Phill,
Thanks for the clarification/distinction.
According to the VAG owners manual then, I see it merely states ULP 91 (minimum) for the Oz WBX 2.1 motor. So by implication, what then is VAG NOT telling owners?
For example, are any of the following points relevant if one chose instead to invest in ULP 95 or even ULP 98? ...
ECU can detect & adjust timing accordingly; engine simply operates more efficiently; runs cooler; runs cleaner; heads less stressed; achieves more kilometres on a tankfull; engine lasts longer; etc. etc.
Or are some/all of those in the urban myths category also?
Also, despite VAGs apparent seal of approval for E10 in fuel injected post 1986 engines, is there then actual contrary "real life, hands on" evidence that E10 is/has been deleterious to the Oz WBX 2.1 engine and/or its associated system components? TIA. Cheers.
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: <plander@optusnet.com.au>
Sent: Thursday, 22 July 2010 7:14 AM
To: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Syncro_T3_Australia] re: Ethanol E10
Ethanol has a lower BTU rating than petrol. That means that you must use more of it to get the same work done.
Octane is the knock ratiing. Higher octane will allow you to advance the ignition timing and increase the compression ratio to make the engine more efficient.
E10 causes corrosion problems as it hold water.
Thanks for the clarification/distinction.
According to the VAG owners manual then, I see it merely states ULP 91 (minimum) for the Oz WBX 2.1 motor. So by implication, what then is VAG NOT telling owners?
For example, are any of the following points relevant if one chose instead to invest in ULP 95 or even ULP 98? ...
ECU can detect & adjust timing accordingly; engine simply operates more efficiently; runs cooler; runs cleaner; heads less stressed; achieves more kilometres on a tankfull; engine lasts longer; etc. etc.
Or are some/all of those in the urban myths category also?
Also, despite VAGs apparent seal of approval for E10 in fuel injected post 1986 engines, is there then actual contrary "real life, hands on" evidence that E10 is/has been deleterious to the Oz WBX 2.1 engine and/or its associated system components? TIA. Cheers.
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: <plander@optusnet.com.au>
Sent: Thursday, 22 July 2010 7:14 AM
To: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Syncro_T3_Australia] re: Ethanol E10
> Ken Garratt <unclekenz@hotmail.com> wrote:You are comparing two different things here.
>
>
>
> I always thought that E10 had less bang for your buck than ULP 91 or, to
> put it another way, for any given volume of fuel, the E10 wouldn't get
> you as far as ULP 91. Seems not so.
>
>
Ethanol has a lower BTU rating than petrol. That means that you must use more of it to get the same work done.
Octane is the knock ratiing. Higher octane will allow you to advance the ignition timing and increase the compression ratio to make the engine more efficient.
E10 causes corrosion problems as it hold water.