Not enough RONs

[Goodj]

For the first time in months I got stuffed into putting normal unleaded into the 172.

I know it's not just me "thinking" it, but now the car is completely gutless, all the way around the dial and has dropped a load of MPG's.

Won't be doing that again in a hurry.... Does the ECU finally recover from having cheap fuel in it and give some sort of pull, or is 95 just not enough RONs.

 

[LIL B]

For real?

 

[Russ_16v]

95 is fine in them, though I did some mpg calculations with my old one and it got 4 mpg better on super than 95.

Has your car been remapped?

 

[Goodj]

Nope, completely boggo standard.

It was weird, suddenly you had to really pedal up through the revsa just to get it to move with any conviction. Sure it could get down the road still but there was even less low-end shove than nortmal.

I'm not saying I'm some super driver that notices 1hp or something, seriously, anyone would have noticed

 

[DanielJames]

95 is fine in them, though I did some mpg calculations with my old one and it got 4 mpg better on super than 95.

Has your car been remapped?

Really? I'd never put anything other than Super in mine, after seeing that "98 ronny reccomendé" or whatever it says under the filler cap

Just the same as I'd never put 10/40 semi synth oil in it

 

[Russ_16v]

To be fair it could have been a combination of loads of stuff - iv experienced a bad batch of 99 which gave the same as you have felt - i wouldnt worry about it too much

 

[davo172]

I find it does not really make that much difference, matbe you got S**t batch of fuel if that much difference . Run mine on either but always use sainsburys unleaded If not super that seems better than other super market stuff.

 

[daveski]

Mine has had a few tanks of 95 through it recently and cant say I have noticed a difference. Will fill up with Super again next time and see if its quicker

 

[Blue Mez]

It'll be because your ECU is used to being fed Super, and then suddenly you've fed it Normal, it might feel better after a few drives as the ECU will sort itself out. But I have to agree that it does seem like you have to put your foot down a tad more on normal than super.

 

[Russ_16v]

Bear in mind it is recommended they run on 98 min, but are safe to run on 95

 

[Goodj]

Phew, glad it#s not just me.

Yeah, the Clio gets fed V-Power every time it can be, just this time I had the reserve light come on around duxford and allI could find was a Texaco (or something like that) with no 98's for sale.

No doubt the ECU will make up for the lack of Ron over time, but I'm hoping not to have to put it through any more than this tankful.

It was a shocker though, it was like a really crap version of vtec.
nothing...........

nothing.......................

nothing......................................

change gear.

Is thsi what a 1.172 feels like?

 

[marinemackay2003]

makes no differance at all unless it has been maped to run on a set fuel

 

[davo172]

Also forgot to add ran mine a santa pod over 30 times on either and makes NO difference to 1/4 mile times either way so I reckon that says it all really .

 

[sideways danny]

makes no differance at all unless it has been maped to run on a set fuel

not true AT ALL

clio ecu gives adaptive ignition timing. Low octane fuels can (depending on the individual engine) cause knock/detonation, and ignition timing is dialed out by the ECU. This will make the engine less efficiant, and lead to worse economy and worse power

 

[Goodj]

fair enough, maybe it just psychological.

It honestly does feel quite a lot limper though.

EDIT: Thanks Danny, maybe that's what I'm noticing then, as mentioned it's run on an almost exclusive diet of V-Power so it's not used to the thinner stuff.

 

[Malachi]

My engine has been running a bit rough at idle, James at JMS said it was because of the 95 RON fuel. I've yet to run it on 98 yet, but I'm hoping it will cure it.

 

[Dan]

Im no super driver but the V-power deffo gives it an extra edge when you go at it quite hard! easily felt difference IMO too.

 

[Goodj]

now that is true, cold idle especially gets a bit shoddier on 95.

 

[Goodj]

Im no super driver but the V-power deffo gives it an extra edge when you go at it quite hard! easily felt difference IMO too.

Never mind when giving it hell, just trying to overtake a couple of lorries left me swearing.

 

[realnumber 1]

I always use 95 in mine. Can't say I've ever had issues overtaking things lol.

 

[Clouder]

I think it's noticeable, I'm still trying out the theory. Some days I'm convinced it makes a difference, other days not. I'm alternating tanks at the mo to test it out. Have fresh Tesco 99 in and yesterday the car felt very good with good cold start too.. but I'm still not convinced it makes much difference, if any, compared to a long list of other factors.

 

[lombom]

i use 95 and 99 in mine cant feel a difference but i usually put 95 in then 99 in turns

 

[Simon@SprayShack]

Mine runs better on 95 than the super fuels, car feels quicker, pulls / picks up better.Up until recently i ran super fuel in it for 3+ years till i was forced to put 95 in one day and it felt so much happier on it.

 

[Goodj]

As far as what people have said, it takes a few tanks to ge the ECU running on a particular RON.

Switching back and forth isn't going to help matters, it seems.

Since I rarely get to give it a bootful, I've noticed V-power giving better running and higher MPGs. There just isn't as much get-up-and-go with the cheap(er) stuff, if you want to be passing anyone you've got to ready to have the green light flickering

 

[Clouder]

Well, if the theory about detonation and retarding the ignition is correct, then I'd hope the ECU wouldn't spend a few weeks pondering that decision....

 

[DanielJames]

Nevermind how noticeable it is, it says in the handbook to use a minimum of 98 RON in the 2.0 Sport engines

It was obviously designed to run this fuel, mine always gave good mpg and performance

 

[Clouder]

No it doesn't, it says recommended.

 

[Goodj]

recommended.

In the same way it is recommended that people eat food.

 

[Clouder]

LOL yea, exactly like that... maybe.

It's recommended you eat 5 portions of fruit or veg a day, is a far better analogy.

 

[Russ_16v]

I 'tested' both 95 and 99, from the same petrol station, over about 3 months.

I ran 99 all the time, then 95 for a month, then 99 then 95 again, then finally back to 99.


I experienced better fuel consumption of an average of 4mpg when on 99, the car also seemed to start easier.

With regards to performance, it felt flatter on 95 - no real difference as such, I think the easiest way of explaining it would be it felt 'lazy' on 95.

It also had a noticable improvement idling on 99.

So my personal experience is I still use 99, as I found it to generally be better - plus 99 will always burn more efficiently so it makes sense to me to use it - it's like using cheap engine oil - it's still oil, but il use better stuff as it will be better for the engine.

Also iv seen inside quite a few engines that have been on 98/99 and it's amazing how clean they can be.

This is probably what Renault meant, it runs ok 95, but is better on 99.

 

[Andyrg@ ClioTurbo]

not true AT ALL

clio ecu gives adaptive ignition timing. Low octane fuels can (depending on the individual engine) cause knock/detonation, and ignition timing is dialed out by the ECU. This will make the engine less efficiant, and lead to worse economy and worse power

Bang on, the knock sensor will reduce timing if running on 95 or crappy super market stuff ( morrisons etc )

 

[Goodj]

Russ, I think you hit it on the head with "lazy"

The moral of the story being: Use good quality fuel, it pays out.

MPG's on 95 - 36 (taken from OBC) - 134.99 litre / 614.20 gallon / 17.06p per mile
MPG's on V-Power - 40 (taken from OBC) - 139.99 litre / 636.95 gallon / 15.92p per mile

Fuel prices taken at Greenford Shell this morn

RON's, they make good financial sense

 

[Naith]

why by a steak and cover it in mud....

drive a decent car, fill it with the best you can.

 

[alanc1000]

95 RON isnt low! 91 RON is.

There is no reason at all why a car cannot run fine on 95 without it impacting the car in any way. Its not as if the engine was designed in the dark ages. I've only ever run my cars on 95 and have never had any problems. If i did, i'd be handing the keys back.

 

[Goodj]

Tell that to the EVO fanboys.

See how their 400hp 4-bangers get along with 95 RONs.

 

[Clouder]

Completely different. Their STANDARD evo will run totally fine on 95RON. You modify it, you modify the map, it runs leaner than the VERY rich standard map - this brings on detonation, hence a 99RON fuel is required.

You can't compare a 400hp turbo-charged engine to a clio's standard N/A 2.0

Tell that to the EVO fanboys.

See how their 400hp 4-bangers get along with 95 RONs.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Mine was mapped on 98 So that's what it'll run on... with higher octane you will get better fuel consumption and the engine (even if you don't realise it) will definitely thank you for it. The comments that you normally get such as "urgh it's not an Enzo" make me laugh.

For example the Toyota Corolla ZZ engine in the Compressor will actually go into limp mode if you use 95 and limit the cars output and redline down from 8.2k, and requires an electronic reset.
The car is MEANT to be run on 98, as it says on the fuel cap...same as the RS Clio

 

[Matthew]

My Golf GTI used to run really poorly on 95, V-power made it alot smoother and alot better MPG was the result...

More than made up for the extra £5 at fill up time.

 

[Goodj]

Ever wished you'd never asked?

I'll keep running V-Power whenever I can, the lazy 95RON-spec engine sounds like a diesel but has none of the torque.

Oh, and didn't mitsubishi release 400hp Evo's from the showroom?

 

[Silent_Scone]

My Golf GTI used to run really poorly on 95, V-power made it alot smoother and alot better MPG was the result...

More than made up for the extra £5 at fill up time.

mk2? Mechanical injection