Advice please....

Do other cars benefit as much from super unleaded as Scoobs do ... ie will a 1.4 1993 Golf get better performance and more mpg?

I have a friend who's asking ... or is she wasting her money?

Cheers

 

Hi - other cars should benefit from better mpg and performance.

By how much and is it really worth it is the question.

Unless someone on here has specific experience running UL and SUL on this particular car, I suspect the best solution for your friend is to try SUL out for herself and measure the differences.

Rich

 

It really does depend on the car. As an example, my old Mondeo 2 litre had a plug in the engine bay. Removing it changed the ignition timing for 91 octane, putting it back in reset it to 95, but it did run measurably better with Super.

Generally, the benefit for the extra cost in non-turbo cars is much, much less than with a turbo car ... but it certainly won't cause any problems.

 

I used to know someone with an Audi A3 1.8t (the 150bhp job) and he found that, after some serious calculations he was spending less on fuel with the SUL than UL.

Best thing is to track how many MPG they get over a few weeks (and the kind of driving) then switch to SUL for a few weeks and compare and contrast.

takes a few weeks wont cost a fortune and will have at least an indication of whats what as long as the driving routine is similar.

 

A while back I had an (ahem) Rover 200vi, from which I could get 300 miles from a tank of normal unleaded.

Running it on SUL whilst touring in France upped the range to around 400 miles per tank, so I was rather chuffed at the 33% increase. However, when running it on SUL in this country (and just doing the daily 20 mile roundtrip to work) I only got about 340 miles per tank.

Best thing your friend can do is try a few tanks and calculate the effect themselves.

 

Stu,

What's wrong with the 200vi?

I was thinking of buying one as a second car.

Jay

 

Jay,

Other than the fact that it's a Rover?? (I speak from experience )

Matt

 

Jay,

The Rover had the problem of the engine writing cheques the chassis couldn't cash The only thing I found which settled the car down properly was a set of Toyo Proxes

In addition to which, my experience was that that same engine had been over-stressed by Rover (in its VVC form) and went through phases of refusing to start, then blowing head gaskets for a laugh

 

Matt,

How r u?? How's married life??

J

p.s. i luved the wood trim on my old Rover

 

Hi Bex

My Fiesta Si goes much better on SUL I've not monkeyed around with the timing or owt on mine, hey it's not like I had access to Ford equiptment for two years though is it

I've never worked out my MPG in all my driving years, I'm too scared to it does feel smoother tho and I think it possibly does go further on sul.

As said above, just try it, you might like it!

Bob

 

I'm good thanks Jay - hows the WRX? You were selling it weren't you but you've still got it at the mo right?

Rover and head gaskets [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] That's another reason why I wouldn't buy another K-Series based Rover....Scott's also had the same problem on his 620Ti with an even bigger bill

...and I think Mr Shark could give us some insider info on just how bad Rovers really were....

Get something else m8

Matt.

 

My old VTR ran much smoother on SUL, and was a lot better at high revs, even saw 46mpg running it, 4 better than I ever saw running it on NUL.

 

You'll only get a noticeable increase in power if you have an active timing-adjustment system (e.g. later MX-5, Scoobies (of course ), etc). Either way, you may well notice better fuel economy, as the fuel is richer and produces more power per litre - or, for cruising, fewer litres per power needed to cruise. It's also smoother and tends to help the engine pull better when it might otherwise pink.

I had a Rover 214SEi and loved it ( to all those who don't like Rovers - it was superb and 100% reliable!) and it definitely felt happier with SUL. I also saw about 10-15% increase in fuel economy (up to 450 miles/tankful compared to 390-400... those were the days!).

Cheers
Richard

 

Rover K series - buy one then buy a headgasket - it's only a matter of time.

David

 

I must have the only Scooby on the planet which gets no improvement from SUL! I have used NUL for 18 mths in a MY00 and now MY01 and from hearing comments on here decided to try SUL (Esso). I'm currently on my 4th tank and noticed no improvement in economy (same type driving) or performance. The only difference has been the cost, quick trip over Irish border NUL £21 per tank or SUL locally (n/a at closest Irish station) at nearly £40 per tank!
Any ideas people, i thought the MY01 adjusted itself to higher grade fuel.

 

Bug,

I suggest you get your dealer to remove the batery and reset your ECU. If you have used 95 RON for a long time, like you have, it takes the ECU ages to adjust its mean RON intake and scale its performance upwards imho. Thus, its quicker to reset it, then only use Shell Optimax and you should get optimum performance! Don't be tempted to skimp tho once you have it set for optimax!

 

A car will only benefit if the ECU is able to advance the ignition in response to the better grade of fuel. I suspect that most non-high performance cars are set up to run on 95 RON fuel and may not be able to adapt. So SUL probably is a waste of money, but as above it depends on the car.

Just realised that the car in question is a 1993 Golf 1.4. I think that in a car of this vintage, it may be possible to manually advance the ignition timing to suit higher octane fuel. This will result in better performance and economy. The problem is if you then used NUL without changing the timing, the engine will pink like crazy.

D.

D.

[Edited by DJB - 1/11/2002 3:29:41 PM]