The base line is the same, but not all 2.0 engines producing the same power.

fuel is mega complex when you start to look into it and addatives changes it from storage through to exhaust after burning.

So we have proved on a correct map for 95 you should have no reason ever to blame the ron rating of 95 for failure

Only issue would ever be due to contaminated fuel

We then prove that all uk fuels are supplied to a standard and use the same base. So by law you shouldn't have any contaminates.

What exactly is your point ??

We know higher ron performs better that's nothing new.

That was not the question tho.

Just seams like uneducated scaremongering to me.

read what i put, the additives affect how it burns, not just added performance but waste produced.

You can either choose to accept it or not, its your choice.

Please try and keep this thread on topic guys. This wasn't supposed to be a discussion/argument about the difference between the two fuel types. It was supposed to be somewhere we could collect useful information about the mapping differences.

Was just incase folk reading believe that running 95 correctly is going to cost them an engine, :cuckoo:

I'm still trying to convince i need a Syvecs,

How many Litres of 95 would i have to burn through before it's paid for itself thats what i want to know.

20p a litre + for V-Power

£5 a tank (ishh)

So around 600 tanks or 120k miles if i can squeeze 200 miles out a tank of 95 :lol1:

Now there's some Man Maths :lol1:

Sorry, now back on topic :)

listen to Bludgod...he actually maps cars.

never worry about the junk about how 95 is 'supposedly' made. i understand your reasoning for wanting it, and would do the same if in the same situation.

well, im sticking my neck out there and also agreeing the cheap fuel is less "cleaner" than the more expensive stuff ( by expensive i dont mean BP`s normal 95 ron lol ) im talking vpower type fuels.

My bike has been ran on cheap fuel most its life, the valve heads are filthy, carbon deposits galore.

My scoob has been ran on optimax/vpower for the last 11 yrs and the valves on it are spotless

Now, not a great comparison but its the only 1 i have from personal experience.

Does it make the bike run any poorer, nope. but.......

Take it as you will and all that i guess

well im currently trying the opposite to a conservative map lol ( yes mines an everyday car)

Currently my low throttle load timing looks like this, it makes for a very flat get up and go i find

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.sco...b72a51e5cf.jpg


So im about to test these timing settings out, see if it helps

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.sco...3519734088.jpg

Will report back if it alters any MPG figures

better to compare total timing to total timing rather than base to base - if it wasn't knocking at 40-44 degrees then you'll likely drop a small amount of MPG dropping to 36-38 degrees. Remember you can't control the closed loop AFR (unless you rescale the 0-1v output on your wideband :D ) so the ECU will always be looking for 14.7 AFR. All you can do is create a little peak in timing at your regular cruising spots and that should net you as much distance as possible from a tank.

Cheers bud, My base timing tables are the same as total timing as my advance doesnt begin until around load 19 , i have only adjusted upto load 19 etc

Yeah, AFR`s not adjustable so will see if it helps with the new timing at low load, just feels flat when taking off , lazy, maybe its me tho ha lol

cheers