3.2 - Any difference with Unleaded vs Super Unleaded

Skittler

Redlined
Joined
Jan 10, 2006
Messages
136
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Location
Nottingham, UK
Does anyone know exactly what the difference is in power in a 3.2 when using Super Unleaded (as recommended) compared to standard Unleaded?
 

Hi mate looks liek you have the mirroe imageof mine also /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
GReat choice in colour and spec /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif



After owning Turbo Cars (Imprezas) there isnt much differnce in the Normaly Aperated egine betweent the Two in performance wise.

Turbo owners stick to Shell Optimax because they say they see massive improvemements ober BP Super and other Super Unleaded Fuels.

Please correct me here teck guys, but the 3.2 is tuned to use Super Unleaded as its 99 Ron.

If you suddenly add Normal Unleaded Detination may occure (this normally happens with Import Turbo cars but not sure if it will happen on a 3.2 )


Anyway difference in power id say approx 8 BHP
But have never put normal Unleaded in the tank to try.

Does anyone know if its possible to Re Set the ECU ?
 
I used to use optimax, everything else felt like i was driving around with the handbrake on.

The only car i've ever really noticed any difference. Quite amazing considering it's NA not Turbo'd!
 
[ QUOTE ]



Please correct me here teck guys, but the 3.2 is tuned to use Super Unleaded as its 99 Ron.

If you suddenly add Normal Unleaded Detination may occure (this normally happens with Import Turbo cars but not sure if it will happen on a 3.2 )


Anyway difference in power id say approx 8 BHP
But have never put normal Unleaded in the tank to try.

Does anyone know if its possible to Re Set the ECU ?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can reset the adaption values using VAGCOM, or just disconnect the battery for 10 minutes, the ECU will not allow detonation and will instantly back off the timing and hence you'll get less power if you go from super to standard 95.
 
Have tried both and not noticed any difference, no pinking either so I dont find it necessary to spend the extra.
I did notice quite a difference on the STi I owned.
 
The ECU wont let it pink... read my post above.
 
Exactly, the ECU picks up the detonation before you can hear it and backs off the ignition, thus reducing the power output slightly.

A rolling road is probably the only way to prove for definite. I always use super as there is a marked difference on the 2.0 turbo.
 
I bet the difference is less than we think. Despite the 98ron suggestion for the 3.2 it seems unlikely that audi didn't engineer it to run merrily on cheaper petrol for the far corners of europe and I'd guess that the manufacturers power figures can be produced on 95.

Anyone for a back to back RR?
 
i've noticed a diference, unless it's just my imagination. But it seems that when i fill up with optimax the car seems slightly faster on acceleration.

If i'm doing big mileage, i fill up with 95 though. no point spending big money if you're just cruising on the motorway
 
I prefer to run BP ultimate in the 3.2. I really noticed a difference in low rev torque over optimax. I was suitable amazed (after religiously running Optimax in my last two motors). So now I run BP ultimate when available or default to optimax. Shells garages are in abundance in Chester, not so with BP.

Recent Evo mag summed it up nicely, go with what ever your car feels best on, and throw in a few tanks of optimax for engine cleaning purposes.
 
usually there is a sticker saying which your car preferes...on the fuel cap lid...

it usually says 95/98 ron saying it can run on both...just fine.. without any problems..

you will notice a difference but its very small.. and personally the only reason why i use optimax is to keep the engine in good health as i usually give mine a good hammering..
 

Similar threads

Replies
92
Views
8K
Replies
4
Views
715
Replies
7
Views
498