# Which fuel are you guys using ?



## TheDoc46 (Feb 12, 2012)

Unless i'm mistaken, the new Tiguan now is happy on 89, whereas all other VW's i've owned in the past, wanted premium 93. What bought on this change does anyone know ? Also has anyone noticed any difference between using 89 & 93 in terms of mileage & performance ? Are there any noticeable gains ?


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

TheDoc46 said:


> Unless i'm mistaken, the new Tiguan now is happy on 89, whereas all other VW's i've owned in the past, wanted premium 93. What bought on this change does anyone know ? Also has anyone noticed any difference between using 89 & 93 in terms of mileage & performance ? Are there any noticeable gains ?


It requires and is perfectly happy on 87 US Octane. Seems to be an industry wide move to make adopting turbos more appealing as multiple makes now offer turbos setup for 87. Something unheard of before this latest gen of turbo GDI engines.

The Golf 1.8TSI only requires 87 too. The days of turbos automatically requiring premium are gone, unless you get a tune to extract more power of course or purchased a more performance oriented vehicle already tuned from the factory for it.


----------



## JSWTDI09 (Feb 22, 2009)

The new "B-cycle" engines are quite happy with regular gas (even 87 octane). Putting in more expensive fuel is mostly a waste of money. There are no significant gains to be had by running an octane rating higher than what is required. There are some cars that will automatically adjust timing to gain an advantage when useing higher octane fuel, but I do not believe that this engine supports that. There are many factors that determine what octane rating is required for any given engine, but all we really need to know is what is the minimum required octane to prevent per-ignition (knocking). In most cars, there is no advantage in using a more expensive fuel than what is recommended.

Have Fun!

Don


----------



## OZ.IN.USA (Jan 29, 2011)

TheDoc46 said:


> Unless i'm mistaken, the new Tiguan now is happy on 89, whereas all other VW's i've owned in the past, wanted premium 93. What bought on this change does anyone know ? Also has anyone noticed any difference between using 89 & 93 in terms of mileage & performance ? Are there any noticeable gains ?


The new 2018 Tiguan has a minimum octane rating of 87. It's on the sticker inside the fuel flap.

Prior turbo engines had a minimum octane rating of 91 not 93.

Mileage differences? I think some owners should chime in on that.


----------



## TablaRasa (May 12, 2008)

87 regular. I told my wife to put a dose of 93 once a month to see if there is any difference. Not sure she has yet.


----------



## vdubs kopfschuss GLI (Sep 25, 2014)

i use 91 out of habit when i had my stage 1+ GTI (91 is the highest octane here in Wichita) i still use it for my Tig...not that i notice a difference in power, but honestly any help is welcomed with this turd of a motor hahahaha


----------



## Bawlti (Apr 22, 2015)

I was using 94 (Canada..) on my previous mk7 GTI stage 2. There was a difference.

I did fill up the Tiguan once with 94 and didn't notice a difference in power or mpg. I will continue with 87... until a tune or JB4 is finally released


----------



## Iljata (Oct 14, 2017)

We are using 93 and averaging 27.9mpg city with very limited highway. Keep the combustion parts cleaner  

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

Even on the GTI tuned for premium with it retarding timing to run on 87 it only lost 4 peak horsepower. Not advised, but related power loss wasn't much at all.
https://www.edmunds.com/volkswagen/...en-gti-the-effect-of-octane-on-its-power.html


----------



## Iljata (Oct 14, 2017)

We paying $2.52 for 93 @ Costco. Tipically 87 sells @ $2.37-.43 elsewhere. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

Not a matter of cost. It’s just not needed. Especially if you’re getting top tier fuel like Costco.


----------



## Bill95GL (Sep 5, 2000)

If VW says you can use 87 octane fuel, you can do it. I use 93 in our 2012 Tiguan especially because it's running the APR stage 1 93 octane program, and it actually gets better fuel economy than the stock program running 93. I got a year end 2016 GTI Autobahn last Dec 31 and put 93 in it (my 2006 GTI that I drove for ten years also required high test gas) for months until one day I noticed the sticker on the inside of my new GTI's gas cover door said 87. I checked the manual and sure enough they said 87 was OK. So that's what I've been putting in and haven't noticed any change in fuel economy... which, by the way, is amazing. I typically get 35-37 mpg highway where my 2006 GTi usually never did better than 31.x. So in my opinion, you can use whatever it says on the gas filler cover door. Some gas brands imply their higher test gas has more system cleaners, but I think one or two bottles of Techron or similar every so often or before every oil change is probably just as good. Just my 2 cents...


----------



## pwaug (Jan 4, 2001)

Here's an article from Autoblog regarding research AAA did regarding using 91 or 93 octane in cars that do not call for it https://www.autoblog.com/2017/12/13/premium-fuel-secret-you-almost-never-need-it/?hcid=ab-around-ab-tile-4 Basically no advantage and a waste of money. More important to use "Top Tier" fuel.


----------



## F30post (Jan 22, 2018)

*Fuel*

Planning to buy my first volkswagen tiguan fully loaded and wondering does it require premium fuel?


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

No, it best running regular(87 US octane).


----------



## GavinD (Jun 19, 2014)

Iljata said:


> We are using 93 and averaging 27.9mpg city with very limited highway. Keep the combustion parts cleaner


A Top Tier 87-octane fuel will contain the same amount of detergents as 93-octane. Unlike the 1.8TSI, which actually produces more power with better fuel, the 2.0TB does nothing with the extra knock resistance except burn your money faster.

EDIT: Almost forgot: Due to the slower flame front propagation rate of higher octane gasolines, using a grade of fuel higher (especially significantly higher) than recommended can actually cause MORE build-up due to incomplete combustion. Unless you have a tune that specifically requires 91 or better, or the 87 in your area is all skunk piss, you should be running what it says on the fuel door.


----------



## OZ.IN.USA (Jan 29, 2011)

GavinD said:


> A Top Tier 87-octane fuel will contain the same amount of detergents as 93-octane. Unlike the 1.8TSI, which actually produces more power with better fuel, the 2.0TB does nothing with the extra knock resistance except burn your money faster.
> 
> EDIT: Almost forgot: Due to the slower flame front propagation rate of higher octane gasolines, using a grade of fuel higher (especially significantly higher) than recommended can actually cause MORE build-up due to incomplete combustion. Unless you have a tune that specifically requires 91 or better, or the 87 in your area is all skunk piss, *you should be running what it says on the fuel door.*


:thumbup:

All accurate points. What's on the vehicle is what should be followed not necessarily what's in the book or what "my cousins best friend says, because.....".

The labels put on the car at time of production should be more accurate than something that was printed in an owners manual maybe a year ago.

Another example is the required oil. What's in the book has been updated and you will find that on a sticker under the hood to the left of the latch.


----------



## Coderedpl (Jul 9, 2006)

****, I genuinely didn't realize it's 87 minimum. I've been putting 93 since we got it out of pure habit from other cars. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Iljata (Oct 14, 2017)

If I remember correctly label at the gas filler calls for Minimum of 87 Octane. 
Even tho it's not required to use premium, it's recommended to achieve best results.

http://www.spitzervw.com/blog/what-is-the-best-fuel-to-use-in-the-2018-tiguan/.

On our most recent trip we managed to get 32.7mpg calculated and I'm sure it has lot to do with the fuel.










Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## pwaug (Jan 4, 2001)

Read this article: https://www.autoblog.com/2017/12/13/...ound-ab-tile-4


----------



## Iljata (Oct 14, 2017)

pwaug said:


> Read this article: https://www.autoblog.com/2017/12/13/...ound-ab-tile-4


Link doesn't work

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## Lothar1566 (Jan 27, 2018)

Iljata

Those are good MPG numbers. I have been using regular and a couple of times premium. Not sure it makes economic sense. Regardless of what the "experts" say using premium helps in certain engines, depending on the advance mapping used. I have been doing the same routs of 200 miles, about 10 times now. similar weather etc. All freeway average speed about 75 MPH. With regular I was averaging 32.4 MPG. Three premium runs 33.5 MPG. It's a good to know, but if you calculate the cost per MPG saved, does not make economic sense. But interesting. Also driving is not all about saving pennies


----------



## gerardrjj (Sep 4, 2014)

Octane is not an indicator of power/energy the fuel can produce, it's an "anti-knock" rating so putting higher octane in your take won't change engine performance unless the car has a way to detect/deduce the octane rating of the fuel.

As the piston compresses the air/fuel mixture the mass of air warm up. At some point the fuel spontaneously ignites (you want this is a diesel but no gasoline engine). The idea is to get the mixture as compressed as possible without spontaneous ignition but instead to let the spark plug ignite the mess.
Increasing the pressure with more boost or longer connecting rods means more likelihood of pre-ignition (knocking) so higher performance engines require higher octane fuel. It's the design of the engine that determines the fuel requirement, the fuel does not improve performance.


----------



## HokieScott (May 12, 2018)

I've been using 89 (Mid-Grade). I even used that in a 2009 Ford Focus. I just never trusted 87 personally.


----------



## autostrophic (Aug 23, 2011)

HokieScott said:


> I've been using 89 (Mid-Grade). I even used that in a 2009 Ford Focus. I just never trusted 87 personally.


Manufacturer says “Regular unleaded ONLY”. So do it.


----------



## jackalopephoto (Jul 5, 2015)

GavinD said:


> A Top Tier 87-octane fuel will contain the same amount of detergents as 93-octane. Unlike the 1.8TSI, which actually produces more power with better fuel, the 2.0TB does nothing with the extra knock resistance except burn your money faster.
> 
> EDIT: Almost forgot: Due to the slower flame front propagation rate of higher octane gasolines, using a grade of fuel higher (especially significantly higher) than recommended can actually cause MORE build-up due to incomplete combustion. Unless you have a tune that specifically requires 91 or better, or the 87 in your area is all skunk piss, you should be running what it says on the fuel door.


Do you have any documentation of the 1.8 TSI producing more power with higher octane?


----------



## gerardrjj (Sep 4, 2014)

You won't notice an increase in power by using higher octane fuel. Octane is not an indicator of power; but of ant-knock (pre-ignition) resistance.


----------



## GavinD (Jun 19, 2014)

jackalopephoto said:


> Do you have any documentation of the 1.8 TSI producing more power with higher octane?


VW's website specifically stated that the advertised power figures were achieved using 91 octane fuel. That's the only documentation that was ever provided. That doesn't specifically say that 87 octane won't generate as much power, but why would they include that caveat if that were not the case?




gerardrjj said:


> You won't notice an increase in power by using higher octane fuel. Octane is not an indicator of power; but of ant-knock (pre-ignition) resistance.


If an engine is capable of detecting octane rating and adjusting its tune on the fly based on that measurement, then you absolutely will see an increase in power.


----------



## JSWTDI09 (Feb 22, 2009)

GavinD said:


> If an engine is capable of detecting octane rating and adjusting its tune on the fly based on that measurement, then you absolutely will see an increase in power.


This is true but the power difference is not because there is more energy in the fuel. ECUs can adjust ignition timing if they are programmed to do this. Some engines do this based on knock sensors and other factors. Therefore higher octane fuel can offer a little more power in some engines. Unfortunately I have never heard this talked about in any VW engine.

In an engine that is not programmed to take advantage of higher octane fuel (like ours), there is no advantage to giving the oil companies more money than you have to. 

Have Fun!

Don


----------



## gerardrjj (Sep 4, 2014)

Higher octane doesn't keep parts cleaner and you'll save money burning the standard 87 (ron+mon)/2 the fuel door says it needs.
$.30 a gallon for 15 gallons is $4.50 a tank you're wasting.


----------



## gerardrjj (Sep 4, 2014)

Sorry to be blunt but your fuel milage had nothing to do with higher octane fuel. I guarantee that.
Anyone who says differently is selling something. Octane is a measure of knock resistance, or ability to prevent pre-ignition. You only need higher octanes if you're running higher boost than factory or re-engneer the pistons to create a higher compression ratio.


----------



## JeremySimons (Dec 10, 2017)

*Using premium*

A few months ago my new Tig suddenly lost almost all power and was limping along at 5 mph. I called and the dealer said it was due to bad fuel and that I should use premium fuel. That seemed to clear it up. I asked about it again when I was at the dealer and they said that the Tig CAN use regular but really should use premium.


----------



## YungTy718 (Jun 13, 2018)

I’m definitely taking my Tiguan in to the dealer because I feel like my car been blazing thru gas like crazy and it’s been averaging 15-18mpg past three tanks 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mk3ninja (Nov 28, 2013)

I use 87 in mine, never had a problem. But unless your on the highway the tiguans get pretty crap gas mileage.


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

JeremySimons said:


> A few months ago my new Tig suddenly lost almost all power and was limping along at 5 mph. I called and the dealer said it was due to bad fuel and that I should use premium fuel. That seemed to clear it up. I asked about it again when I was at the dealer and they said that the Tig CAN use regular but really should use premium.


Premium has nothing to do with the quality of the fuel. You should stick to top tier brands for some degree of quality assurance though and that’s what the manual recommends.


----------



## vw_service_advisor (Aug 10, 2017)

Inside of my fuel door says 87 or 91, 87 is fine I’m sure but I usually put midgrade in it because I’m so used to putting premium in cars I’m gonna need an adjustment period.
More important than grade for the Tiguan IMO is the quality and amount of detergents in the gas, and for me that means I stick to Shell and Exxon. 
If I absolutely have to get gas anywhere else I usually get a bottle of VW fuel cleaner from work ASAP and add it at my next fill-up. It’s good stuff, use it for my Volvo as well.


----------



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

gerardrjj said:


> Octane is not an indicator of power/energy the fuel can produce, it's an "anti-knock" rating so putting higher octane in your take won't change engine performance unless the car has a way to detect/deduce the octane rating of the fuel.
> 
> As the piston compresses the air/fuel mixture the mass of air warm up. At some point the fuel spontaneously ignites (you want this is a diesel but no gasoline engine). The idea is to get the mixture as compressed as possible without spontaneous ignition but instead to let the spark plug ignite the mess.
> Increasing the pressure with more boost or longer connecting rods means more likelihood of pre-ignition (knocking) so higher performance engines require higher octane fuel. It's the design of the engine that determines the fuel requirement, the fuel does not improve performance.


The only problem with your statements is that ignition timing will dictate power, and the fuel you use will dictate ignition timing. The engine can run more advanced ignition timing on higher octane fuel. It’s been common practice for decades to increase your timing for more power, but only to the point where the ECU begins to pull timing back out due to knock sensors kicking in. 

If the recommended fuel is 87, then like was already said, you’ll only see performance gains if you have a software tune that advances the timing. Similarly though, an increase in boost pressure will increase cylinder pressure and heat. So even without advanced timing you’d be better off running higher octane. 

From what I’ve learned from way back, lower octane fuel has more potential energy because it will combust at lower heat and pressure levels. Thus, for better fuel economy, lower octane fuel wins. Even if the engine recommends 93, it will adjust timing and performance back on the 87 in your tank. Just don’t expect the power to be there if you are tuned for 93.


----------



## LarsTomasson (Jul 2, 2018)

*Premium vs Regular*

I owned a 2015 Passat manual with the 1.8 TSI. Engine seemed to have more power when I ran premium. If you look on APR WEB site they have dyno results of 1.8 TSI engine on regular, premium, and various APR stages of tune. 

I am on my second tank of gass on my Tiguan, and I am running premium to see if there is any difference. It seems to me that there is, but I need to go back to regular on my next tank and see how it feels. I may even try to collect some data with Torque.


----------



## LarsTomasson (Jul 2, 2018)

*Premium vs Regular*

It is generally accepted that you get more power on the 1.8 EA888 Gen 3 engine with premium. It is what I have read from multiple sources, and what I have experienced myself on my 2015 Passat. It has also been validated by APR on their dyno:
https://www.goapr.com/products/ecu_upgrade_18tsi_gen3_trans.html

The naysayers seem to forget that these are turbo engines, and that the ECU will decrease the boost if it sees any pre-ignition. So it seems possible that this may also hold true for the Tiguan MQB engine.


----------



## Jon1981 (Jul 1, 2018)

*Which fuel using?*

Even though the new Tiguan requires and (is recommended) 87 octane, the car runs much better on a tank of midgrade 91 or gasp premium 93. 

So far I've run mainly on midgrade and regular. The 'transmission issues' a lot of people report on the forums with a lurching-like clunk at low speeds seems to be mitigated when running on higher gas. This is of course subjective, however, my 2018 Tiguan SEL 4Motion is more responsive (and quieter) when running on midgrade and above. With regular there are more laggy lurches and the engine sound under acceleration is much drier and rough.

It's great to know that 87 is required and allow the car to maintain under it's long warranty, but the Tiguan is able to adjust it's timing for somewhat improved performance with higher grade gas.

Has anyone else noted this phenomenon? I am not comparing mileage efficiency, simply how responsive the vehicle is when in use.


----------



## 16VSerenity (Jul 26, 2006)

We only use 93 in my wife's car. Worth it to us.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## pwaug (Jan 4, 2001)

Jon1981 said:


> Even though the new Tiguan requires and (is recommended) 87 octane, the car runs much better on a tank of midgrade 91 or gasp premium 93.
> 
> So far I've run mainly on midgrade and regular. The 'transmission issues' a lot of people report on the forums with a lurching-like clunk at low speeds seems to be mitigated when running on higher gas. This is of course subjective, however, my 2018 Tiguan SEL 4Motion is more responsive (and quieter) when running on midgrade and above. With regular there are more laggy lurches and the engine sound under acceleration is much drier and rough.
> 
> ...


Unless someone proves this with real test numbers I don't believe it. Similar situation to spending $500 on a new Driver for golf--you always feel like you're hitting it farther until you get some empirical data.


----------



## GavinD (Jun 19, 2014)

pwaug said:


> Unless someone proves this with real test numbers I don't believe it. Similar situation to spending $500 on a new Driver for golf--you always feel like you're hitting it farther until you get some empirical data.


Bingo.

The fuel door says to run 87 octane. Run what's on the fuel door. If the car needed 91, then it would say 91 on the fuel door. (see 2017 and previous Tiguan)

You want to know if the car really runs different? Don't have access to a dyno?

Pay a friend to fill the tank up with a random grade of fuel. Try and guess what grade they put in.

My bet is that you can't tell better than a 50/50 chance, because as long as you're running a top-tier fuel, there's likely to be no difference in how the car drives.

But hey, you want to keep wasting money on 93, be my guest. It's not my wallet. :laugh:


----------



## 16VSerenity (Jul 26, 2006)

Plenty of independent tuner companies (APR, Burger Motorsport, etc.) have shown other recent VW engines in the EA family show higher numbers when switching from 87 to 91/93, as the ECU adjusts for the higher grade fuel. I known this was a case for the VW 1.8T used in the MKVI Jetta Sport/SEL up until the current 2019 redesign. You can google the info if you wish/have the time. Whether or not an individual person will be able to discern a smoother running engine, better throttle response, and a few extra hp/ft-lbs of torque is a case by case basis.


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

I've OBD logged runs on 87 and 93 and saw no appreciable difference in boost, performance, or calculate hp/tq #s. But I plan to repeat that experiment now that I have more miles. However since I'm working from home these days it would take so long to burn through a tank of each to give it a chance to learn that it would take quite some time. Next road trip maybe.


----------



## GavinD (Jun 19, 2014)

16VSerenity said:


> Plenty of independent tuner companies (APR, Burger Motorsport, etc.) have shown other recent VW engines in the EA family show higher numbers when switching from 87 to 91/93, as the ECU adjusts for the higher grade fuel. I known this was a case for the VW 1.8T used in the MKVI Jetta Sport/SEL up until the current 2019 redesign. You can google the info if you wish/have the time. Whether or not an individual person will be able to discern a smoother running engine, better throttle response, and a few extra hp/ft-lbs of torque is a case by case basis.


I know, which is why I said this on the previous page:



GavinD said:


> A Top Tier 87-octane fuel will contain the same amount of detergents as 93-octane.* Unlike the 1.8TSI, which actually produces more power with better fuel,* the 2.0TB does nothing with the extra knock resistance except burn your money faster.


Earlier specifications on VW's website specifically said that the rated HP and TQ numbers for the 1.8TSI were achieved using 91-octane fuel, but that the car would run on 87-octane. The new engine in the Tiguan specifically addressed one of the largest complaints with the PQ35 Tiguan: premium fuel only. There's been no mention anywhere that changing fuel will have any impact on efficiency or power in the new Tiguan.

As I've stated before: even a well-tuned butt dyno would not be able to tell the difference between 87- and 93-octane fuels in the new Tiguan, above a 50/50 change. Ambient air temperature and humidity will have a bigger impact than improving the fuel grade beyond what the engine is tuned to run, and that is 87-octane. Running anything above this will only cost you more money.


----------



## Athlon64BIT (Oct 3, 2018)

Here is my 2 Cents,
I have noticed more PEP when using 91 - 94 Octane. Does it give more KPL? No clue.
It feels more responsive while in NORMAL mode so I am happy.

Athlon


----------



## lgbalfa (Nov 18, 2018)

*Gas for 18 Tiguan SEL Premium?*

Regular gas is ok?

Picking up the vehicle tomorrow.

Thanks


----------



## nipp0n (Nov 21, 2018)

On my 5 day old 2018 Tiguan the inside of the gas door has a sticker specifying regular gas. Expect it's the same in the US.

nipp0n


----------



## Ace Deprave (Jun 8, 2012)

Yes.


----------



## Athlon64BIT (Oct 3, 2018)

Regular 87 Works good.

But I have noticed more PEP when I use 91

Hope this helps.


Athlon


----------



## gerardrjj (Sep 4, 2014)

Athlon64BIT said:


> Regular 87 Works good.
> 
> But I have noticed more PEP when I use 91
> 
> ...


It’s your imagination. Octane does not produce power. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## n0thing (Mar 30, 2014)

gerardrjj said:


> It’s your imagination. Octane does not produce power.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


VW states the car can run on 87 octane, but typically the horsepower results for their vehicles are achieved with premium. The additional octane will allow the engine to be able to run a little more aggressively without additional knock/ping which means extra power. It's likely not a huge amount, but it's usually a few ponies. My MK7 GTI is the same way. It can run on 87, but the power numbers quoted were with premium in the tank.

To be honest, it's quite a heavy car with a small engine. Like I did with our CR-V (1.5 turbo powerplant), I'll run premium in it just to give it that little extra buffer when it's getting a good workout merging onto the highway. I wouldn't have done this with N/A engines in the past, but small direct injection engines with turbochargers on them are a different breed of powerplant. A couple bucks at the pump is worth it for the peace of mind.


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

n0thing said:


> VW states the car can run on 87 octane, but typically the horsepower results for their vehicles are achieved with premium. The additional octane will allow the engine to be able to run a little more aggressively without additional knock/ping which means extra power. It's likely not a huge amount, but it's usually a few ponies. My MK7 GTI is the same way. It can run on 87, but the power numbers quoted were with premium in the tank.
> 
> To be honest, it's quite a heavy car with a small engine. Like I did with our CR-V (1.5 turbo powerplant), I'll run premium in it just to give it that little extra buffer when it's getting a good workout merging onto the highway. I wouldn't have done this with N/A engines in the past, but small direct injection engines with turbochargers on them are a different breed of powerplant. A couple bucks at the pump is worth it for the peace of mind.


I've done some OBD logging on 87 and 93. Did not notice any difference in boost levels, calculated hp/tq, timing advance, or anything really.


----------



## n0thing (Mar 30, 2014)

socialD said:


> I've done some OBD logging on 87 and 93. Did not notice any difference in boost levels, calculated hp/tq, timing advance, or anything really.


Good to know! :thumbup:


----------



## gerardrjj (Sep 4, 2014)

Not the Tiguan.

Again, octane does not improve power. It is an anti-knock rating (residence to self ignition). A car that has knock detectors and can alter timing or boost related to the knock sensors and run at higher pressures and altered timing. The Tiguan does not have any of this. Most cars don't. Regardless of whether you run 87 or 110 octane the engine will put out the same power, get the same milage and have the same level of emissions. Any changes you detect are certainly within sampling error or attributable to other factors such as weather, traffic, driver habits, refining differences in the fuel used, etc.


Diesel's cetane rating is all about energy where higher cetane means more power per unit fuel. Unlike gasoline engines you can continue increasing fuel, air and pressure in the cylinder to improve performance as long as the engine can withstand the pressure since self ignition is exactly what diesels are all about from the get-go. Putting higher cetane diesel in a car will either get you more power or more fuel milage.


----------



## Athlon64BIT (Oct 3, 2018)

I disagree 100%

I know this is a little off topic, but when I owned my 1991 Mustang GT with a 5.0. 
When I used Premium fuel the car would be more peppy and would give me more KM per Tank.
I had used logs back then to see the difference.

The same seems to hold true for the Tiguan, it feels more responsive on the throttle.
This is all that I was stating, not that you will go faster or anything.

Premium fuel will always burn cleaner and more complete.

Athlon


----------



## JSWTDI09 (Feb 22, 2009)

There are car engines that automatically adapt their ignition timing to take advantage of higher octane fuel. If they advance ignition timing until the knock sensors detect the start of knocking and then back it off slightly, it is possible to have more power with premium gas. Unfortunately, these engines are usually only in higher end cars. VW is not known for using engines designed this way. In an engine that does not automatically compensate for fuel type, higher octane is only good for removing more money from your wallet.

The sad part of this whole story is that people's "butt dyno" is often influenced by the amount of money spent. Buy a $400 intake and it will feel like more power. However put that car on a real dyno and run it before and after installation and you will often discover that the actual power barely changes. Perception is often not very accurate where money is involved.

Have Fun!

Don


----------



## gerardrjj (Sep 4, 2014)

Athlon64BIT said:


> I disagree 100%
> 
> I know this is a little off topic, but when I owned my 1991 Mustang GT with a 5.0.
> When I used Premium fuel the car would be more peppy and would give me more KM per Tank.
> ...


This is called confirmation bias. You are seeing what you want to see in the subtle variations of other variables in your test for which you do not account.
Octane can not and does not affect pep, responsiveness, emissions, cleanness, milage, power or any other operating characteristic of an engine unless you have one of the rare engines that is capable of detecting pre-ignition and altering is running parameters to make use of different octane fuels. These are facts, sorry but they don't change because another view is widely held.


----------



## christophe15 (Nov 12, 2018)

Yes you can run 87

the great debate always has to make its way into a simple question....:thumbdown:

https://mnbiofuels.org/media-mba/blog/item/1511-octane-and-ethanol-for-beginners

:laugh:


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

JSWTDI09 said:


> There are car engines that automatically adapt their ignition timing to take advantage of higher octane fuel.


And more often, the other way around. Like this GTI that is tuned for premium. Was able to run 87 at a loss of a measly 4hp/3ft-lbs.
https://www.edmunds.com/volkswagen/...en-gti-the-effect-of-octane-on-its-power.html


----------



## christophe15 (Nov 12, 2018)

let's continue then

"The Department of Energy states that: “Higher octane fuels are often required or recommended for engines that use a higher compression ratio and/*or use supercharging or turbocharging to force more air into the engine*. Increasing pressure in the cylinder allows an engine to extract more mechanical energy from a given air/fuel mixture but requires higher octane fuel to keep the mixture from pre-detonating. In these engines, high octane fuel will improve performance and fuel economy.”

-----Tiguan has a turbo charged engine... again it is not required but even the DOE says improves performance and fuel economy... how much, worth the extra $$ ---make it a personal preference.

"In addition, as Argonne National Laboratory states, ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions between 34 to 44 percent compared to gasoline."

-----Lower emissions for higher octane/ethanol fuels... again, personal preference, maybe the environment is worth your extra $$ at the pump, maybe not...


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

christophe15 said:


> let's continue then
> 
> "The Department of Energy states that: “Higher octane fuels are often required or recommended for engines that use a higher compression ratio and/*or use supercharging or turbocharging to force more air into the engine*. Increasing pressure in the cylinder allows an engine to extract more mechanical energy from a given air/fuel mixture but requires higher octane fuel to keep the mixture from pre-detonating. In these engines, high octane fuel will improve performance and fuel economy.”
> 
> ...


Dated advice from before this relatively recent boon of turbo charged setups designed to run on 87.


----------



## christophe15 (Nov 12, 2018)

Right... just like you didn't need to run synthetic oil in a turbo car... ohhh wait... yeah... maybe we should change that back... lol... again.. your preference... personally I am an old dog, preferably like to follow what historical data supports... run higher octane and synth oil in turbo cars. Just my preference backed by a few years of data.


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

christophe15 said:


> Right... just like you didn't need to run synthetic oil in a turbo car... ohhh wait... yeah... maybe we should change that back... lol... again.. your preference... personally I am an old dog, preferably like to follow what historical data supports... run higher octane and synth oil in turbo cars. Just my preference backed by a few years of data.


You have a few years of data on this setup? The setups of today are entirely different beasts than what was going on in the 80s turbo heyday when electronic engine management was in its infancy.


----------



## christophe15 (Nov 12, 2018)

socialD said:


> You have a few years of data on this setup? The setups of today are entirely different beasts than what was going on in the 80s turbo heyday when electronic engine management was in its infancy.


Yes, as do you have access to the same data. My point is, just a few years back everyone was on fire about all their turbo engines (not the 80's either) sludging up because use of non-synthetic oil (manufacturers did not put in manual was required) and tons of TSBs, data out there.. yet now they all went back on that realizing that was a bad idea. 

Regarding running lower octane on high compression motors with turbos... sure can be done, not arguing that case, however there is very limited long term data to support that is a good idea and being the old dog I am, I would rather not be the one to find out that is a bad idea too. Just saying, rather pay a few extra bucks over the years if it saves me having to deal with some long term issues...maybe they never happen, but just my preference to not take the chances..


----------



## kirk_augustin (Jul 21, 2012)

nipp0n said:


> On my 5 day old 2018 Tiguan the inside of the gas door has a sticker specifying regular gas. Expect it's the same in the US.
> 
> nipp0n



No, the compression ratio on the 2018 Tiguan is 11.7:1, so is WAY over the limit where you absolutely should run premium all the time.
The cut off is around 9.2:1.
Sure the sticker SAYS you CAN run regular gas, but that is because the knock sensor will reduce the ignition timing until the knock goes away.
But that significantly reduces your power and greatly increases fuel consumption.
So it is far less expensive and makes the engine last MUCH longer if you run premium.
The fact you CAN run regular does not mean you ever should.
It will run much better and last much longer on premium.


----------



## kirk_augustin (Jul 21, 2012)

gerardrjj said:


> Not the Tiguan.
> 
> Again, octane does not improve power. It is an anti-knock rating (residence to self ignition). A car that has knock detectors and can alter timing or boost related to the knock sensors and run at higher pressures and altered timing. The Tiguan does not have any of this. Most cars don't. Regardless of whether you run 87 or 110 octane the engine will put out the same power, get the same milage and have the same level of emissions. Any changes you detect are certainly within sampling error or attributable to other factors such as weather, traffic, driver habits, refining differences in the fuel used, etc.
> 
> ...



Totally and completely wrong.
Every single car made has a knock sensor in the last 2 decades, and although because of the knock sensor, they say they can all run on regular, the retarded ignition timing required to stop the deadly knock, WILL greatly reduce power and mileage.
Octane will not improve power in a low compression engine, but in a high compression engine, it is a life saver.
Anyone running regular gas in a vehicle with more than 9.2:1 compression ratio is an idiot.

Any mechanic who ever adjusted ignition timing will tell you how this works.
The knock is NOT from self ignition, but the speed of ignition being too fast, and peaking before the piston has had a chance to slap over to the other side of the cylinder.
If you retard ignition timing, the knock goes away.
But clearly the more retarded the ignition, the less power you will have, so you will have to push harder on the accelerator, and use much more fuel.
The engine will also run MUCH hotter and wear out much faster when retarded.
So you always want to advance the ignition timing as much as possible just before it starts to knock, and you always want to run high enough octane that allows for the most advanced ignition timing.


----------



## kirk_augustin (Jul 21, 2012)

socialD said:


> Dated advice from before this relatively recent boon of turbo charged setups designed to run on 87.


That is completely wrong.
No turbo charged engine can ever be set up to run efficiently on 87 octane fuel.
The whole point of turbo charging is to increase compression, and the higher the compression, the faster the shockwave of the ignition.
So all turbo charged engines must always run premium gasoline.
There is not and can not be a single exception to this well documented and logical rule.


----------



## kirk_augustin (Jul 21, 2012)

christophe15 said:


> Yes, as do you have access to the same data. My point is, just a few years back everyone was on fire about all their turbo engines (not the 80's either) sludging up because use of non-synthetic oil (manufacturers did not put in manual was required) and tons of TSBs, data out there.. yet now they all went back on that realizing that was a bad idea.
> 
> Regarding running lower octane on high compression motors with turbos... sure can be done, not arguing that case, however there is very limited long term data to support that is a good idea and being the old dog I am, I would rather not be the one to find out that is a bad idea too. Just saying, rather pay a few extra bucks over the years if it saves me having to deal with some long term issues...maybe they never happen, but just my preference to not take the chances..



You are completely correct.
You can try to avoid the turbo oil sludge by cooling the turbo down before turning off the engine, but synthetic oil is really the only acceptable way to go.
And there is absolutely no possible way to make any high compression engine, such as a turbo, work well on regular gasoline.
They will retard ignition to avoid the knock, but that is terrible for power, mileage, and engine life.
A retarded engine produces over twice the heat to components like the valves.


----------



## kirk_augustin (Jul 21, 2012)

gerardrjj said:


> It’s your imagination. Octane does not produce power.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Octane most certainly DOES increase hp incredibly, if you have a high compression engine.
And the Tiguan most certainly will produce over 30% greater hp and mileage with premium, because it is 11.7:1 compression ratio.
Running regular in it will cut its life span in half.


----------



## kirk_augustin (Jul 21, 2012)

socialD said:


> And more often, the other way around. Like this GTI that is tuned for premium. Was able to run 87 at a loss of a measly 4hp/3ft-lbs.
> https://www.edmunds.com/volkswagen/...en-gti-the-effect-of-octane-on-its-power.html



Totally irrelevalnt.
The 2010 GTI only has a 9.6:1 compression ratio, so is very near the border where regular is acceptable.
And if the state requires ethanol to reduce emissions, that will reduce pre-ignition even more.
This has no relevance at all to higher compression engines like a turbo Tiguan with an 11.7:1 compression ratio.


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

kirk_augustin said:


> Octane most certainly DOES increase hp incredibly, if you have a high compression engine.
> And the Tiguan most certainly will produce over 30% greater hp and mileage with premium, because it is 11.7:1 compression ratio.
> Running regular in it will cut its life span in half.


That's just not true at all. At least not until you get with a tuner. 

I've run OBD logs over multiple tanks of 87 and 93. There is no difference to speak of. 30% more power? That is laughable. Your information is dated and does not apply to the US 18 Tig's budack cycle engine.

"Volkswagen engineers modified the intake port. A new alloy piston features a novel crown and bowl shape that enables the higher 11.7:1 compression ratio; the engine can *develop full power and torque on regular-grade gasoline*. The injectors for the direct-injection system were relocated and deliver up to three injection events per combustion cycle at a higher maximum pressure (250 bar or 3,626 psi)."
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/06/20170627-tiguan.html

There are now many vehicles out there running turbos setup for 87. I think Hyundai was first to bring them mass market. You think with Hyundai's 100k warranty and VW's now extended warranty they would be recommending something that would cut life in half?


----------



## VeeDubBub (Aug 31, 2010)

I'd been looking at some of the VWs on their site the previous few years and noticed in the spec page, it has a small note under the HP noting that this value is based on using Premium.


----------



## christophe15 (Nov 12, 2018)

Yes (even the manufacturer (several to boot) test at higher octane as indicated in disclaimers) many years of data to support that higher octane (ethanol %) does provide better performance.. no sure why there is a debate still on this, tuned or not.... :screwy:

And to the debate team..

Again, nobody is arguing that you can indeed run 87 in your Tiguan, that is your choice. Just be prepared (if you keep your car long term) that there *** could be*** some consequences that come with that decision. 

Just not worth the risk for a few extra dollars ***in my opinion***.


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

VeeDubBub said:


> I'd been looking at some of the VWs on their site the previous few years and noticed in the spec page, it has a small note under the HP noting that this value is based on using Premium.


Yes, but the Budack cycle Tiguan is not one of them.


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

christophe15 said:


> Yes (even the manufacturer (several to boot) test at higher octane as indicated in disclaimers) many years of data to support that higher octane (ethanol %) does provide better performance.. no sure why there is a debate still on this, tuned or not.... :screwy:
> 
> And to the debate team..
> 
> ...


The debate is to whether the Budack cycle setup can extract extra power on higher octane. Which it absolutely does not. Claiming that you are putting your engine at risk or only getting 70% of the performance on the octane that the manufacturer recommends is ludicrous. This isn't even an "87 required, 91 recommended" situation. It's just outright 87 recommended.


----------



## gerardrjj (Sep 4, 2014)

kirk_augustin said:


> Totally and completely wrong.
> Every single car made has a knock sensor in the last 2 decades, and although because of the knock sensor, they say they can all run on regular, the retarded ignition timing required to stop the deadly knock, WILL greatly reduce power and mileage.
> Octane will not improve power in a low compression engine, but in a high compression engine, it is a life saver.
> Anyone running regular gas in a vehicle with more than 9.2:1 compression ratio is an idiot.
> ...


You are conflating arguments. What I said is 100% correct. Octane is a rating of resistance to pre/self-ignition. Higher octane fuel is not refined any better. Higher octane fuel does not improve engine performance, fuel milage, power or emissions in any engine that isn't specifically designed to detect and take advantage of higher octane ratings. 
You can believe anything you want. You can shout it from the rooftops. You can buy infomercials to say otherwise but that's the simple physical and chemical science of it. 
Putting anything above 87 octane "Regular" gasoline in your 2018 Tiguan's fuel take does nothing but cost you more money than you needed to spend. You will not recoup that money in savings of any sort. Ever.


----------



## gerardrjj (Sep 4, 2014)

The facts are this:
All gasoline is a commodity. You'll probably never find out what company extracted and refined the fuel you purchase, you just know the label/brand that did a final blending of additives into the raw commodity (probably 85 octane) unleaded to produce "top tier" or "techron" or "v-power" or whatever marketing gobbledeygook your preferred brand peddles. This stuff is traded on the open commodities markets, you can look at the prices, it comes in the pipeline and goes to the highest bidder. There is no voodoo.

There is 0 difference in how 85, 87, 94 octanes are refined, the octane is increased by adding things to the fuel after it's been refined down to the raw unleaded feedstock. Each brand uses slightly different additives for lubricity, detergents, octane and other aspects but it's all the same base stock fuel.

Octane is a measure of resistance to self ignition under pressure, nothing else.

Octane is not an indication of power in the fuel, but higher performance engines can/do require higher octane because they run at higher pressures.

Putting 94 octane fuel in your Tig will not improve pep, milage, range, horsepower, torque or make starting easier. Nor will it reduce emissions or alter operating temperatures.
If you purchase a fuel that has some other additives that affect something other than octane you MAY see small improvements in those parameters.

Anyone telling you differently is selling something or has bought that something and trying to justify the purchase.

In other news: you can't "energize" your water with wire coils to get healthy, copper bracelets cannot increase blood flow because copper is non magnetic, and there never were snakes in Ireland; the snakes of St. Patrick lore were actually the druids. There's lore and there's truth. Choose wisely.


----------



## christophe15 (Nov 12, 2018)

here is some good data ... not end all be all and please spare the conspiracies around fuel ... bottom line is Octane is driven by ethanol content, I provided a nice 101 link above that spells it out pretty nicely. If a fuel company is skimming, well unto them what happens if anyone ever finds out..

audi.de A4 saloon - 40 TFSI motor - EA888 Gen3B - same as tiguan -
Capacity
1984 cm 3 - *here I will convert for you this is 121.1 CU*
Maximum power
140 kW (190 hp) at 4200-6000 min - slightly better than NA Tiguan - perhaps because currently only offering in FWD..maybe they ran it on 91 LOL see further down... 
Max. Torque
320/1450 - 4200 Nm at min -1 - - slightly better than NA Tiguan - perhaps because currently only offering in FWD....maybe they ran it on 91 LOL see further down... 


scrolling down to fuel under specifications tab....

recommended - Fuel
Super sulfur free RON 95*  translation 90-91 Octane*


Like I said,to each their preference ... I never argued (actually never argued at all) that you can't run 87, only historical data showed better performance, better for environment over time. 

Perhaps (as am I) that is dated, but as I also said... there is almost NO historical data to back up 87 octane longevity on these new high compression motors. I would ... again as have stated my preference... rather spend a few extra bucks now then pay for potential issues down the road or when VW changes their mind that it was a bad idea and then it will be too late..


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

Historical data is irrelevant to this new design...


----------



## christophe15 (Nov 12, 2018)

right... 

that is your personal opinion  to which I don't have to agree :thumbup:


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

christophe15 said:


> right...
> 
> that is your personal opinion  to which I don't have to agree :thumbup:


That's not my opinion. It's VW's. Why people think they know more than the people that designed and built the thing is baffling.


----------



## christophe15 (Nov 12, 2018)

right..


just like it was VW's opinion to not run full synthetic oil in turbo, high compression cars... that worked out well right ... 

history - "forget the mistakes and remember the lessons"


----------



## christophe15 (Nov 12, 2018)

socialD;112831621 Why people think they know more than the people that designed and built the thing is baffling.[/QUOTE said:


> also what is baffling is when I present information to the contrary (fuel type) just a few post above taken from Audi.de on their website, same motor...... still chose to ignore it.....
> 
> no claims I know anymore than anyone else, I am just making a "personal choice" to not buy into the VW marketing for NA petrol buyers who don't want to spend and extra .20 per gallon on fuel.... but will spend $5 on a 16oz machiatto...
> 
> ...


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

christophe15 said:


> right..
> 
> 
> just like it was VW's opinion to not run full synthetic oil in turbo, high compression cars... that worked out well right ...
> ...


Referring to the older 1.8T sludge issues? To be fair that was also due to owners not following VW's instructions in the manual for a cool down procedure, which those required as they didn't have an electric oil/coolant pump. And exceeding the recommended oil change interval. And yes, they did require oil standards that could only be met by synthetics on the market from the start. It just was not stressed enough in the manual. Which also resulted in misinformed dealers using cheaper oil, not VW itself.


----------



## brent1311 (Nov 30, 2018)

So whats the consensus? Premium or regular?


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

christophe15 said:


> also what is baffling is when I present information to the contrary (fuel type) just a few post above taken from Audi.de on their website, same motor...... still chose to ignore it.....
> 
> no claims I know anymore than anyone else, I am just making a "personal choice" to not buy into the VW marketing for NA petrol buyers who don't want to spend and extra .20 per gallon on fuel.... but will spend $5 on a 16oz machiatto...
> 
> ...


There are a number of articles that go in depth into the engineering that explain how they accomplished it. I have verified on my own with OBD logging as I used premium at first as well. Comparing to a different car in a different country with different emission regulations in suspect at best. Not to mention VW is known for sandbagging their hp numbers. Numerous examples where they make at the wheels what they claim at the crank. Haven't been to a dyno yet, but the OBD Fusion calculated HP/TQ numbers on 87 or 93 both come out in the low 190s hp/210s ft-lbs at peak power on the 0-60 runs I've logged(which were rather sad, 9.3s being the best).


And it can be much more than $0.20 more...my closest station. But I don't pick 87 out of a cost concern. I just saw no benefit. Though I'm also not crazy enough to keep a first year VW long term...


----------



## christophe15 (Nov 12, 2018)

dang!! $1.00 more for prem.. that is ludicrous... 

Here is my local, not the cheapest, but pretty close, .30 delta. 

Gas Prices 
Regular
$2.78
Midgrade
$2.93
Premium
$3.08



Yeah, I tend to keep my cars very long term, so part of the reasons I just don't want to risk it. 

And, totally agree on the sludge issue, it was a massive combination of errors by all parties, but what is interesting (and not to beat the history horse hear) I ran full synth, 5k intervals and not one problem.. my old dog ways just knew better, plenty of people out there avoided it as well because they were wise to potential for issues as well.


----------



## christophe15 (Nov 12, 2018)

brent1311 said:


> So whats the consensus? Premium or regular?


not sure one can be achieved, follow what the manual says or spend a bit more (perhaps needlessly) as a potential insurance that VW won't change it's mind (like audi already proves above might happen) down the road.


----------



## gerardrjj (Sep 4, 2014)

christophe15 said:


> ....EA888 Gen3B - same as tiguan -.../QUOTE]
> 
> People keep saying that "The EA888 engine". I've looked and looked. My information is that EA888 is an engine class/family. "The engine" in my Tiguan is code DGU to designate the specific configuration.
> 
> ...


----------



## PZ (May 9, 2002)

What some people don't realize is that this engine does not really have an 11.7 compression ratio. It has an 11.7 expansion ratio. Due to the B-cycle, actual compression numbers are much lower which is why this engine gets better mpg at normal engine speeds but produces less overall horsepower. This is a modern take on the Atkinson cycle engine. I don't know what the compression numbers end up being, but a compression test would probably show similar (if not lower) numbers to the standard 2.0T.


----------



## christophe15 (Nov 12, 2018)

Gen 3B (b as in b-cycle).. at its core EA888 then generation, the 3B being the newest iteration.... 

Clearly it is still my personal preference, many times stated above..

VW says run 87, cool, run 87, I am sticking with what I believe and that is to not run that lower level of octane in my high compression, turbo motor (matching what Audi.de posts on their website 95 RON or better)..


----------



## gerardrjj (Sep 4, 2014)

Consensus is undecided because people cling to beliefs.

The facts are that regular is fine and there's zero advantage to running anything higher than 87 octane in your Tig.


----------



## JSWTDI09 (Feb 22, 2009)

gerardrjj said:


> Consensus is undecided because people cling to beliefs.
> 
> The facts are that regular is fine and there's zero advantage to running anything higher than 87 octane in your Tig.


Unfortunately we seem to be living in a world where facts take their place somewhere behind feelings and beliefs. It reminds me of Foghorn Leghorn saying: Son. my mind's made up- don't confuse me with the facts".

Have Fun!

Don


----------



## gerardrjj (Sep 4, 2014)

christophe15 said:


> here is some good data ... not end all be all and please spare the conspiracies around fuel ...


I think you're confusing the word "conspiracies" with "facts"




christophe15 said:


> ... bottom line is Octane is driven by ethanol content, ...


This is a gross over-implication to the point of hilarity. Yes you can add ethanol to gasoline to increase octane rating but it's far from the primary component adding octane in commercial blending. The other issue with ethanol is it's less energy dense than gasoline so using it decreases your MPG and output power. You have to put (by mass) about 50% more ethanol into a cylinder to produce the same output power as a unit of gasoline. Using ethanol as the primary octane booster in gasoline is just bad science and worse economics. It's in gasoline in small amounts primarily to add more oxygen the the reaction and thus reduce harmful emissions. We tried to switch to MTBE for these same functions but found out that is was not decomposing in the environment so stopped using it and we all know the issue with lead, the original octane booster in gasoline.



christophe15 said:


> Perhaps (as am I) that is dated, but as I also said... there is almost NO historical data to back up 87 octane longevity on these new high compression motors. I would ... again as have stated my preference... rather spend a few extra bucks now then pay for potential issues down the road or when VW changes their mind that it was a bad idea and then it will be too late..


The more you write the more I understand you don't know what you're writing about but just using your "gut" reaction and poorly sourced or applied data. That's fine if it's your preference and you choose to run 89 or 94 octane in your car, it's your car and your money but none of the facts support that decision. I'm not saying doing it is wrong or will hurt the car in any way; it's just a waste of money you could have used for some upgrade or a professional detailing once a year.


----------



## Lapiz Blue R (Sep 24, 2018)

When you are talking about a turbo engine, higher octane allows more boost which equals more power, so higher octane can make more power. Whether or not this applies ti the Tiguan engine, I don't know. I know that in the owners manual of my wife's 2016 Jetta SEL 1.8 it says you can run 87 octane in it, but it will reduce power by reducing boost, and timing. The way she drives we could run 87 in it, but since I drive it from time to time, we put the recommended fuel in it, and we are rewarded with a car that is way faster than what the rated 170 hp would be, the car is very quick.


----------



## christophe15 (Nov 12, 2018)

gerardrjj said:


> I think you're confusing the word "conspiracies" with "facts"
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Once again... take snippets out of context .. let me one more time remind you..

1. As has been voiced here by several contributors and could be perfectly right 10 years down the road, that is not required any longer... VW does say this... *my personal preference* is to not run low octane fuel in my high compression turbo car. Yes misguided or not.. 

2. I provided a 101 link to octane as it relates to ethanol content.. requirements by state and federal law, the link also went into how ethanol burns cleaner (less emissions) and may other points including how ET85 is incredibly inefficient when in comparison to a blend of gasoline and ethanol ...not sure this was even part of the thread request..

3. I provided a simple contradiction to what is posted here. VW says run 87 octane while audi says run 95 RON (90-91 Octane) same motor. see audi.de, pull up the Gen 3B motor (FWD is only option right now) as your selection for the A4 and there is the data on fuel minimum requirement and also HP and Torque (higher in this case) marketing maybe? 

4.Lastly, How many years of historical data has been provided to support running 87 octane on high compression, turbo B cycle motors is available (or could there possibly be) and has been provided in this thread? Historically this has been a bad idea *on previous generation type motors* as provided by many years of data, hence...


5. I am using my gut, instinct, old man ways.. call it what you will to which can certainly agree or not, I am not here to convince one way or another... :thumbup:


----------



## htmlspinnr (Aug 14, 2015)

christophe15 said:


> Once again... take snippets out of context .. let me one more time remind you..
> 
> ...
> 3. I provided a simple contradiction to what is posted here. VW says run 87 octane while audi says run 95 RON (90-91 Octane) same motor. see audi.de, pull up the Gen 3B motor (FWD is only option right now) as your selection for the A4 and there is the data on fuel minimum requirement and also HP and Torque (higher in this case) marketing maybe?


The same engine with a different tune for more aggressive boost or timing could change the power output, but also the fueling requirements. Consumers of premium/luxury vehicles (which an Audi is a part of) have a higer tolerance of higher fuel costs, so requiring them to opt for the more expensive fueling option is less of a concern. For an everyday consumer option, tuning for the lower fuel-cost option appeals to the average middle-class consumer who is concerned more about the cost of operation than 5-10 extra HP.

One other thing to remember is that direct-injection changes everything we knew about high compression turbo engines and octane. The ability to cool the intake charge by timing the fuel delivery burst(s) into the combustion chamber allows for higher compression w/o enrichment, timing retardation, or boost retardation.


----------



## christophe15 (Nov 12, 2018)

htmlspinnr said:


> The same engine with a different tune for more aggressive boost or timing could change the power output, but also the fueling requirements. Consumers of premium/luxury vehicles (which an Audi is a part of) have a higer tolerance of higher fuel costs, so requiring them to opt for the more expensive fueling option is less of a concern. For an everyday consumer option, tuning for the lower fuel-cost option appeals to the average middle-class consumer who is concerned more about the cost of operation than 5-10 extra HP.
> 
> One other thing to remember is that direct-injection changes everything we knew about high compression turbo engines and octane. The ability to cool the intake charge by timing the fuel delivery burst(s) into the combustion chamber allows for higher compression w/o enrichment, timing retardation, or boost retardation.


1. Agreed, I even made mention of that above . Could be just marketing (yes us americans would rather spend $5 on a 16 OZ machiatto than extra .30 on premium), EU is used to paying more anyways as a whole for gasoline could be that it was FWD only so power output perhaps better, could be the 95 RON fuel.. not going to claim I know how Audi achieved 6 more HP out of theirs.. 

2. yeah, also agreed, things have changed for sure. I just don't personally feel there is as long enough data track to show whether or not any impact will happen on longevity, etc. so just decided to run higher octane till I am satisfied with the tiime and long term results. I am a bit of a skeptic, so that may be what drives my motivation a bit as well.


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

christophe15 said:


> so that may be what drives my motivation a bit as well.


Think you've got your skeptic hat on backwards if you're going with your gut feel rather than the facts presented by the manufacturer.


----------



## christophe15 (Nov 12, 2018)

Because I choose to not trust VW, at least for the time being, with my high priced investment....happy to wear my hat inside out.


----------



## gerardrjj (Sep 4, 2014)

christophe15 said:


> Just be prepared (if you keep your car long term) that there *** could be*** some consequences that come with that decision.
> 
> Just not worth the risk for a few extra dollars ***in my opinion***.


Also note that if you choose to not keep a voodoo doll in the rear passenger seat that there *** could be *** some consequences that come with that decision. It's just nor worth the risk for a few extra dollars ***in my opinion***.


----------



## cdubrun (Sep 15, 2016)

Lothar1566 said:


> Regardless of what the "experts" say using premium helps in certain engines, depending on the advance mapping used.


I dunno, man, sometimes the "experts" are actual experts.





You know, with science n' stuff.


----------



## christophe15 (Nov 12, 2018)

https://www.carthrottle.com/post/engineering-explained-high-vs-low-octane-petrol/


good read, videos... spend some time dissecting. i did like the part about how engineers design an engine around what type of fuel is more prevalent... 

"You can’t change the compression ratio, and you likely have a desired airflow to reach target power levels, so you’re left with ignition timing to alter." 

"A smart engine that desires high octane fuel for optimum performance will retard the ignition timing to prevent knock when lower octane fuel is used, and advance the timing once it sees more desirable fuel again."

"The only scenario where I would consider using higher octane fuel than recommended is if I had a car with significant combustion chamber deposits. Higher octane fuels almost always have higher concentrations of cleansing additives, so running on a tank of high octane fuel every so often can help in cleaning an engine and preventing future build-up."

-- anyone out there with a EA888 3Bcycle motor with 100-200k miles on it? Just curious


----------



## underscore (Nov 27, 2018)

*Dyno Testing Premium Fuel - Octane Level vs Performance*

https://youtu.be/gqvhaPLuTPI


----------



## theACN (Oct 20, 2017)

Maybe it's time to put an end to this thread. Below is copy paste from 2019 Tiguan Owner's Manual. On your manual, check under "Fuel/Fuel Types/Gasoline".

Octane rating
Octane rating indicates a gasoline's ability to resist engine-damaging “knock” caused by pre-ignition. Using gasoline that does not meet minimum octane requirements can affect engine performance, while the use of poor quality gasoline or gasoline with octane levels below 87 can also cause engine damage. If Regular gasoline is recommended for your engine, you may be able to enhance engine performance by using Premium gasoline.


----------



## christophe15 (Nov 12, 2018)

agreed, been a "dead horse for a while"

perhaps this thread would have been better as a poll


----------



## antsman12 (Sep 15, 2017)

theACN said:


> Maybe it's time to put an end to this thread. Below is copy paste from 2019 Tiguan Owner's Manual. On your manual, check under "Fuel/Fuel Types/Gasoline".
> 
> Octane rating
> Octane rating indicates a gasoline's ability to resist engine-damaging “knock” caused by pre-ignition. Using gasoline that does not meet minimum octane requirements can affect engine performance, while the use of poor quality gasoline or gasoline with octane levels below 87 can also cause engine damage. If Regular gasoline is recommended for your engine, you may be able to enhance engine performance by using Premium gasoline.


Agreed; I base my fuel usage on the owners manual even though VW recommend regular gasoline, they are telling us that premium will enhance the performance of our car.


----------



## JSWTDI09 (Feb 22, 2009)

antsman12 said:


> Agreed; I base my fuel usage on the owners manual even though VW recommend regular gasoline, they are telling us that premium will enhance the performance of our car.


Who is "they"? I do not recall seeing this in my owner's manual. Would you please cite the page number where you found this information? Apparently I missed it (I did read the entire manual).

Have Fun!

Don

P.S. I have always been told that the nebulous "they" is actually three little old ladies in Pittsburgh.


----------



## theACN (Oct 20, 2017)

JSWTDI09 said:


> Who is "they"? I do not recall seeing this in my owner's manual. Would you please cite the page number where you found this information? Apparently I missed it (I did read the entire manual).
> 
> Have Fun!
> 
> ...



Good?

<a href="https://ibb.co/z2MZZdW"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/z2MZZdW/manual.jpg" alt="manual" border="0"></a>


----------



## gerardrjj (Sep 4, 2014)

"bad fuel" is not referring to octane. You just got some old or contaminated fuel. It happens sometimes.


----------



## theACN (Oct 20, 2017)

gerardrjj said:


> "bad fuel" is not referring to octane. You just got some old or contaminated fuel. It happens sometimes.


OK I've marked it...

<a href="https://ibb.co/QjcMyQ5"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/QjcMyQ5/Inkedmanual-LI.jpg" alt="Inkedmanual-LI" border="0"></a>


----------



## christophe15 (Nov 12, 2018)

is there a section about voodoo dolls, maybe in the 2020 manual .. ;-)

thanks for posting :thumbup:


----------



## JSWTDI09 (Feb 22, 2009)

theACN said:


> OK I've marked it...


It says that you MAY be able to enhance engine performance by using premium gasoline. It does not say that Premium gasoline WILL enhance engine performance.

You also MAY enhance engine performance by holding your mouth right or by sprinkling fairy dust on your radiator.

Unless an engine is specifically designed to adapt to higher octane fuel spending more money on fuel will have little to no effect on performance. If you want to buy premium gas, go right ahead, it won't hurt anything except for maybe your budget.

Have Fun!

Don


----------



## christophe15 (Nov 12, 2018)

JSWTDI09 said:


> It says that you MAY be able to enhance engine performance by using premium gasoline. It does not say that Premium gasoline WILL enhance engine performance.
> 
> You also MAY enhance engine performance by holding your mouth right or by sprinkling fairy dust on your radiator.
> 
> ...



Just like, engine buildup and a host of other things may happen by running lower octane fuel... hence why some of us choose to run a higher octane fuel... 

topic of thread has always been "what fuel are you guys running" not whether or not one picks or chooses what part of the manual to agree with (apparently only when it supports their side of the argument)... fairy dust, marketing or not... it's a personal choice...


----------



## theACN (Oct 20, 2017)

christophe15 said:


> Just like, engine buildup and a host of other things may happen by running lower octane fuel... hence why some of us choose to run a higher octane fuel...
> 
> topic of thread has always been "what fuel are you guys running" not whether or not one picks or chooses what part of the manual to agree with (apparently only when it supports their side of the argument)... fairy dust, marketing or not... it's a personal choice...


Agreed. Nothing wrong with using regular, nothing wrong with trying premium either, hey, even VW says it may increase performance, which also means it may not. Even for them apparently it's a personal choice. :thumbup: 

This thread really should've been a poll...


----------



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

The only reason it uses the word “may” instead of “will” is to cover their ass. Saying it WILL means if someone does a back to back dyno test and sees no performance gain or a loss in performance by using higher octane fuel then they’ll have some explaining to do. 

The only thing lower octane fuel has on higher octane is a higher potential energy level. You would need water methanol injection to be able to take advantage of this and advance ignition timing. 

There’s a reason the tuners have files made for 93 that make more power than their 91 octane files. 

The only reason the engine won’t make more power on 93 is if VW set an absolute limit on ignition timing advance. Perhaps it’s at its limit on 87 and thus using 93 doesn’t matter.


----------



## christophe15 (Nov 12, 2018)

Savvv said:


> The only reason the engine won’t make more power on 93 is if VW set an absolute limit on ignition timing advance. Perhaps it’s at its limit on 87 and thus using 93 doesn’t matter.



Yeah, I thought about that, but actually my post above regarding engineers (probably driven by the bean counters on how many of these can we sell in markets that don't want to buy premium fuel) will actually produce smart motor that will just adjust timing for lower octane. My guess ... I repeat... My Guess... the motor was engineered for higher octane and adjust timing, etc. for lower so won't damage it.. "smart motor" engineered for marketing


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

That statement is obviously not tailored to the US Tiguan in specific. And you can observe yourself it makes no difference. Easy to do these days with obd dongles and apps.


----------



## Reihenmotor5 (Dec 1, 2006)

*87 or 89 in 2019?*

Excuse me if this is in another thread, but did a search and didn't find anything. What are people running octane wise for their 2019 Tigs? Any noticeable difference? 89 was put in mine at purchase, and I've continued using 89. Thoughts, impressions?


----------



## Audib517 (Feb 3, 2015)

Good question! Let me know too!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Triple6 (Jan 2, 2019)

I've been running premium 93 since day one. It still gets better fuel economy depending on how you drive. I myself am very light on the throttle and have been averaging 24 around town in stop and go traffic. Highway has been much better averaging about 32mpg. I have a race chip for it, but I haven't put it back on yet. Have to go to the dealer one more time on Monday and after that I will put it back on and see what numbers I get.


----------



## Audib517 (Feb 3, 2015)

Triple6 said:


> I've been running premium 93 since day one. It still gets better fuel economy depending on how you drive. I myself am very light on the throttle and have been averaging 24 around town in stop and go traffic. Highway has been much better averaging about 32mpg. I have a race chip for it, but I haven't put it back on yet. Have to go to the dealer one more time on Monday and after that I will put it back on and see what numbers I get.


Hey send some photos and DIY please! I’m considering it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Triple6 (Jan 2, 2019)

Audib517 said:


> Hey send some photos and DIY please! I’m considering it!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I want to post pics but haven't figured out how to upload pic on here yet. If someone could explain to me how its done I would love to.


----------



## Audib517 (Feb 3, 2015)

Triple6 said:


> I want to post pics but haven't figured out how to upload pic on here yet. If someone could explain to me how its done I would love to.


For the iPhone you just click “quote” and the photo icon should be the first one and from there you can add photos. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Audib517 (Feb 3, 2015)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## n0thing (Mar 30, 2014)

I've been in the pro 91 category for quite some time with small displacement turbocharged cars, but after reading the discussion in the last thread about this question I decided to give 87 a try. The fuel economy results are the same (25mpg mixed) and the car runs the same. There's no additional hesitation while going full throttle that is an indicator of the car pulling timing. It feels and performs the same on 87 as it did on 91. Because of that we've kept running 87.


----------



## Triple6 (Jan 2, 2019)

Audib517 said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Don't have an iPhone, I do everything from my laptop.


----------



## Masterchief1804 (Feb 19, 2009)

I have pumped 91 since day 1 and won't change it. I don't think it's a huge deal but I'd say tun 89 at least since it's a turbo engine.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

87. No reason to go higher unless you get a tune.

But 89 in particular is an odd choice. Very rare to find a car tuned for that. Usually 87 or 91. Largely on the market for indecisive people?


----------



## Reihenmotor5 (Dec 1, 2006)

socialD said:


> 87. No reason to go higher unless you get a tune.
> 
> But 89 in particular is an odd choice. Very rare to find a car tuned for that. Usually 87 or 91. Largely on the market for indecisive people?


My Volvo S60 requires 89 minimum, and it too is a turbo and the Tiguan gen prior used premium. Since the dealer chose 89 for the first fill up, wanted to see if it's just a carryover belief in need (better than 87, but not 91 like prior requirement) and is anyone seeing any difference even though you can do 87 in the new Tiguans. Are dealers hearing from customers 89 is better? If I run 87 in the S60 by accident just a couple of times a knock can become present.


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

Reihenmotor5 said:


> My Volvo S60 requires 89 minimum, and it too is a turbo and the Tiguan gen prior used premium. Since the dealer chose 89 for the first fill up, wanted to see if it's just a carryover belief in need (better than 87, but not 91 like prior requirement) and is anyone seeing any difference even though you can do 87 in the new Tiguans. Are dealers hearing from customers 89 is better? If I run 87 in the S60 by accident just a couple of times a knock can become present.


What does it say on the cap of your S60? They seem to recommend 91 but require 87.
https://volvo.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/9746/~/fuel-requirements

No benefit to going higher than 87 on the Tig without a tune. 87 is both recommended and required.


----------



## Reihenmotor5 (Dec 1, 2006)

2014 model has 89 on the T5 FWD model.


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

Reihenmotor5 said:


> 2014 model has 89 on the T5 FWD model.


https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/Discussion-t39502_ds562244
Same generation:
"Actully, according to the 2012 Volvo S60 T5 Manual, "Volvo recommends using premium unleaded gas for best performance, but using 87 octane or above will not affect engine reliability. Volvo engine is designed to achieve rated horsepower, torque, and fuel economy performance using premium 91 octane fuel." Chapter 06, Refueling; p. 253"


----------



## JSWTDI09 (Feb 22, 2009)

socialD said:


> 87. No reason to go higher unless you get a tune.


This. Our engines were designed for 87 octane fuel. You can put in higher octane fuel if you have more money that you need, but it won't make any difference unless you modify the engine's ECU software somehow.

Have Fun!

Don


----------



## Reihenmotor5 (Dec 1, 2006)

socialD said:


> https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/Discussion-t39502_ds562244
> Same generation:
> "Actully, according to the 2012 Volvo S60 T5 Manual, "Volvo recommends using premium unleaded gas for best performance, but using 87 octane or above will not affect engine reliability. Volvo engine is designed to achieve rated horsepower, torque, and fuel economy performance using premium 91 octane fuel." Chapter 06, Refueling; p. 253"


When we purchased the 2014 model, dealer made it a point you didn't need premium. Cap says minimum 89 or higher, dealer and service rep said don't go below what the cap says but said no real need to do 91. Granted the manual may say something similar to what you found for the 2012 model, but never read that part.


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

Reihenmotor5 said:


> When we purchased the 2014 model, dealer made it a point you didn't need premium. Cap says minimum 89 or higher, dealer and service rep said don't go below what the cap says but said no real need to do 91. Granted the manual may say something similar to what you found for the 2012 model, but never read that part.


Well dealers have a tendency of talking out their ass...
Don't even see an octane recommendation on the cap. I'd be really surprised if 89 was really recommended in any way from Volvo themselves.
https://forums.swedespeed.com/showthread.php?230188-Not-a-fan-of-the-design-of-15-S60-gas-cap

https://www.volvocars.com/en-ca/sup...e852c0a801e800ea6f2b-om-en-ca-y283-2015-14w46


----------



## Reihenmotor5 (Dec 1, 2006)

socialD said:


> Well dealers have a tendency of talking out their ass...
> Don't even see an octane recommendation on the cap. I'd be really surprised if 89 was really recommended in any way from Volvo themselves.
> https://forums.swedespeed.com/showthread.php?230188-Not-a-fan-of-the-design-of-15-S60-gas-cap
> 
> https://www.volvocars.com/en-ca/sup...e852c0a801e800ea6f2b-om-en-ca-y283-2015-14w46


Might be on the inside trap door, I'll have to look again for the exact location. Just remember it being a big deal at purchase, and anytime 87 is in I can tell. Anyways that's a whole other topic, just was wondering if anyone noticed any real difference using 89 and if hearing the same from dealers? I know dealers can talk out their ass, but they have no skin in the gas game.


----------



## lgbalfa (Nov 18, 2018)

I have been using 89.


----------



## Reihenmotor5 (Dec 1, 2006)

lgbalfa said:


> I have been using 89.


Did you used to run 87? If so, what difference did you see?


----------



## socialD (Sep 19, 2011)

I ran 87 and 92(options available at the Costco here). Did OBD logging via OBDFusion. Found no real difference in boost levels, mpg, calculated tq/hp, or timing advance. Not curious enough to actually pay for a dyno though. If/When APR cracks it I'd be interested to see their results as they test the different octanes for turbos that recommend 87.

No one is recommending 89 for this. As for your Volvo, the skin was likely the dealer not trying to freak out customers that it premium was recommended as that turns off buyers so they split the difference?


----------



## gerardrjj (Sep 4, 2014)

Reihenmotor5 said:


> Excuse me if this is in another thread, but did a search and didn't find anything. What are people running octane wise for their 2019 Tigs? Any noticeable difference? 89 was put in mine at purchase, and I've continued using 89. Thoughts, impressions?


It was. There were pages and pages of posts.

VW specs 87 for the Tiguan in the US. The engine is incapable of detecting or making use of higher octane gasoline. There's no function upside or downside to higher octane gasoline being used unless you try to use a 93 octane or higher that contains lead as the anti-knock additive.

Unless you have modified the engine, turbo or electronics to make more pressure during the compression stroke 87 is all you need.

With my JB4 installed I use 91 now, If I set it to map 0 or remove it I will go back to 87.

Despite all the caterwauling, bravado and fervent claims otherwise, octane is simple the measure of the fuel's resistance to auto-igniting under pressure. There is no more energy stored in 100 octane gasoline than in 87 octane. Higher octane fuel is not "purer" or "cleaner" than lower octane.

So... if it makes you feel better, or you THINK the car gets better milage or power (it doesn't) on 91 with stock setup then knock your socks off with higher octane but you're simply wasting your money.


----------



## Reihenmotor5 (Dec 1, 2006)

gerardrjj said:


> > It was. There were pages and pages of posts.
> >
> > VW specs 87 for the Tiguan in the US. The engine is incapable of detecting or making use of higher octane gasoline. There's no function upside or downside to higher octane gasoline being used unless you try to use a 93 octane or higher that contains lead as the anti-knock additive.
> >
> ...


----------



## Nitr01 (Jan 5, 2019)

I've run 93 in my 19 for the past 1500 miles and had much better gas mileage. Even though they tune them stock for 87 I've always ran 91 or 93 in my turbo cars. 

Sent from my LG-US998 using Tapatalk


----------



## gerardrjj (Sep 4, 2014)

Reihenmotor5 said:


> gerardrjj said:
> 
> 
> > Haven’t tried 87, and my apologies the search string I tried pulled no results. I’d rather not spend more, just wanted to know of real world examples of anyone that had experience trying both. Going to 87 after I run through this tank. Thank you and all for your input.
> ...


----------



## blitz869 (May 7, 2016)

Unless you can provide facts to prove your getting better fuel economy from higher octane fuel. All it’s doing is wasting your money. Lots of tests and examples online to prove this. If you enjoy putting in higher octane all the power to you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## IbsFt (Dec 15, 2018)

What do lawyers, politicians and claims of "my car gets xx MPG" all have in common?  My 3/4 ton diesel pickup once got 99 mpg. Really, the lie-o-meter said so, so it must be true! :banghead:



blitz869 said:


> Unless you can provide facts to prove your getting better fuel economy from higher octane fuel. All it’s doing is wasting your money. Lots of tests and examples online to prove this. If you enjoy putting in higher octane all the power to you.


It would be interesting to see those who believe they are getting better mpg do a cost per mile calculation comparing the low mpg with the cheaper fuel to the higher mpg with the more expensive fuel. Might be an eye opener. For example, using pricing around here and driving 100 miles, at 29 mpg 87 octane = $6.72 at an 33 mpg 90/91 octane = $6.91. No savings there and I really doubt there would be a 4 mpg improvement switching grades.

Our Tig will only see 87 octane


----------



## spacerust (Nov 27, 2018)

*I'm cheap*

I use regular unleaded. I am cheap lol My Tiguan seems ok with it.


----------



## thewire (Nov 24, 2018)

My new Tiggy runs on water!!!  

87 too!


----------



## 1054521247 (Jun 17, 2018)

Hi, 
per personal experience there is no difference or i should say you can decide(from 22.7 to 23.8 thats 1.1mpg "difference" but that could be due to the difference between road condition)! Test was done on a 2019 SEL-P R-Line 4 motion.

All gasoline was purchased from Sam's club. As of now octane 87 is $1.799 per gal and octane 93 is $2.105 per gal. ($0.305 difference)

octane 87 was used for about 1000 miles, the car calculated 22.7mpg Avg. Average 500miles was done per week so it took about 15 days for 1000 miles. 
octane 93 was used for about 1000 miles too, cat calculated 23.8mpg Avg. Average 430miles was done per week so this one took about 17 days for 1000 miles. 
mostly smart cruising 80mph on highway, 40-50mph local roads; but i'm mostly on highway. Mostly driving home around late in the day till 1AM ish, so the traffic condition is light. every week at least 2 trip at (200miles each).


personally can not feel the "more power" or the higher octane higher with higher HP.


----------



## Audib517 (Feb 3, 2015)

Just switch the the knob to sport mode. You’ll a significant difference 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 1054521247 (Jun 17, 2018)

Audib517 said:


> Just switch the the knob to sport mode. You’ll a significant difference
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


are you talking about using 87 vs 93? in sport mode there is a difference? if so whats the difference?


----------



## Audib517 (Feb 3, 2015)

There’s a knob where you can change the mode on the Tiggy. Eco Sport snow or normal mode. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lgbalfa (Nov 18, 2018)

89 octane here.


----------



## Savvv (Apr 22, 2009)

Audib517 said:


> There’s a knob where you can change the mode on the Tiggy. Eco Sport snow or normal mode.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That’s only on 4-motion models though right? The FWD Tiguans access that through the radio menus.


----------

