# Should I run 93octane?



## Andre B (Mar 31, 2014)

Have to fill her up for the first time soon was wondering what octane everyone else is running? I know vw recommends 87 but it being forced induction thought 93 would be better. Thoughts opinions?


----------



## vwaudipreferred (Jul 19, 2005)

You're going to get answers from all across the spectrum to your question.
I personally run 93 always in hopes to cut down on the carbon buildup that might be a problem down the road.
Plus the car really does feel a bit peppier with the higher octane, could just be in my head though.
Congratulations on the new car either way!


----------



## Andre B (Mar 31, 2014)

Just filled it at shell with 87. Gonna try 93 next time n see how it goes. Any cons to using 93 when the recommended is 87?


----------



## DasCC (Feb 24, 2009)

I ran premium the last four fillups and didnt see any mpg improvement per fuelly.


----------



## mikedotd (May 18, 2006)

Without a tune to take advantage of the higher octane you won't see any performance gains.


----------



## Doctor Meat Does Housecalls (Aug 27, 2010)

vwaudipreferred said:


> You're going to get answers from all across the spectrum to your question.
> I personally run 93 always in hopes to cut down on the carbon buildup that might be a problem down the road.
> Plus the car really does feel a bit peppier with the higher octane, could just be in my head though.
> Congratulations on the new car either way!


X2. And i have noticed a (minute) difference in mileage. 


Sent from my interuterine device.


----------



## dspl1236 (May 30, 2007)

considering that these cars require 91oct and are rated at 170hp/184tq...... APR dyno'd on 93oct and put down 189hp/204tq. Yes I would say 93oct will be an improvement :thumbup:


I have the 2.0 rated at [email protected] on 91oct. I dyno'd on 93oct at [email protected] 


A turbocharged car will always have more output and better mpg on higher octane.


late to the party


----------



## Doctor Meat Does Housecalls (Aug 27, 2010)

dspl1236 said:


> considering that these cars require 91oct and are rated at 170hp/184tq...... APR dyno'd on 93oct and put down 189hp/204tq. Yes I would say 93oct will be an improvement :thumbup:
> 
> 
> I have the 2.0 rated at [email protected] on 91oct. I dyno'd on 93oct at [email protected]
> ...


Requires 87 though. 


Sent from my interuterine device.


----------



## dspl1236 (May 30, 2007)

well that is dumb :facepalm:


----------



## a2lowvw (Dec 17, 2000)

the 1.8t only requires 87 the 2.0 is 91+


----------



## ryan mills (May 3, 2002)

Since the 1.8t is designed for 87, there really isn't any advantage to running a higher octane fuel. The timing maps are not going to magically advance to take advantage of the fuel, so I feel that its not worth the money. With the money that you save, put that aside for an APR tune, and then enjoy the HUGE gains from their tune, which takes advantage of the "better" fuel. With the neutered Volkswagen tune, the gains with the 1.8 are greater than the gains you get with 2.0... Now, I'm not saying that the output will be higher than a tuned 2.0, but the performance difference from stock to tuned sure is. 
I'm not convinced that running premium will help with carbon buildup on the intake valves, since the fuel never touches the backsides of the valves.... I believe that Volkswagen has probably looked into the issue , and played with intake valve timing to help with this problem. A better way to keep carbon down would be to use vw approved synthetic oil, which is designed to reduce this buildup, coming from combustion and valve guide lubrication. 
Personally, I've run 87 in my wife's Tiguan for 3 years, knowing that the engine is pulling timing and not performing as well as it should.... That being said, I've measured fuel consumption with both grades and found that the price difference between the two is made up by the better mileage with 93, but that engine is designed to run premium..... Whew! I think that should do it.

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## MrCypherr (Jul 26, 2011)

I ran 91 for all the fillups on mine. People at my work are saying run 87 since they designed it to run 87. Idc what people say, I'll run 91 octane all day for the rest of its life. Cleaner fuel.


----------



## DasCC (Feb 24, 2009)

MrCypherr said:


> I ran 91 for all the fillups on mine. People at my work are saying run 87 since they designed it to run 87. Idc what people say, I'll run 91 octane all day for the rest of its life. Cleaner fuel.


91 doesnt = cleaner fuel :banghead:


----------



## MrCypherr (Jul 26, 2011)

DasCC said:


> 91 doesnt = cleaner fuel :banghead:


I didnt mean as like its actually cleaner than 87. I meant it as its better for the engine with regards to carbon build up.


----------



## clarkma5 (Mar 2, 2002)

No, premium fuels don't have more or less additives or detergents than regular fuels within one brand. You get different additives and detergents by going across different brands. Different grades within a brand is only going to change the energy content of the fuel and the temperature/rate at which it burns.

_Chemistry background: Gasoline is at its core a mixture of septane and octane (there's a lot more going on than that, but that is what's really giving you the bulk of your chemical energy). Septane is a hydrocarbon chain with 7 carbons in a line and octane is a hydrocarbon chain with 8 carbons in a line. The more carbons you have in your hydrocarbon chains, the less volatile they are (volatility being the measure of how readily a substance will enter its gaseous phase). So you get the simplest hydrocarbon, methane aka natural gas, with only one carbon. It is gaseous at very low temperatures (it has a low boiling point, it has already boiled into a gas long before you reach room temperature). Propane has 3 carbons and is heavier, which means it stays liquid at warmer temperatures, gasoline is a mixture of 7 and 8 carbons (and we all know what gasoline is like in terms of thickness of the liquid, how much it fumes at normal temperatures, etc.). Diesel is longer still, with a wider array of carbon chains between 8 and 21 carbons long, which is why diesel at low temperatures "gels" and you require stuff like glow plugs and engine block heaters with diesels at temperatures where gasoline is still liquid. By the time you get carbon chains into the dozens and hundreds of carbons long, you're into the realm of solid wax._

So when you look at octane ratings on gasoline, it's a ratio of septane to octane. Higher octane fuels have more octane (8-carbon chains) and lower octane fuels have more septane (7-carbon chains). Higher octane fuels are heavier, less volatile, contain more chemical energy because there are more bonds, and require more temperature to ignite. They also burn slower. This is why higher compression and turbocharged engines typically require higher octanes; you need less volatile fuel to withstand the heat due to higher pressures brought on by high compression and/or turbo boost without igniting before the spark plug has a chance to ignite it for you. When the fuel ignites before the spark plug fires, that is pre-detonation or "knock". It robs your engine of power because the combustion isn't happening at the ideal part of the piston stroke and, when it happens consistently enough, will damage the internals of your engine.

In modern cars, improved management of incoming heat through non-conducting intake manifold materials, better intercooling (for forced induction applications), and then more precise metering of fuel injection (remember, fuel doesn't just burn, it also cools the tops of the pistons) means that applications that once required higher octane fuels can now use lower octane fuels. The new 1.8T is one of these engines (Ford, Hyundai/Kia, and others are also really getting into this in their turbocharged engines these days).

What it comes down to is, be smart about why and when you use higher octanes. A car like the 1.8T will run on 87 octane and avoid knock or damage because the knock sensors will pull ignition timing, and thus power, in critical situations. If you drive lightly or with mild ambient temperatures, you are likely to rarely or never encounter these situations. However, if you are using lots of throttle and revs and/or driving a lot in very high ambient temperatures, or with high loads (e.g. your car is full of people or stuff all the time, or you'll pulling a small trailer, or you're going up and down steep grades regularly), you are likely to reach the limitations of regular octane often and should consider running mid-grade or premium.

*TL;DR use regular if you tread lightly on the throttle, drive in average to cooler ambient temperatures, and aren't climbing hills or hauling heavy loads. Use premium if you romp on the throttle a lot, drive in above-average ambient temperatures, or are climbing grades/hauling extra weight regularly.*

My two cents.

P.S. two more cents on the quality of major fuel brands (this is purely IMO): (Shell<=>Chevron > 76<=>Exxon/Valero > ARCO/Rotten Robbie/etc.) I don't put ARCO or other budget fuels in my car due to the higher alcohol contents, which actually completely negate the cost benefits of them (alcohol has lower energy density so a gallon of gas that's loaded with alcohol has less miles in it than one that's more gas. In my experience, the money you save with ARCO per gallon you lose in energy density in what is basically a 1:1 ratio. Plus alcohol attacks fuel lines and fittings). And then maintain your fuel filter, it's a cheap part that's easy to change and there's no reason to not replace it every 40,000 miles at least, if not 20k. Lastly, avoid running your fuel tank down to fumes on a regular basis, that's how you get whatever sediment is in your fuel tank really sucked up into your fuel pump and filter. Not to say you have to fill up with 1/4 tank, but when the low fuel light comes on is a good time to fill up.


----------



## 65Strad (Jul 4, 2011)

APR says that stock Gen III EA888 does get a boost when using 93. I have just over 15,000 on my 2014 and run regular fuel and have been very satisfied with the fuel economy and performance. That being said, I filled up with 93 a couple of days ago, and I agree with APR in that the response with 93 is quite significant. Performance is better, but I have no idea about fuel economy.

I'll continue to use regular and will use 93 intermittently for the improved performance. I'm not interested in debating if a performance boost is obtained. In my case, my SE w/roof runs great on regular, however with 93 it's amazing how well it accelerates and shifts.

Hopefully APR will perfect then release the flash for my EA888 with tiptronic. That would make this already great car that much better.


----------



## DasCC (Feb 24, 2009)

MrCypherr said:


> I didnt mean as like its actually cleaner than 87. I meant it as its better for the engine with regards to carbon build up.


DI=fuel doesnt touch the valves.


----------



## Doctor Meat Does Housecalls (Aug 27, 2010)

Have to run 93 now. Apr stage 1 tuned for it. 


Sent from my interuterine device.


----------



## DasCC (Feb 24, 2009)

Doctor Meat Does Housecalls said:


> Have to run 93 now. Apr stage 1 tuned for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my interuterine device.


:thumbup: DIR


----------



## tagsvags (Nov 25, 2005)

Running Shell V-Power 93 OCT now, and will continue to when I get the MKVII 1.8T. 
Butt dyno. says the engine runs better and that's good with me.


----------



## dspl1236 (May 30, 2007)

I just put 850 miles on a '14 Passat 1.8tsi loaner. Ran much much better with 93 and got better mpg's.....then I got my GLI back, much much more power.


:beer::beer:


----------



## Shawn99/30V (Sep 28, 2000)

dspl1236 said:


> I just put 850 miles on a '14 Passat 1.8tsi loaner. Ran much much better with 93 and got better mpg's.....then I got my GLI back, much much more power.
> 
> 
> :beer::beer:



Which car had more power?


----------



## dspl1236 (May 30, 2007)

Shawn99/30V said:


> Which car had more power?


my gen3 2.0t GLI...



I find this thread mildly amusing. This reminds me of the B5 1.8t days when the owners manual never specified to use synthetic oil....the everyone is like, "well it does not say to use it".....then sludge happened killing engines and blocking turbo oil feed lines.


I will run what ever is "best". If I had access to 94oct on the regular it would be in my fuel tank every day. 10k oil changes...yeah right, every 5k thanks.


----------



## tagsvags (Nov 25, 2005)

dspl1236 said:


> my gen3 2.0t GLI...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ditto don't sweat the small stuff gasoline is cheep and so is a good synthetic motor oil. I will run Shell V-Power min. octane 93 or Mobil 93 octane.


----------



## sebasEuRo (Feb 26, 2006)

clarkma5 said:


> No, premium fuels don't have more or less additives or detergents than regular fuels within one brand. You get different additives and detergents by going across different brands. Different grades within a brand is only going to change the energy content of the fuel and the temperature/rate at which it burns.
> 
> _Chemistry background: Gasoline is at its core a mixture of septane and octane (there's a lot more going on than that, but that is what's really giving you the bulk of your chemical energy). Septane is a hydrocarbon chain with 7 carbons in a line and octane is a hydrocarbon chain with 8 carbons in a line. The more carbons you have in your hydrocarbon chains, the less volatile they are (volatility being the measure of how readily a substance will enter its gaseous phase). So you get the simplest hydrocarbon, methane aka natural gas, with only one carbon. It is gaseous at very low temperatures (it has a low boiling point, it has already boiled into a gas long before you reach room temperature). Propane has 3 carbons and is heavier, which means it stays liquid at warmer temperatures, gasoline is a mixture of 7 and 8 carbons (and we all know what gasoline is like in terms of thickness of the liquid, how much it fumes at normal temperatures, etc.). Diesel is longer still, with a wider array of carbon chains between 8 and 21 carbons long, which is why diesel at low temperatures "gels" and you require stuff like glow plugs and engine block heaters with diesels at temperatures where gasoline is still liquid. By the time you get carbon chains into the dozens and hundreds of carbons long, you're into the realm of solid wax._
> 
> ...


I wholeheartedly agree with this guy, APRs Dyno specs and my butt dyno. I barely turned 500 miles in mine and after I put in half a tank of Premium (already had half of 87 left in there from the dealer), the car feels like it has more power, is more responsive etc. I will continue to use Premium, as I do in all my VWs. Sure my 2010 2.5L Jetta also says minimum 87 Octane but that doesn't mean you should ONLY use that.


----------



## 61MM_VR6 (May 22, 2014)

dspl1236 said:


> my gen3 2.0t GLI...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


110% agreed. I use nothing but top-tier 93 octane fuel in mine and I changed oil first at 3,000 miles and 5,000 miles every thereafter. The dealer seemed puzzled that I wanted my first three services done so soon. :laugh: It's all about taking good care of what's important.


----------



## tagsvags (Nov 25, 2005)

61MM_VR6 said:


> 110% agreed. I use nothing but top-tier 93 octane fuel in mine and I changed oil first at 3,000 miles and 5,000 miles every thereafter. The dealer seemed puzzled that I wanted my first three services done so soon. :laugh: It's all about taking good care of what's important.


I'll be feeding my Golf to 93 Oct. Mobil and Shell only. But my MKVII always seems to run better on Shell.
As far as oil changes I plan on changing the oil filter at 500 miles, after that 5K miles clean oil is an engine and turbo best friend.
At the end of the day it's my car and my money, take care of the VW and the VW will take care of you.


----------



## child_in_time (Aug 9, 2006)

LOL, not another one of those lower or higher octane threads...if your engine is stock, use whatever says on the gas cap. It was optimized for that specific fuel grade, stop thinking too much about it.
Burning 93 in an engine that was designed for 87 is a waste of money, also I wouldn't put 87 in an engine that requires 91 or 93. And no, it won't help you with the carbon build-up just because you're using higher octane fuel.


----------



## sebasEuRo (Feb 26, 2006)

^ Do I really need to post a picture of my damn gas tank door???


----------



## 61MM_VR6 (May 22, 2014)

child_in_time said:


> LOL, not another one of those lower or higher octane threads...if your engine is stock, use whatever says on the gas cap. It was optimized for that specific fuel grade, stop thinking too much about it.
> Burning 93 in an engine that was designed for 87 is a waste of money, also I wouldn't put 87 in an engine that requires 91 or 93. And no, it won't help you with the carbon build-up just because you're using higher octane fuel.


I don't mind spending the extra money for more performance and less detonation.


----------



## beetleything (Nov 4, 2010)

child_in_time said:


> LOL, not another one of those lower or higher octane threads...if your engine is stock, use whatever says on the gas cap. It was optimized for that specific fuel grade, stop thinking too much about it.
> Burning 93 in an engine that was designed for 87 is a waste of money, also I wouldn't put 87 in an engine that requires 91 or 93. And no, it won't help you with the carbon build-up just because you're using higher octane fuel.


Wholeheartedly agree with this - WASTE of MONEY -

I tried some 91 - no difference - in fact around lower revs it sounded like it was struggling more.

Runs great on 87 and pulls just the same - Butt Dyno tested.


----------



## 1.8Tango (Apr 18, 2000)

beetleything said:


> Wholeheartedly agree with this - WASTE of MONEY -
> 
> I tried some 91 - no difference - in fact around lower revs it sounded like it was struggling more.
> 
> Runs great on 87 and pulls just the same - Butt Dyno tested.


Must be something wrong with your car then. APR dyno showed higher HP with increase in octane on a stock motor. 

I don't understand why people say that the ECU can't "magically" change maps. It will retard timing ... why not also advance timing?


----------



## DasCC (Feb 24, 2009)

1.8Tango said:


> Must be something wrong with your car then. APR dyno showed higher HP with increase in octane on a stock motor.
> 
> I don't understand why people say that the ECU can't "magically" change maps. It will retard timing ... *why not also advance timing?*


because they aren't programmed to do so. ECUs will retard timing to protect the engine, they aren't programmed to increase power when higher octane fuel is used.

From the horses mouth: 

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...-Platform!&p=86853263&viewfull=1#post86853263



[email protected] said:


> Stock results are different (compared to what VAG advertises) because every dyno reads differently and we're using a different type, we have to estimate crank figures (We still provide the wheel figures we measured if you don't like the crank estimates), testing conditions are rarely identical to VAG's super controlled conditions (That could mean we're on a different part of the map that makes more or less power), variances from car to car, and this trend we're seeing where VAG cars seem to have a bit more headroom to make more than what they are advertising.
> 
> We actually went back and tried both octanes, stock. Higher octane didn't help performance at all. In some cases it can actually be a little less, especially up top. This is because the calibration is asking for only so much ignition advance and on this platform it's really dialed back. High octane burns slower, so if it's not needed, it will reduce output. Point being, if you're stock, run 87. You're wasting your money otherwise.



/thread


----------



## Dirtmvr (Feb 28, 2016)

1.8Tango said:


> Must be something wrong with your car then. APR dyno showed higher HP with increase in octane on a stock motor.
> 
> I don't understand why people say that the ECU can't "magically" change maps. It will retard timing ... why not also advance timing?


I'm giving the Shell gas a try to avoid the ethanol--that's my main motivation to go to the best fuel, plus if there is less pre-ignition and the timing can advance more then that's an added bonus. The geniuses at VWoA left out the second injector ahead of the intake valve (that they get in Europe), so it won't really help with carbon buildup there. 

The bigger issue seems to me to be the oil, and trying to avoid having the PCV fail and the rear main seal blow out, so I'll definitely be changing mine well ahead of the crazy long recommended interval. Sure the oil may show OK on a test, and still be able to lubricate with all those miles on it, but it's all the contaminates in there that will cause the problems...


----------



## VR6OOM (Nov 8, 2002)

.


----------



## VR6OOM (Nov 8, 2002)

DasCC said:


> because they aren't programmed to do so. ECUs will retard timing to protect the engine, they aren't programmed to increase power when higher octane fuel is used.
> 
> From the horses mouth:
> 
> ...



Sent from my LG-H810 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirtmvr (Feb 28, 2016)

VR6OOM said:


> Sent from my LG-H810 using Tapatalk


That was two years ago when they did that test and were quick to dismiss their own stock results compared to VAG using higher octane....makes you wonder why they would do that? Oh yeh...they want to sell you an upgrade chip!


----------



## beetleything (Nov 4, 2010)

1.8Tango said:


> Must be something wrong with your car then. APR dyno showed higher HP with increase in octane on a stock motor.
> 
> I don't understand why people say that the ECU can't "magically" change maps. It will retard timing ... why not also advance timing?


Yeah there's something wrong with my BRAND NEW - Runs fine car :screwy: 

Thanks for your detailed technical analysis.:thumbdown:



DasCC said:


> because they aren't programmed to do so. ECUs will retard timing to protect the engine, they aren't programmed to increase power when higher octane fuel is used.
> 
> From the horses mouth:
> 
> ...



Thank you. Always good to get a clear answer with a link to some detailed information.

That puts paid to that then - waste of money to run it on higher octane.
:thumbup::laugh:


----------



## VR6OOM (Nov 8, 2002)

If anyone else wants to provide concrete evidence that 93 helps in any capacity on a stock 1.8, I'll listen. Until then, it's all anecdotal. Such as this anecdote: I did run 87 and used torque to make logs. I then used 93 for a few weeks and did the same tests...no difference what-so-ever in "hp", mpgs or any other measurable statistic from the torque app.


----------



## 1.8Tango (Apr 18, 2000)

beetleything said:


> Yeah there's something wrong with my BRAND NEW - Runs fine car :screwy:
> 
> Thanks for your detailed technical analysis.:thumbdown:
> 
> ...


Thank God I still see douchebags on the Vortex. And to think I've been away for so long (sniff, sniff). 

I could swear last I took measurements with VAGCOM the stock ECU advanced timing. I mean, duh, APR does it (that was for Beetleything who doesn't seem too bright) so I would think the manufacturer would too under certain circumstances. 

No matter. I love the way it runs on Premium so I'll keep on keeping on. Once I get my updated VAGCOM software I'll check it out and see what it says.

Oh, and by the way, since APR says they already have these stock logs I'll certainly offer to pony up a few dollars to get them and see what they say


----------



## Dirtmvr (Feb 28, 2016)

OK,

I've run some Shell V-power, (ethanol free) through my GSW and here's what I "think" I've noticed:

In non-sport mode, driving around town it now seems to shift a lot less and will now pull from very low rpm's, whereas on the 87 it was quick to shift down and annoyed the (*&^ out of me. I almost always drove in sport mode around town for that reason.
In non-sport mode on the highway, again it now seems to lug/pull better at low rpm's in the higher gears, more like a TDI does.
So I would say that there has been a significant difference in the high load, low rpm condition. At the higher rpm's I can't say it's that noticeable.


----------



## 1.8Tango (Apr 18, 2000)

I filled up with ethanol free today myself. Car seems much happier. At least I do ) 

Octane was 89. Haven't traveled far enough to check mileage but the needle isn't falling as fast.


----------



## 1.8Tango (Apr 18, 2000)

*Ethanol free gas mileage*

Two tanks of ethanol free 87 and 89 octane gas netted 38 and 39mpg on a trip from Orlando to Washington DC this past weekend. 

Avg speed was 75mph while running with the a/c on. 

Mileage is hand-calculated. Tank filled to cutoff each time.


----------



## DasCC (Feb 24, 2009)

1.8Tango said:


> Two tanks of ethanol free 87 and 89 octane gas netted 38 and 39mpg on a trip from Orlando to Washington DC this past weekend.
> 
> Avg speed was 75mph while running with the a/c on.
> 
> Mileage is hand-calculated. Tank filled to cutoff each time.


damn you corn free states. lowest I can get in my area is E10


----------



## VR6OOM (Nov 8, 2002)

I tired ethanol free last year...no difference in MPG or performance to justify cost over that of 93. These cars are built to run up to 15% ethanol.


----------



## Dirtmvr (Feb 28, 2016)

VR6OOM said:


> I tired ethanol free last year...no difference in MPG or performance to justify cost over that of 93. These cars are built to run up to 15% ethanol.


Where did you read they can handle 15%? I thought the car manufacturers pushed back at anything over 10%?

I'd be interested in knowing if the ethanol fuels burn cleaner than the higher octane non-ethanol fuels--anybody know?


----------



## TNtsi (Mar 26, 2016)

Burger tuning told me that 93 octane netted 18 HP.


----------



## VR6OOM (Nov 8, 2002)

TNtsi said:


> Burger tuning told me that 93 octane netted 18 HP.


This^ leaves so many unanswered questions....


----------



## TNtsi (Mar 26, 2016)

On their dyno going from 91 to 93 had a net of 18hp. Then their module added 40 hp on top of that. That was on a GTI. 58 total Horsepower. Fuel was 18hp.


----------



## VR6OOM (Nov 8, 2002)

TNtsi said:


> On their dyno going from 91 to 93 had a net of 18hp. Then their module added 40 hp on top of that. That was on a GTI. 58 total Horsepower. Fuel was 18hp.


Strange because this week the Burger Tuning rep said in the Jetta VI forum they wouldn't have any 1.8 information for two weeks. Not to mention 1.8tsi's aren't offered in GTI's.


----------



## TNtsi (Mar 26, 2016)

1.8 tsi is on the dyno this week for launch possibly next week. Talked to the vw rep there this morning.


----------



## VR6OOM (Nov 8, 2002)

Cool...I hope all that is accurate.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk


----------



## 1.8Tango (Apr 18, 2000)

VR6OOM said:


> I tired ethanol free last year...no difference in MPG or performance to justify cost over that of 93. These cars are built to run up to 15% ethanol.


Guess you can cross that off your bucket list then. 

This is at least a 10 or 15% increase over ethanol. 

Of course they can use up to 15% ethanol with a continuing decrease in mileage. 

The more prevalent ethanol free becomes the cheaper it will be.


----------



## iamnotapainter (Nov 20, 2015)

On the vw website under the 2015 sport features it lists the hp as "170*" with the * showing *"Performance specifications based on manufacturer's ratings achieved with premium fuel."* I can't for the life of me figure out how to insert a screen shot but here's the url https://www.vw.com/models/jetta/trims/2015/sport-trim/where it's listed 


Any thoughts?


----------



## DasCC (Feb 24, 2009)

iamnotapainter said:


> On the vw website under the 2015 sport features it lists the hp as "170*" with the * showing *"Performance specifications based on manufacturer's ratings achieved with premium fuel."* I can't for the life of me figure out how to insert a screen shot but here's the url https://www.vw.com/models/jetta/trims/2015/sport-trim/where it's listed
> 
> 
> Any thoughts?


That HP tests were done with premium and VW is trying to CYA


----------



## iamnotapainter (Nov 20, 2015)

DasCC said:


> iamnotapainter said:
> 
> 
> > On the vw website under the 2015 sport features it lists the hp as "170*" with the * showing *"Performance specifications based on manufacturer's ratings achieved with premium fuel."* I can't for the life of me figure out how to insert a screen shot but here's the url https://www.vw.com/models/jetta/trims/2015/sport-trim/where it's listed
> ...


So would it be fair to say filling up with regular isn't bad, but filling up with premium would net more power? Or I guess my question is why would they run the test with premium, but put regular on the gas door?


----------



## Bugg'd (Apr 20, 2016)

iamnotapainter said:


> So would it be fair to say filling up with regular isn't bad, but filling up with premium would net more power? Or I guess my question is why would they run the test with premium, but put regular on the gas door?


It means that if you want to benefit from the advertised maximum power and torque, you should fill up with premium gas, because that's what the engine is tuned for. If you put regular gas in the car, it will run OK (automatically retarding ignition timing, thus with reduced power) and that will not harm the engine since it is designed to run using regular gas too. The choice is yours.


----------



## Dave Weitzenhof (Dec 13, 2005)

*V-Power Driveability and mileage results on 2 cars*

1. 93 RX7 with upgraded exhaust, air filter, intercooler, and home-made boost controllers (~310 HP)
2. 07 Audi A4 2.0T

Both respond to running Shell V-Power with 7-10% increased fuel mileage on trips and local driving compared to any other fuel, including Sunoco 93-octane.
The RX7 also has MUCH better driveability with V-Power. I use that exclusively in the RX7 unless we are on a trip and it is not available.

I don't have enough data on the '16 1.8TSI GSW to reach any conclusions.


----------



## Dave Weitzenhof (Dec 13, 2005)

Bugg'd said:


> It means that if you want to benefit from the advertised maximum power and torque, you should fill up with premium gas, because that's what the engine is tuned for. If you put regular gas in the car, it will run OK (automatically retarding ignition timing, thus with reduced power) and that will not harm the engine since it is designed to run using regular gas too. The choice is yours.


Another thing that seems apparent to me is that if you drive the car with fuel economy in mind (not over 1/2 throttle most of the time) you will achieve pretty much the same mileage with 87 as with 93, because you are not triggering the knock-sensor controlled timing retard.


----------

