Gasoline

Page 1 of 2  
Hello.
What is the best gasoline for an 2005 A4 1.8T quattro? Eurosuper95 or SuperPlus98? [1781cc, 4cyl, Turbo, Intercooler, 163CV, Compress ratio 9.3]
Thanks for your answer
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Exceso wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I haven't received the car yet, but Audi recommends using Eurosuper95. Perhaps because this car has a teoric compression ratio of 9.3, as I said, caused, among other reasons, by the use of 5 valves per cylinder. But perhaps (I don't know) the fact that it comes with turbo and intercooler turns the *real* compression bigger, and it makes more suitable the SuperPlus98... that's my doubt.
Thanks for your answer

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
When all else fails read the manual....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Obviously the SuperPlus98, but if your car is not chipped, then the 95 will just do the same job at a cheaper price.
The higher the Octane number, the better the engine will run in the summer when it's hot.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why do you say obviously?
Buying 98 for that engine is probably just going to empty his wallet faster. 163PS isn't a particularly high power output so it should be happy on good quality 95. AFAIK, the 1.8T from 180PS and up requires 98 for full power and better fuel consumption.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I've read that the choice of one or another type of gasoline depends of the compression ratio of your car, not estrictly of the power. The 1.8T has a compression ratio not much high (9.3), and for that reason the RON 95 gasoline seems to be the appropriate (in my opinion).
But for a 80 2.0 E with 115PS and a compression ratio of 10.4? Although it has less power than the 1.8T, after driving it for ten years I think in this case the 98 is better (it's only an impression, but I think that driving normally with 95 it consumes about 8.2 - 8.3 l @ 100 km, and with 98 about 7.7 or 7.8 l). Some suggestions or experiences?
Thanks for your answers

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's correct that compression ratio may be the major factor in determining what octane rating best suits an engine, but there will be other, less significant, factors. Do remember, though, that a compressor (turbo or super-charger) does, in effect, increase the compression ratio significantly.
--
Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily')

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Obviously, because of less potential detonation problems. These are exacerbated by hot temperatures as the intercoolers in the early 1.8T are somewhat underengineered considering the demands of chipped cars. The net result is hotter air intake, which means the fuel mixture shows a tendency to self-ignite at the wrong times for the engine - read detonation translating into less power per time unit.
The chips adjust the fuel-air-boost map to provide maximum efficiency, but they also advance ignition timing to the maximum bearable by the engine, given a particular temperature. The engine is possessed with two detonation sensors, and the moment the ECU detects any instance or this happening, it will delay ignition, thus providing less energy release per fuel unit - read power. The problem with this is that even if the ECU and sensors do a fine job, there always needs to be detonation for the system to delay timing - read the fewer the instances of detonation before the system acts the less stress on the engine in the long term.
The Octane number is just a measure of how easily the fuel will self-ignite, therefore, the higher this number, the better the fuel in terms of lower detonation, which translates into lower consumption as the fuel is more efficiently burned because it is not being burned at the wrong times.
JP Roberts

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JP Roberts wrote:

Bzzzt.
Octane number is measure of the fuel's resistance to *detonation.* Self-ignition is called "ping", and that's something different.
Turbomotors should use the highest available octane fuel, due to effective compression ratio and charge temperature. 98 RON or better.
E.P. (former petroleum chemist)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
As usual you're totally wrong once again.
"Pinging" is only a vulgar form of addressing the technical word "Detonation". I'm not surprised that you only knew the vulgar form, given your poor education.
What really surprises me, and in all probability everyone in this newsgroup, is how on earth you might ever have managed to be a petroleum chemist without this knowledge. Then again you wrote "former". I guess that was just a case history of redundancy? LOL
Pinging is just a poor attempt at simply describing the metallic noise the engine makes when there are instances of detonation. Knocking is yet another way of describing this.
Collins English Dictionary definition for "ping":
1.- a short high-pitched resonant sound, as of a bullet striking metal or a sonar echo.
I suggest you read this, just in case you want to seek a new job in the Petroleum Industry of the Uneducated:
http://www.answers.com/topic/engine-knocking
Engine knocking
Knocking (also called pinking or pinging)-technically detonation- in internal combustion engines occurs when fuel in the cylinder is ignited by the firing of the spark plug and smooth burning proceeds but some of the unburned mixture in the combustion chamber explodes before the flame front can reach it, combusting suddenly before the optimum moment of the four-stroke cycle. The resulting shockwave collides with the rising piston, creating a characteristic metallic "pinging" sound.
Anyway, why bother to answer any of your low posting again?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JP Roberts wrote:

LOL.
Here's where I am mistaken: calling "pinging" pre-ignition. That's it.
Detonation and pre-ignition are different things, no matter what you call them.
So, only in your self-important mind am I "totally wrong." I guess you're still having difficulty extracting "fact" from "opinion." The rest of your whiny rant is just the same ill-bred crap we've come to expect from anti-Audi fools.
E.P. (at least I'm big enough to admit a mistake.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Your own words, where you never mentioned "pre-ignition", you very clearly stated self-ignition instead:
Octane number is measure of the fuel's resistance to *detonation.* Self-ignition is called "ping", and that's something different.

You're just a loser, that's what you are. You make me cry at how pathetic you can get.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JP Roberts wrote:

Oh, now you're desperate to get whatever dig in you can - and you've stooped to a *semantics* argument. I absolutely love it.
LOL. Tell me, doofus - how are self-ignition and pre-ignition different? Think really hard now - make sure you know what the heck you're talking about...

You calling me a loser is so hilarious. After all your attempts at trying to protray yourself as the better person, too.
What a shame - but I knew you were a tool from the first. Now you're just flailing - raging like a child in an endless temper-tantrum fashion. Keep it up. It amuses me to no end, your pretence of adult thought. What are you, 12?
E.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The body of evidence is overwhelming enough for anyone who cares to read this thread carefully from the beginning, so I'm afraid I have other matters to attend now.
JP Roberts
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JP Roberts wrote:

And yet you couldn't muster the self-control to avoid replying.
Again.
E.P. (ROTFL)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JP Roberts wrote:

And how, exactly, are "pre-ignition" and "self-ignition" different? They both refer to spontaneous combustion of the fuel/air charge, prior to the occurrence of the spark.
-- Mike Smith
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Smith wrote:

Don't bother- JP is foaming at the mouth to find anything wrong with what I write. Yes, "ping" and "knock" seem to have become synonymous at some point, but I remember as a lad (in the distant past - maybe before Karl Benz named a car after his daughter) that pinging referred to pre-ignition, and that it had a different sound from knocking.
But hey, if JP wants to score his little victory, who am I to deny it? If ping now equals knock, or even if it always has, and my automotive mentor was wrong, then I'll chalk it up to something learned. And it's a good day when you learn something new.
:)
E.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nice article on turbos there: http://www.answers.com/topic/Turbocharger

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yep, it's a great website.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.