Does anyone use Premium Diesel in the car?
Discussion
I used to when it was my own car years ago
my 156 JTD (136bhp) made 145bhp on a dyno with premium diesel, usual caveats apply with a one off dyno pull that isn't at Mira.
no idea if it would have made less on regular but i do know that other cars on the same dyno didn't make expected power.
company car...I'm not allowed to use premium fuels unless there is no standard fuel available.
my 156 JTD (136bhp) made 145bhp on a dyno with premium diesel, usual caveats apply with a one off dyno pull that isn't at Mira.
no idea if it would have made less on regular but i do know that other cars on the same dyno didn't make expected power.
company car...I'm not allowed to use premium fuels unless there is no standard fuel available.
gizlaroc said:
If you can't notice 40hp difference with super vs standard petrol in a 335i then you won't notice any difference by using a better diesel.
Not saying the figure was wrong in relation to your car but there is no way in the world that my 335i was down 40bhp when running standard fuel as opposed to V-Power; I'd be surprised if the difference would have even made double figures to be honest....JNW1 said:
Not saying the figure was wrong in relation to your car but there is no way in the world that my 335i was down 40bhp when running standard fuel as opposed to V-Power; I'd be surprised if the difference would have even made double figures to be honest....
I can't speak for the 335i - however I know that with the Golf Mk5 ED30.Remapped they will make 300bhp on 99 octane fuel.
On 91 octane it struggles to tune to 260.
40bhp is a very believable figure for a high performance petrol turbo car between 95 ron and 99 ron.
xjay1337 said:
JNW1 said:
Not saying the figure was wrong in relation to your car but there is no way in the world that my 335i was down 40bhp when running standard fuel as opposed to V-Power; I'd be surprised if the difference would have even made double figures to be honest....
I can't speak for the 335i - however I know that with the Golf Mk5 ED30.Remapped they will make 300bhp on 99 octane fuel.
On 91 octane it struggles to tune to 260.
40bhp is a very believable figure for a high performance petrol turbo car between 95 ron and 99 ron.
gizlaroc said:
If a car is designed to run on 97, 98 or 99 RON fuel, then if it is running on 95 RON then the engine reduces power.
If an engine is designed to run on 95 RON fuel then running it on 97, 98 or 99 RON fuel will have no effect at all.
All this graph is showing the effect of NOT running an engine on the fuel it was designed to run on, NOT the benefits of running a regular engine on a higher RON rated fuel.
If BMW are saying that car is designed and happy to run on 95 RON fuel, then this graph is telling us otherwise.
I've no doubt there are people out there running their 1.2 Clios or whatever on Ultimate fuel because they think there is going to be a performance gain.
And, likewise, we're moving off track here as this has NO relevance to diesel "ultimate" fuels.
Edited by daemon on Thursday 18th February 10:38
JNW1 said:
xjay1337 said:
JNW1 said:
Not saying the figure was wrong in relation to your car but there is no way in the world that my 335i was down 40bhp when running standard fuel as opposed to V-Power; I'd be surprised if the difference would have even made double figures to be honest....
I can't speak for the 335i - however I know that with the Golf Mk5 ED30.Remapped they will make 300bhp on 99 octane fuel.
On 91 octane it struggles to tune to 260.
40bhp is a very believable figure for a high performance petrol turbo car between 95 ron and 99 ron.
Many highly tuned N/A car will also benefit but not quite as much. You'll probably find the minimum fuel is 95, not the recommended.
I can all but guarantee that your engine would gain many 10's of BHP on 99 octane.
FWIW the ED30 says 95 minimum (98 rec) on the fuel cap.
daemon said:
Strictly speaking....
If a car is designed to run on 97, 98 or 99 RON fuel, then if it is running on 95 RON then the engine reduces power.
If an engine is designed to run on 95 RON fuel then running it on 97, 98 or 99 RON fuel will have no effect at all.
All this graph is showing the effect of NOT running an engine on the fuel it was designed to run on, NOT the benefits of running a regular engine on a higher RON rated fuel.
If BMW are saying that car is designed and happy to run on 95 RON fuel, then this graph is telling us otherwise.
I've no doubt there are people out there running their 1.2 Clios or whatever on Ultimate fuel because they think there is going to be a performance gain.
And, likewise, we're moving off track here as this has NO relevance to diesel "ultimate" fuels.
When I asked the dealer last weekend if I should use premium diesel for the F10 535d I bought, he said that it wasn't necessary and made no difference. He said some owners like to run a tank through every once in a while for the cleaning benefits, whether perceived or otherwise but he wouldn't bother. Went on to tell me that even the F10 M5 didn't need anything above 95 Ron as the engine was designed for that. I told him that was sacrilege but he assured me that none of them did it nor recommended premium fuels.If a car is designed to run on 97, 98 or 99 RON fuel, then if it is running on 95 RON then the engine reduces power.
If an engine is designed to run on 95 RON fuel then running it on 97, 98 or 99 RON fuel will have no effect at all.
All this graph is showing the effect of NOT running an engine on the fuel it was designed to run on, NOT the benefits of running a regular engine on a higher RON rated fuel.
If BMW are saying that car is designed and happy to run on 95 RON fuel, then this graph is telling us otherwise.
I've no doubt there are people out there running their 1.2 Clios or whatever on Ultimate fuel because they think there is going to be a performance gain.
And, likewise, we're moving off track here as this has NO relevance to diesel "ultimate" fuels.
Edited by daemon on Thursday 18th February 10:38
I'm still on the fence.
xjay1337 said:
daemon said:
If an engine is designed to run on 95 RON fuel then running it on 97, 98 or 99 RON fuel will have no effect at all.
Are you serious?because if you are I don't think you should be posting on this thread.
Cars are set up for a certain octane, in the old days you would adjust the timing, put in a higher octane and you could advance the timing to take advantage, you could get quite a boost in hp doing so. Problem with that is if you then filled up with 95 you would get knocking.
Of course now the timing is ecu controlled, the car can tell if lower octane fuel is added and thus will retard the timing. But many cars have a knock sensors and have maps for different fuel qualities, most in the EU for 95 and 98ron fuels, however, many still only have a map for 95ron, so adding 98ron makes no difference. Many new Audis see no gains using 95ron their ignition point is maxed out at the detination point of 95.
Sure there may be benefits in better detergents etc. but you won't see an increase in performance.
However, the BMW dealer telling someone the M5 will see no gains with 98ron needs shooting, the E39, E60 and f10 M5 all have their timing set for 98, it will take 95ron no problem but will retard the timing back so you will see a reduction in both power and mpg.
In the world of petrol tuning where folks spend £10's of thousands on exhaust systems, headers, blah blah blah to get 20hp gains it always amazed me how many would say using a higher octane fuel was 'snake oil' when if they just read the tech sheets of the cars they would see the cheapest gain (almost free when you consider the better mpg) was simply adding higher octane fuel.
I will admit though, I have never seen any gain in power with different diesels.
I will admit though, I have never seen any gain in power with different diesels.
gizlaroc said:
However, the BMW dealer telling someone the M5 will see no gains with 98ron needs shooting, the E39, E60 and f10 M5 all have their timing set for 98, it will take 95ron no problem but will retard the timing back so you will see a reduction in both power and mpg.
I had assumed this too but he assured me that they were set for 95 ron, which I was very surprised about for such a high performance engine. As I haven't owned any of them, I couldn't confirm from the manual. gizlaroc said:
In the world of petrol tuning where folks spend £10's of thousands on exhaust systems, headers, blah blah blah to get 20hp gains it always amazed me how many would say using a higher octane fuel was 'snake oil' when if they just read the tech sheets of the cars they would see the cheapest gain (almost free when you consider the better mpg) was simply adding higher octane fuel.
I will admit though, I have never seen any gain in power with different diesels.
If your car can take advantage of the higher RON fuel, then yes, its an easy win, however just bunging super unleaded into your common or garden 1.6 eco box isnt going to make any performance difference.I will admit though, I have never seen any gain in power with different diesels.
Our 370z is set for 98RON. Not much fun as the highest rating we get here in NI is 97RON in the superunleaded formulas. So I use the premium fuels and add an octane booster.
With the insignia diesel, i run it on whatever diesel is cheapest when i need fuel, and add a Millers fuel additive which i believe equates to the additives in "premium" diesel anyway, but at a fraction of the cost per litre.
gizlaroc said:
He is right. And I am sure you know that but just being a pedant?
Cars are set up for a certain octane, in the old days you would adjust the timing, put in a higher octane and you could advance the timing to take advantage, you could get quite a boost in hp doing so. Problem with that is if you then filled up with 95 you would get knocking.
Of course now the timing is ecu controlled, the car can tell if lower octane fuel is added and thus will retard the timing. But many cars have a knock sensors and have maps for different fuel qualities, most in the EU for 95 and 98ron fuels, however, many still only have a map for 95ron, so adding 98ron makes no difference. Many new Audis see no gains using 95ron their ignition point is maxed out at the detination point of 95.
Sure there may be benefits in better detergents etc. but you won't see an increase in performance.
However, the BMW dealer telling someone the M5 will see no gains with 98ron needs shooting, the E39, E60 and f10 M5 all have their timing set for 98, it will take 95ron no problem but will retard the timing back so you will see a reduction in both power and mpg.
I'm sorry, but that is simply not true.Cars are set up for a certain octane, in the old days you would adjust the timing, put in a higher octane and you could advance the timing to take advantage, you could get quite a boost in hp doing so. Problem with that is if you then filled up with 95 you would get knocking.
Of course now the timing is ecu controlled, the car can tell if lower octane fuel is added and thus will retard the timing. But many cars have a knock sensors and have maps for different fuel qualities, most in the EU for 95 and 98ron fuels, however, many still only have a map for 95ron, so adding 98ron makes no difference. Many new Audis see no gains using 95ron their ignition point is maxed out at the detination point of 95.
Sure there may be benefits in better detergents etc. but you won't see an increase in performance.
However, the BMW dealer telling someone the M5 will see no gains with 98ron needs shooting, the E39, E60 and f10 M5 all have their timing set for 98, it will take 95ron no problem but will retard the timing back so you will see a reduction in both power and mpg.
The cars will run on 95, yes.
However the timing is retarded in this case. Meaning you are using your fuel less efficiently - less power and less economy as a result.
You cannot run with the same timing advance on 98/99 as you can on 95 as you will achieve detonation and start to damage things.
The knock sensors will detect this (starting) to happen and retard the ignition hence why it is SAFE to run your TFSI/TSI engine on 95 octane if you decide to.
So say the car detects you are running 99 octane it can run more ingition advance otherwise it will dump fuel and remove load request - you can see this for yourself if you do live logging (as I have done) .
As I said, and it is well known in the VAG tuning circle, you need to run 99 octane to get the best power and you can happily lose 30 or 40bhp running on 95 instead of 99.
An edition 30 on 95 octane will struggle to do 260bhp with a remap, where as the same car can be mapped to 300bhp with no other modifications. Obviously gains while remapping are amplified as you can further ignition advance but on some engines, certainly turbocharged ones such as those found in VAG, BMW, Merc etc, will benefit from 99octane. You may well lose 10-20bhp on an otherwise stock engine, if mapped then yes you can and will lose 40+bhp.
Completely standard on my GTI (200bhp) I noticed a substantial (positive) difference between 95 and 99, I also gained 40-50 miles on a tank using 99ron and the extra cost is more than offset by the increased economy.
I agree on a 1.2 Clio from 1998 then you will not gain anything really. But it is a fact that on some engines having a high ron rated fuel can increase performance and economy.
JMBMWM5 said:
Sorry to sink some peoples boats...... Diesel comes from the SAME refineries here in the UK, ALL the different tankers fill from the SAME tanks, go figure.
Just an additive here and there put in for say Shell fuels that is it.
BP Ultimate and Shell V (or is it nitro now?) have a GTL component and come from a separate refinery.Just an additive here and there put in for say Shell fuels that is it.
xjay1337 said:
JNW1 said:
xjay1337 said:
JNW1 said:
Not saying the figure was wrong in relation to your car but there is no way in the world that my 335i was down 40bhp when running standard fuel as opposed to V-Power; I'd be surprised if the difference would have even made double figures to be honest....
I can't speak for the 335i - however I know that with the Golf Mk5 ED30.Remapped they will make 300bhp on 99 octane fuel.
On 91 octane it struggles to tune to 260.
40bhp is a very believable figure for a high performance petrol turbo car between 95 ron and 99 ron.
Many highly tuned N/A car will also benefit but not quite as much. You'll probably find the minimum fuel is 95, not the recommended.
I can all but guarantee that your engine would gain many 10's of BHP on 99 octane.
FWIW the ED30 says 95 minimum (98 rec) on the fuel cap.
Just on gizlaroc's car, it looks like the 40bhp plus difference to which he referred related to a car that had been remapped and I can understand that as to get the best from that sort of modification you probably need to use higher octane fuel. However, the increase of 25bhp between the fuels on the standard car still surprises me - perhaps the N54 engine is more sensitive to fuel grade changes than the N55?
xjay1337 said:
Stuff.....
I take your word for it, I was saying the same thing recently when looking on the Audi forums at S4, however many argued 'strongly' that the new 3.0T was set up for 95 and 95 only, adding 98 ron made no difference at all and the timing was limited at 95. However, doing research it seems that many of the Audi manuals now state that running on 95 ron has no impact on performance or consumption.
So not sure what to think.
Edited by gizlaroc on Thursday 18th February 14:00
JNW1 said:
Just on gizlaroc's car, it looks like the 40bhp plus difference to which he referred related to a car that had been remapped and I can understand that as to get the best from that sort of modification you probably need to use higher octane fuel. However, the increase of 25bhp between the fuels on the standard car still surprises me - perhaps the N54 engine is more sensitive to fuel grade changes than the N55?
No, my car was stock at the time. That graph was just from a search showing "N55 95 ron power graph". Gassing Station | BMW General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff