 octane the MFD shows 31mpg regularly in long trips in manual mode without a toll in performance that I can feel. Modern turbos and DI simply adjust much better to non-Premium fuel than a naturally aspirated engine, as there are more combustion "tricks" to perform.
I think that the real drastic difference will be felt once the engine is "chipped" so 93 becomes the only choice. But in an stock engine, I don't think that the difference and performance "cost" between fuel grades is as great as it is commonly assumed.


----------



## torpeau (Aug 22, 2009)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (M3Tech)*

VW's website simply says: "Premium fuel recommended for maximum performance."
If you listen to the guys on CarTalk, modern engines' computers will adjust to regular gas where premium is recommended. Performance decline ought to be minimal.


----------



## A601 (Sep 18, 2009)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (torpeau)*

I'm getting avg 25 to 26 mpg on hwy with regular unleaded at 80-85 mph. No complaints so far, use what u want car is great either way


----------



## chiro444 (Jun 8, 2004)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (A601)*

Yeah, I'm not sure that saving a whole 8-12 bucks a month by switching to lower octane gas is worth it to me in the long run. If you wanted to save a couple of bucks then a Jetta might have been a better choice.


----------



## torpeau (Aug 22, 2009)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (chiro444)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chiro444* »_Yeah, I'm not sure that saving a whole 8-12 bucks a month by switching to lower octane gas is worth it to me in the long run. If you wanted to save a couple of bucks then a Jetta might have been a better choice.

Assuming the CarTalk guys are right, short run or long run, using premium is almost a total waste of money. I don't mind spending money, but I prefer not to waste it.


----------



## SactoGTI (Oct 25, 2009)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (goatman1)*

My VW salesperson is a car nut, with a heavily modified Mk2 and a Mk5 GTI. He said lower octane fuel is okay in a stock CC if you drive normally. My third tankful was mid-grade and I found no difference in either performance or fuel economy. The comment about buying a Jetta if you're concerned about pinching pennies was ridiculous. If I wanted a Jetta I would have bought a Jetta. It has nothing to do with spending an extra $10 a month. With that said, I plan to run high octane every other tankful just in case there is a durability/longevity issue.


_Modified by SactoGTI at 6:23 PM 1-2-2010_


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (torpeau)*


_Quote, originally posted by *torpeau* »_....Assuming the CarTalk guys are right, short run or long run, using premium is almost a total waste of money......

I guess that depends on if you want the full rated HP. The "recommended" is only so the advertised power rating is fact. If I payed for the HP, I want to have the HP. The engine can use any grade safely, of course.


----------



## phat10CC (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (goatman1)*

That depends on a lot. Your location? What gas company you use? How do you drive? I mostly get BP and mid gas. Again I see the responses to your question are vague as I have yet to see any data of how the CC motors timing is and how that effects not only the boost but the octane level. Typically before a car pings or when it does the ECU will compensate on the timing of the motor. Now VW only says premium, but what is premium to them? Different countries, even different manufactures of gas have different premium levels. Now back to why I use BP. BP uses invigorate which is an additive. Now from what I read, they push, BP that is, for how well it keeps the motor clean as well as how clean the emissions are. From testing that additive actually allows the gas to burn slower, unlike other gas companies. So theoretically I can use mid grade and still get a pretty good performance out of it. Until we see numbers on the CC timing and how "aggressive" it can be I think premium is a waste. Yes you might see some performance, 2-3 HP but I do not think its worth the extra 15 cents. Agree?


----------



## chiro444 (Jun 8, 2004)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (GTINC)*

I didn't mean any offense about the Jetta remark but people on different boards are always asking about cutting corners and pushing the factory recommendations. It comes up all the time with octane, oil change intervals, oil type, etc. My philosophy is why take a chance with recommendations to save a few bucks. When you buy this particular car, you have to accept the extra cost of premium gas and synthetic oils. That's just the way it is.


----------



## M3Tech (Jan 26, 2007)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (chiro444)*

This engine's power is _underated_, so what is the actual "loss" of using regular?








The only thing that I know is that I have not noticed any performance loss that is so drastic that I can say that Premium is a must in a CC, a Passat or even in my old MKV GTI before an APR Stage 1. And even the opposite is true to me... I have tried 100 octane in my M3 -at $10.00 a gallon, damn- and I did not notice a difference so great that I can say that it was worth the expense. 
For me, there are only two justifications of using Premium: either it is flatly required by the manufacturer (my M3) or the ECU has been "chipped" to really use that extra octane rating (like my old APR MKV GTI) or even more. Otherwise I don't see any benefit if the regular grade is of high quality.


----------



## wwittman (Apr 10, 2009)

so $600 for a chip makes sense, but another $200 a year for premium is 'too much'
makes sense


----------



## M3Tech (Jan 26, 2007)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (wwittman)*


_Quote, originally posted by *wwittman* »_so $600 for a chip makes sense, but another $200 a year for premium is 'too much'
makes sense



I think that we are getting into the _stupid_ zone... $200 a year gives you no appreciable difference, $600 and the $200 a year gives you some 50hp and 100lbs of torque.








Again, I have done the homework and it does not work for *me*. Have you done yours?


----------



## phat10CC (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (wwittman)*

It actually does. The chip or re-flash will change your timing allowing for better use of the octane. So yes if you chip use premium, if your stock use mid.


----------



## caj1 (Feb 16, 1999)

It's pretty simple - if you're not interested in maximum performance from your engine don't use premium. The ECU will automatically retard timing to compensate for the lower octane. Whether or not the decreased performance means anything to you is personal preference.


----------



## xdecker (Jul 18, 2009)

I mean...really?








Spend the $4.00/wk and get the most out of your car. 
I'm sorry, between the insurance & financing (or cost to lease) of a CC, $16/month is a drop in the bucket to get the most enjoyment out of your car possible.


----------



## LeBlanc. (Jul 15, 2003)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (M3Tech)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M3Tech* »_This engine's power is _underated_, so what is the actual "loss" of using regular?








The only thing that I know is that I have not noticed any performance loss that is so drastic that I can say that Premium is a must in a CC, a Passat or even in my old MKV GTI before an APR Stage 1. And even the opposite is true to me... I have tried 100 octane in my M3 -at $10.00 a gallon, damn- and I did not notice a difference so great that I can say that it was worth the expense. 
For me, there are only two justifications of using Premium: either it is flatly required by the manufacturer (my M3) or the ECU has been "chipped" to really use that extra octane rating (like my old APR MKV GTI) or even more. Otherwise I don't see any benefit if the regular grade is of high quality. 

Agreed. I use regular in my C240 4-Matic wagon, because it's just not worth the 4hp or whatever I'd gain using premium (which Mercedes recommends *shrugs*) in a car that's 3600 lbs and puts 125hp to the wheels, lol.


----------



## PhantomX2K (Sep 13, 2008)

Well since the minimum recommended fuel is 91 octane and that is what the engine is tuned for I would use that. Your going to get the most performance out to the car if you do. 89 isn't much different though so I don't think you'll lose much, if you have 93 in your area that would be optimum (I do, but Cali doesn't). 
As for how much performance you can lose, well that's actually been proven on the dyno with many cars many times over. When the ECU starts to pull timing it doesn't do it in small increments it will pull out 5, 10 even 20 degrees of timing on a boosted application. The biggest factors of this though is the weather. When it's hot out it can really drain performance to the tune of up to 20hp. I've seen this on the dyno with some of my own cars, not specifically the CC but a combustion engine no matter what car works on the exact same principals. You back out a lot of timing to avoid detonation (which 87 is a faster burning fuel) you also back out fuel and your going to lose 5-10% of the horsepower and not just peak, across the curve where it really matters. When you only have 200hp to begin with it's best to have it all on tap. People spend good money to gain 5-10hp sometimes a couple hundred bucks, kinda silly to skimp out on the fuel and lose 5-10hp when you don't have to. 
As for me I paid for the VR6, I want the extra HP and everything the car has to offer. I had an R32 before this car and they had been using it as a demo so it had a couple hundred miles on it and been running regular gas. After about 2 tanks of running premium it was a whole different car.


_Modified by PhantomX2K at 10:55 AM 1-4-2010_


----------



## torpeau (Aug 22, 2009)

*Re: (PhantomX2K)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PhantomX2K* »_You back out a lot of timing to avoid detonation (which 87 is a faster burning fuel) you also back out fuel and your going to lose 5-10% of the horsepower and not just peak, across the curve where it really matters. When you only have 200hp to begin with it's best to have it all on tap. 

You make some good points, but I find the 200 hp perfectly adequate. I doubt of losing 10 or 20 hp would make much difference to most people as they drive to and from work or cruise the interstates.


----------



## LeBlanc. (Jul 15, 2003)

*Re: (torpeau)*


_Quote, originally posted by *torpeau* »_
You make some good points, but I find the 200 hp perfectly adequate. I doubt of losing 10 or 20 hp would make much difference to most people as they drive to and from work or cruise the interstates.

My gf put mid-grade in to our CC two days ago, and in 10 degree weather,
you can't tell the difference anyway. I did tell her, though, that after the
car gets chipped next week, that she can't ever put anything but premium
in it again. That's not *entirely* true, either, but it avoids aggravation in 
my house, haha.
And, my original point about my wagon was that the car's really damn slow
to begin with, and there's just no freakin' way anyone could tell between
87 and 93 octane. It's slow and slow, no matter what.


----------



## KingstonCC (Nov 20, 2009)

*Re: (LeBlanc.)*

91 min octane , Shell only , and fresh oil every 5000 kilometers . 
good gas , clean oil , and my 2.0t is a happy camper and will be for a long time ! 
Shell fuel 91 plus , nitro enriched , i find does indeed give better performace and mileage over the Petro /Esso ( Exxon ) / Ultramar etc . 
Next closest i find is Sunoco .


----------



## phat10CC (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: (torpeau)*

Well its 200HP at the crank...subtract 15%+ from the drive train.


----------



## caj1 (Feb 16, 1999)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (M3Tech)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M3Tech* »_This engine's power is _underated_, so what is the actual "loss" of using regular?








I have tried 100 octane in my M3 -at $10.00 a gallon, damn- and I did not notice a difference so great that I can say that it was worth the expense. 


Do you drive a piece of paper? Also, unless your M3's ECU was tuned for 100 octane you will not and should not notice a difference.
As others have mentioned, you will notice more power loss in the summer months with a hot turbo working to retard timing even more to compensate for the added heat in the combustion chamber. Higher octane fuel ignites at a lower temperature which helps reduce early ignition (and related timing pull).


----------



## caj1 (Feb 16, 1999)

*Re: (LeBlanc.)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LeBlanc.* »_
I did tell her, though, that after the
car gets chipped next week, that she can't ever put anything but premium
in it again. That's not *entirely* true, either, but it avoids aggravation in 
my house, haha.


Adding boost pressure and reducing octane rating is a disaster waiting to happen and definitely not worth the extra couple of bucks.


----------



## caj1 (Feb 16, 1999)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (M3Tech)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M3Tech* »_
I did not notice any drastic performance difference between 93 and 87 octane in 44,000 miles with a 2008 Passat B6. And after 1,500 miles in a 2010 CC DSG using 87 octane the MFD shows 31mpg regularly in long trips in manual mode without a toll in performance that I can feel. 

Comparing a forced induction engine to a non-FI engine when discussing octane requirements is like apples to oranges. As mentioned, the FI engine generates much more heat.


----------



## M3Tech (Jan 26, 2007)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (caj1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *caj1* »_
Do you drive a piece of paper? Also, unless your M3's ECU was tuned for 100 octane you will not and should not notice a difference.
As others have mentioned, *you will notice more power loss in the summer months with a hot turbo working to retard timing even more to compensate for the added heat in the combustion chamber.* Higher octane fuel ignites at a lower temperature which helps reduce early ignition (and related timing pull).

I'm from Florida, by the way. And that power loss is insignificant _to me _-again. 
What I don't understand is this absurd insistence of stating that VW somewhat is wrong in _recommending_ -*not requiring*- Premium gas in this engine. Unless VW itself changes their recommendation due to actual reported damage or reliablity issues I really do not have to follow anybody else _idea_ of what is best for this engine, especially when the difference in performance is not that noticiable _to me_, the person that actually _pays_ for his fuel.
Each time this topic is brought up it always ends up this way, wannabe VW engineers trying to argue what VW itself says is OK.










_Modified by M3Tech at 11:38 PM 1-4-2010_


----------



## caj1 (Feb 16, 1999)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (M3Tech)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M3Tech* »_
I'm from Florida, by the way. And that power loss is insignificant _to me _-again. 
What I don't understand is this absurd insistence of stating that VW somewhat is wrong in _recommending_ -*not requiring*- Premium gas in this engine. Unless VW itself changes their recommendation due to actual reported damage or reliablity issues I really do not have to follow anybody else _idea_ of what is best for this engine, especially when the difference in performance is not that noticiable _to me_, the person that actually _pays_ for his fuel.
Each time this topic is brought up it always ends up this way, wannabe VW engineers trying to argue what VW itself says is OK.









_Modified by M3Tech at 11:38 PM 1-4-2010_

This topic is not specific to VWs - sorry.
It seems that it would be idiotic for VW to recommend a higher priced gasoline in the age of $3 a gallon fuel and a floundering economy if it didn't make a difference. That is certainly not doing much for helping sales.
I'm not telling you what to do, just providing insight into why it's not trivial for FI engines.
Enjoy your car


----------



## DubbHatch (Dec 14, 2005)

My neighbor (before she moved) drove an A4 2.0t and she had black sooted tail pipes. I asked her if she used regular or premium, and of course she said she used regular. I told her i could tell because of her tail pipes. She said she'd switch.
I thought i was so smart for being able to point that out, but then I got my CC VR6. It said 91 oct and I've only put in 93oct since i've gotten it. My exhaust is as black as her's so I'm not sure that it's keeping my engine clean. 
I only use Exxon since it is what the closest top tier gas near my house. I think i'd prefer Shell, but there isn't one close that isn't .10 more per gallon.


----------



## caj1 (Feb 16, 1999)

The 2.0T runs rich, just like all FI engines to help cool things. There is really no way to avoid the soot.


----------



## minnvw (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (caj1)*

the 2.0t smokes soot like a mack truck, I had the old 2.0 in my eos, and it did it, and the new version is just as bad, 
And yes it doesn't matter which grade of gas , they all do it. I would think if they would lean these engines out some, the fuel economy would increase and the ugly black soot would disappear? wake up VW


----------



## caj1 (Feb 16, 1999)

*Re: (minnvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *minnvw* »_the 2.0t smokes soot like a mack truck, I had the old 2.0 in my eos, and it did it, and the new version is just as bad, 
And yes it doesn't matter which grade of gas , they all do it. I would think if they would lean these engines out some, the fuel economy would increase and the ugly black soot would disappear? wake up VW









Lean out a turbocharged engine huh?


----------



## GALVANIZEDYANKEE (Sep 23, 2009)

I have been using 93 only. The discount gas station I use only has 87 or 93 octaine. Last week when I went to fill up. 93 was $0.34 more per gallon than 87. Thats over $5 for a 15 gallon fill. I filled with the 87. The only performance difference seem to be slightly less power when your into the turbo. In normal driving I can't detect a difference. However, highway milage has dropped 3 -4 miles per gallon. Thats 45 to 60 miles less on a 15 gallon fill. Thats about two gallon increased usage per fill. Thats $6.00 per fill. Do the math. I'm back to 93 octaine.


----------



## mtdoragary (Jan 8, 2010)

*Re: (xdecker)*


_Quote, originally posted by *xdecker* »_I mean...really?








Spend the $4.00/wk and get the most out of your car. 
I'm sorry, between the insurance & financing (or cost to lease) of a CC, $16/month is a drop in the bucket to get the most enjoyment out of your car possible.










But retarding timing also decreases gas mileage. So the question becomes : "does the decreased fuel cost outweigh the decreased fuel mileage?"
That said, I'm running midgrade sofar, but am considering trying regular. never had a turbo'd or blown engine that could run regular!


----------



## vr6pilot (Jul 5, 2000)

*Re: (mtdoragary)*

Simplified: Octane rating is about controlling detonation. Higher compression engines get into detonation more easily than lower comp engines but any engine might detonate or "ping"...that's why VW "recommends" it. just one extra safeguard. What you should worry more about is fuels without added cleansers that will lead to deposits and build-ups. Shell, Chevron, Texaco, and now Amoco (BP) all have cleanser additives to prevent and reduce carbon buildup.
In short, you are better off with regular fuel from Chevron than with premium from Citgo or one of those no-name fuel stations.


----------



## Novitec (Nov 14, 2009)

It all depends on driving style. If your on it all the time and even somewhat spirited driving 92 plus is always better... as metioned below, it becomes timing vs boost thing. Yes, its better to run 92 plus and the cost isn't that much more.


----------



## minnvw (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (Novitec)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Novitec* »_ its better to run 92 plus and the cost isn't that much more. 


This depends on how much you drive, We were putting on 32,000 miles a year on the EOS which also liked the 92 .
If you just putt putt around town and put on 10-12000 miles a year it might not be much price difference.?


----------



## danyvw (Nov 29, 2009)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (goatman1)*

I've being using Premium gas since the very first day I had my CC (three months and 4000 miles) Today made a test putting 2 gallons of 89 Octane Regular gas (with tank almost empty) and drove my car. My impression, never heard an engine "ping" but you can feel a decrease in engine performance and acceleration. I would say in a 10 scale the performance drop from 10 to 7. In my opinion is worth to pay 20 cents per gallon more against losing three points of engine performance.


----------



## GT17V (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: (caj1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *caj1* »_
Lean out a turbocharged engine huh?









Well, FSI was originally designed for a lean-burn mode, the "S" in FSI is "Stratifed". However, all FSI's in the US/Canada have the lean-burn mode disabled, primarily due to the fuel quality we have.


----------



## caj1 (Feb 16, 1999)

*Re: (GT17V)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GT17V* »_
Well, FSI was originally designed for a lean-burn mode, the "S" in FSI is "Stratifed". However, all FSI's in the US/Canada have the lean-burn mode disabled, primarily due to the fuel quality we have.

When cruising on the highway off boost, sure..


----------



## GT17V (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: (caj1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *caj1* »_
When cruising on the highway off boost, sure..

pretty much. Low loads, to maximize fuel economy.


----------



## autobahner444 (Nov 23, 2008)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (goatman1)*

Compare the gasoline as you would beer. Premium vs. mid-grade. Augustiner vs. Bud, Both will get the job done, but the Augustiner makes for a much better journey...


----------



## Romeo Chi (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (autobahner444)*


_Quote, originally posted by *autobahner444* »_Compare the gasoline as you would beer. Premium vs. mid-grade. Augustiner vs. Bud, Both will get the job done, but the Augustiner makes for a much better journey...








 Gotta love a good beer analogy! 
Please 93 octane Mobil all the way, my VW deserves it!


----------



## minnvw (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (autobahner444)*


_Quote, originally posted by *autobahner444* »_Compare the gasoline as you would beer. Premium vs. mid-grade. Augustiner vs. Bud, Both will get the job done, but the Augustiner makes for a much better journey...










I always thought you just rented that beer and pissed it down the drain?
i guess your right with your idea on the gas, about the same as beer but it goes into the air ha


----------



## Costy (Oct 28, 2009)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (Romeo Chi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Romeo Chi* »_ Gotta love a good beer analogy! 
Please 93 octane Mobil all the way, my VW deserves it! 

I can get Mobil 93 here, but not the Augustiner.... Verdammen!


----------



## SellySel (Nov 6, 2009)

What about the use of E-85?


----------



## AutoUnion32 (Oct 4, 2008)

*Re: (phat10CC)*


_Quote, originally posted by *phat10CC* »_Well its 200HP at the crank...subtract 15%+ from the drive train.

NO way is that motor 200hp @ the crank. If the motor is putting down between 210-220 hp to the wheels, it must have AT LEAST 230-250 at the crank, but those are just my inflated numbers


----------



## torpeau (Aug 22, 2009)

*Re: Permium gas vs. mid-grade (autobahner444)*


_Quote, originally posted by *autobahner444* »_Compare the gasoline as you would beer. Premium vs. mid-grade. Augustiner vs. Bud, Both will get the job done, but the Augustiner makes for a much better journey...









Yeah, after the first beer or two, they all taste about the same.


----------



## minnvw (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (SellySel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *SellySel* »_What about the use of E-85?

Dont even think of it


----------

