"ECU can detect & adjust timing accordingly."
Sorry, can't say that's true for a 2.1 waterboxer ECU/
it's not 'smart' that way ..
no knock sensor ...the timing is what it is, based on where it is set
It can not respond to higher octane fuel actually.
In Oregon USA here, we've had gasoline that 'contains up to 10 % alcohol
for about 3 years.
I always run unleaded regular.
Octane is 89 I believe.
if anyone wishes to use higher octane than unleaded regular provides, I
recommend mid-grade, but never premium.
and they'll run a little smoother on mid-grade than on regular, granted.
whether that delivers more power or better fuel economy .....'barely' if at
all would be my guess.
'run cooler' ....'maybe'.... but not that I can tell.
I can't say I pay much attention to what VW may or may not recommend for
Syncro's and T3's ..
around here they probably couldn't find the............ say, oxygen sensor
on a T3 at the VW dealership ..
and I'm only exaggerating a little bit. The impression I get is VW would
be happy if they never heard about waterboxer engines, or T3's or Syncro's
don't know about your fuel, but here they run decently enough on unleaded 89
octane regular that's 'up to 10 % alcohol .....and I haven't found any fuel
system harm or anything.
I do believe there is less energy in the fuel than in pure gasoline though.
There's a station or two around here that sells premium non-alcohol
never tried it though.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Garratt " <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 6:06 PM
Subject: FW: [Syncro_T3_Australia] re: Ethanol E10
> 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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 22 July 2010 7:14 AM
> To: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Syncro_T3_Australia] re: Ethanol E10
> > Ken Garratt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > 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.
> You are comparing two different things here.
> 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
> E10 causes corrosion problems as it hold water.
> Yahoo! Groups Links