Is PULP necessary?

[horrendo]

Hi Guys,

I've just bought a new FSI Pacific - take delivery Friday. I see in the brochure that PULP is 'recommended'. Is it really a recommendation or mandatory?

Thanks,

H

[Tim]

for the sake of a couple of dollars per tank. Dont bother skimping. Its most likely the fuel savings from the PULP will account to cheaper running costs anyways.

[Alfy]

as stated.. just to save a mere 5-10c per litre, you will be causing long term damage...

my uncle has a mazda 6 that takes premium fuel, he's been pouring woolies caltex fuel to use that 4c discount, 60,000kms later he's up for a new fuel tank, new fuel lines, and injectors.. a $1300 exercise

if something like this was to happen to your golf i'd imagine it might be close to double that figure in repairs..

so don't go cheap just to save yourself $3-$4 per tank...

[BarneyBoy]

I don't get all anal about having to use 98.
If there's a 98 pump free, I get 98. If there isn't, I use 95.

I can't pick any difference between the two as far as performance goes, although some folks will swear black & blue that the 98 will reduce your 0-400 times by at least 6 seconds!

I do however, agree with the economy principle that 98 will yield better figures. I used to put a tank of 98 in my old SSS every 3 fills and it returned about 8% better economy than 91. It also kept my injectors squeaky clean!

I don't however agree that your Golf will explode if you use 95. 91 maybe, but not 95.

Alfy, the Mazda6 is a POS, and I doubt whether it was Woolies fuel that killed his car. Ask any wrecker if he can get your uncle a Mazda6 engine or transmission. They can't because the Mazda6 detonates at around 60-100,000 ks. There just aren't any spares for them anywhere.

My advice is: use the 98, but stick 95 in if you have to - you won't notice the difference. Don't get all weird about it, it doesn't matter. My 2c (with Coles)

[Guest212]

Yeh use 95RON.

It WILL run on 91RON. But it will chew more fuel to compensate for the lower octane rating. So your "savings" will quickly be eliminated as you record no less than 10L/100km. Actually it will say what you should be using inside the fuel cap

I had to run my GTI on 95RON once and while it ran and still ran well, it chewed through that tank in 300km and the back bumper was sooty like an old diesel. I make an effort to feed it BP Ultimate now as its definately got more pep with the Ultimate than with Vortex98 (Caltex).

Just run 95RON, and none of that ethanol boosted stuff.

[brad]

Just run 95RON, and none of that ethanol boosted stuff.

Why?
Ethanol keeps the fuel system clean & has a cooler burn. I found it to be really good in my old AGG engined Golf. The fact it (Plus95 e10)was 3c/L cheaper than ULP & 9c/L cheaper than straight PULP was just icing on the cake.

I guess it all depends on the engine though.
In the AGG there was only a slight increase in fuel consumption (compared to non-e10) of 0.4L/100km. In my Skoda (1.8T) it actually works out cheaper to run 98ron as the difference in consumption is 0.8L/100km more with 95ron e10. I haven't tested the consumption running straight PULP95 (it's actually hard to find since the big brands introduced the 94ron e10 mixes).

[Maverick]

Why?
Ethanol keeps the fuel system clean & has a cooler burn. I found it to be really good in my old AGG engined Golf. The fact it (Plus95 e10)was 3c/L cheaper than ULP & 9c/L cheaper than straight PULP was just icing on the cake.

You get less energy out of ethanol so the 95 ron fuel is really closer to that of a 92 ron fuel in energy output. So you're paying more for fuel that is really the same as the cheaper fuel.

Ethanol has around 66% of the energy content of standard fuel but is slightly more dense, you will end up with a 3-5% reduction in power and distance putting you somewhere around the 90-92 ron level.

You can put whatever you want in your tank, I would rather buy a fuel that I know gives me maximum kms for my money, protects my car, cleans my fuel system and gives me consistent results. For me that it's a premium product like BP Ultimate, the extra cost is minimal when you add in the extra km's.

[Maverick]

I've just bought a new FSI Pacific - take delivery Friday. I see in the brochure that PULP is 'recommended'. Is it really a recommendation or mandatory?

Let's look at the maths. You've spent around $35,000 a new car. The new car manufacturer recommends that you use Premium petrol and even specifies 98 ron, the 1.6 litre specifies 95 ron.

Assuming you travel around 15,000kms per year this will be around 1290 litres per year (8.6 (auto) x 150).

Premium fuel will cost you $2193 per year. (assuming 98 ron is $1.70)
Unleaded 95 will cost you $2064 per year. (assuming 95 ron is $1.60)

This ISN'T taking into account the ~5% reduction in kms that you will get between the 98 and 95 ron.

The figures then are

Premium fuel will cost you $2193 per year. (assuming 98 ron is $1.70)
Unleaded 95 will cost you $2167 per year. (assuming 95 ron is $1.60 - 1354.5 litres)

Worst case is that you pay $129 per YEAR extra for 98 Ron, you could end up paying nothing extra when you take into account the extra performance and distance you get.

The manufacturer recommends 98 Ron, why after spending $35,000 would you be prepared to compromise the reliability of the car and potentially your warranty (on the engine) for the sake of $129 per year?

[Golf Houso]

Let's look at the maths. You've spent around $35,000 a new car. The new car manufacturer recommends that you use Premium petrol and even specifies 98 ron, the 1.6 litre specifies 95 ron.

Assuming you travel around 15,000kms per year this will be around 1290 litres per year (8.6 (auto) x 150).

Premium fuel will cost you $2193 per year. (assuming 98 ron is $1.70)
Unleaded 95 will cost you $2064 per year. (assuming 95 ron is $1.60)

This ISN'T taking into account the ~5% reduction in kms that you will get between the 98 and 95 ron.

The figures then are

Premium fuel will cost you $2193 per year. (assuming 98 ron is $1.70)
Unleaded 95 will cost you $2167 per year. (assuming 95 ron is $1.60 - 1354.5 litres)

Worst case is that you pay $129 per YEAR extra for 98 Ron, you could end up paying nothing extra when you take into account the extra performance and distance you get.

The manufacturer recommends 98 Ron, why after spending $35,000 would you be prepared to compromise the reliability of the car and potentially your warranty (on the engine) for the sake of $129 per year?

Epic post

Its quite clear that some people find more satisfaction out of saving a handful of change every time they fill up than having a safe, reliable and guilt free ownership experience.

Why do I always see MKV owners complaining the most about running costs?

[horrendo]

Thanks for all the info guys. I wasn't trying to skimp on running costs. It's just that it's my first new car for 10 years and this PULP thing is new to me. Plus as much as I have paid attention, I don't think PULP is available at all servo's.

Anyway, the consensus seems to be that it is worthwhile sticking with the PULP, so that's what I'll do.

Cheers,

H

[jb747]

95 is available pretty well everywhere. 98 is a bit harder. We had to run the R32 on 95 for much of its trip to NSW last week. Fuel consumption was noticeably worse than usual....roughly 5%, though whether that was really attributable to the fuel I don't know.

I did try one of the ethanol blends in a Toyota. There were no savings at all; in fact it actually cost more, as the fuel consumption went up by well over the small benefit in cost per litre.

[gti]

I never look at the price of fuel... I just fill the GTI up. Always 98 RON.

[Purgi]

There are times when supply of 98 isn't available so I think it's a fair question by the OP.

If I have to use 95, I'll try and run it as low as possible before I stick 98 back in.

[Tim]

95 is PULP isnt it?. What is not recommended to run is just normal unleaded.

[Guest212]

Just noticed that after some spirited driving my tailpipes are still clean using BP Ultimate. They were not with Vortex98.