Which Fuel

[benhwolves]

Proablu

 

[benhwolves]

appologies for that, trigger happy mouse. Was meant to ask which type of fuel do you need to use in the 182 - A mate of mine who used to own a 172 said they only run off super plus (if that still exists) - sorry if its a stupid question and youve answered it before!!

 

[edde]

Just sick any stuff it it doesnt make any more power than on 95

Treat it to 98 if you want to kep it cleaner which might give a few HP.

 

[badinvincible]

Do a search, this has been discussed loads of times.

 

[Toypop]

Been discussed loads of times but the same pointless comments keep coming up.


The bottom line is that Renault tell you to use 98 RON. For your average driver using Optimax will cost them about £3.50 a month more.

If you cant afford £3.50 a month then you have the wrong car (frankly you shouldnt be driving at all).

If you do so many miles that the extra fuel costs become an issue then you have the wrong car.

 

[benhwolves]

oh right so deisel is a no go then!?! cheers for the help just used the search, pretty impressed with this site!

 

[gazcaddy]

I agree with Toypop, Renault say use 98 RON (i.e Shell Optimax) so thats what my 182 will get when it comes.

At the end of the day the engineers at Renault know better than any of us, surely if the engine is designed to run on 98 Ron then it will run slighlty better than on 95 RON. £3.50 a month is not much and it will keep your engine cleaner, probably return better MPG and may have better performance

 

[edde]

Quote: Originally posted by Toypop on 21 November 2004

If you cant afford £3.50 a month then you have the wrong car (frankly you shouldnt be driving at all).
If you do so many miles that the extra fuel costs become an issue then you have the wrong car.

Saving say 2 p liter and doing lets say 15k/yr at 35mpg the saving works out to be about £116

Since youll get no more power from 98 RON why pay more for it?

I agree the 182/172 arnt cars for the frugal but why waste money?

 

[Turkish]

mine has always been run on optimax or super. says 98 on the filler flap so why put otherwise in. if you want to save cash get a 1.2 or an oil burner. im not getting into the arguments as to differences between fuels and their merits tho as we will be here all night.

 

[Toypop]

£116 a year? Thats pocket money to someone running a 182.

Why not drive slowly instead? That will save £116 worth a petrol a year, plus you wont wear out the expensive tyres, brake pads and disks!

My mates pi$$ that away in a weekend what with the drinks, fags, taxis, slot machines and kebabs. All they have to show for it on a Monday morning is a headache and a nasty rash! I would sooner that £116 went through my car in a year than through my urinary tract in a couple of days!

 

[ChrisO182]

Gonna run every other fill-up on optimax with my 182, well that is my plan but if i see a difference in MPG and Performance then it will be every tank, thing is im gonna have to go out my way to fill it up and the girlfriend is the one who drives the car all week and i cant see her doing that, just gonna see how it goes i suppose.

Any 1 actually notice the difference between the 2?

 

[Toypop]

You wont notice the difference if you do it every other tank. You want to run it on Optimax for a month but then you will forget what it was like on 95. Plus as the car loosens up with age you wont know if it was the fuel or the car getting quicker anyway. The performance goes up and down anyway with the weather conditions.

Just do what it says on the label and put 98 in.

 

[K3rshaw]

there is a big difference between the two

 

[edde]

Quote: Originally posted by K3rshaw on 21 November 2004

there is a big difference between the two

There shouldnt be Id be very worried if there was.

 

[J182]

Did a bit of testing on Optimax over the last two weekends and I definatley get 2-3mpg more out of the optimax.

This sunday and last sunday did the same trip same speed on the cruise control (motorway no traffic) last sunday 37.1 mpg (95) this sunday 39.8 (98)

Admitedley not a massive diffrence but probabley off sets the cost!

 

[blink172]

Ive used 4 types while i had 6 weeks off work. always full tanks, same type of driving and found that optimax gave a noticable difference in performance over the other 3. MPG wasnt a concern as i was being heavy with the loud pedal.

Go with optimax, if only for the cleaning products

 

[lifelong 172]

Putting 98 in it gives more mpg so really the difference in price is non existent as you get more miles.

 

[lifelong 172]

When running on 95 ron the ecu in the 172/182 goes int a more sensible mode and only delivers around 160 bhp. Renault recommend 98 cos it is the fuel they use to get 172/182 out of the car in testing. Just asked the RTE in my workshop, he reckons this is the right answer. THE END!

 

[edde]

Quote: Originally posted by lifelong 172 on 22 November 2004

When running on 95 ron the ecu in the 172/182 goes int a more sensible mode and only delivers around 160 bhp. Renault recommend 98 cos it is the fuel they use to get 172/182 out of the car in testing. Just asked the RTE in my workshop, he reckons this is the right answer. THE END!

Thats completly untrue the ECU only back of the timing if it detects knock and the 172/182 wont be affected by knock at all using 95 RON.

 

[MattyMarsh]

What does RTE stand for ?

 

[stusV6]

One point that hasnt been made yet is that by running 98ron the effect on the engine is that it runs at a lower temperature than with 95ron.

Cheers Stu

 

[edde]

Quote: Originally posted by MattyMarsh on 22 November 2004

What does RTE stand for ?

Renault Technical Engineer

 

[m4rk]

ffs i run optimax in my 1.4rt, the reason, im not rich but if your gonna do something or use something use the best u can afford. whats 5 or 6 p a litre compared to the other huge costs of owning a car??

 

[Jim172CUP]

why pay £3-4 more a tank full if you get no gains? Ive tried the rest and it makes not a jot, if you wanna do a comparason youre more than welcome to.