Unlikely to be a fuelling issue, they all conform to a set standard. I would say coilpack or plug issue?

 

Apparently all the plugs where replaced but have to wait till tomorrow until my garage is open to make sure.. But we ask to get them checked its after a 400 mile trip so might not be used to the journey

 

Apparently all the plugs where replaced but have to wait till tomorrow until my garage is open to make sure.. But we ask to get them checked its after a 400 mile trip so might not be used to the journey

Visually inspect them and also check with a VW dealership to see of it's been recalled for coilpacks and also the 6463 ecu software update

 

Have out normal in and it is causing mid-fires?

I'm really sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to communicate here.

The second bit about misfire's is unlikely fuel related. As suggested above, when was it last serviced/plugs ?

Have you seen this: http://www.r32oc.com/topic/29781-the-official-coil-pack-recall-thread-mk4-mk5/

In answer to your first question, most R's run 'ok' with standard unleaded fuel. It is recommended to use higher grade '98' or even '99' Ron with performance vehicles. This doesn't mean you have to, but the additives help in all manor of ways. Whether this justifies the increased expense is up to you. Do some research on the subject (youtube vids are quite interesting).
Don't listen too much to hearsay or whatever people write of 'their opinions' - whilst these might be valid, the truth is in looking at the years of research independent institutions and oil companies results and then deciding for yourself.

T

 

cheers mate will have a look at that post, the drive this morning to work was okay, but still have the EPC light and engine light warning every morning, so thinking there is a logged fault and needs a quick diagnose and clear out and good service.

 

Although it's unlikely to be related to fuel type, it's highly likely it's a fuelling issue. When was the last time your fuel filter was changed? These can and do fill up with silt over time and may end up restricting fuel flow.

With regards to what type of fuel to use, it has to be the high octane stuff. Contrary to what's written in the post above, the RON rating of a fuel has nothing to do with the additive packs it contains. RON is a measurement used to give you an idea of its ability to resist pre ignition or its stability during the ignition process. What that means to you and me is that the ECU in cars like the R32 can use the higher octane level of the fuel to allow greater ignition advance safely. This in turn will give greater power and torque (a very small amount on an N/A engine) and allow the engine to accelerate more smoothly. The latter is what you'll really notice.
The additive packs are something completely separate and unless you use Shell Nitro+, most fuels are likely to offer very similar additives, performing a similiar function. The 'premium' Shell fuel was originally marketed on its enhanced additives and there are independent tests out there to show their work, essentially giving and maintaining squeaky clean engine internals, where ever the fuel touches.

Paul

 

Indeed /\

The R32 will have been mapped on a MBT (Mean Best Torque) strategy, which means it will see far less knock activity on 98 RON than it would with 95 RON. Thankfully for us, Shell came along with 99 RON afterwards and now knock should be all but eradicated if we stick to it.

The main additive in V Power is a cleaner / upper cylinder lubricant (reduced friction = increased mpg, albeit slight), so we are slowly going full circle back to the glory days of leaded petrol (also an UPC for soft valve seats), but without the health implications

 

The R32 will have been mapped for many criteria but MBT wouldn't be one of them. VW would be more interested in emissions and 'safety' of the mapping. The standard map is too rich on the fuelling side and too safe on the advance side for MBT, hence the improvements in engine performance seen after remaps.

And you'll not see any more knock with 95 RON fuel than you do using fuels with higher RON values, well after the ecu has detected the initial onset anyway. If you use 95 RON fuel and the ECU detects knock values within set parameters, the ECU will just retard the timing advance to reduce the values. And will continue to do so until the knock disappears. This will of course reduce power and torque (again by small amounts) and the engine acceleration is likely to feel less smooth. The car will probably feel less punchy all round.
You could still see knock using 99 RON fuel depending on what's happening in the combustion chamber, if theres too little fuel, too much ignition advance and/ or too higher combustion chamber temps for example. The ECU will just optimiss fuelling and ignition advance as far as it can, within set parameters, depending on the fuel the engine is using. Put a 10% methanol mix in your tank and you'll see what I mean.

So ultimately, it's up to you what fuel you use as you'll not do any damage either way. If you do choose to use the higher octane stuff though, you'll gain all the things mentioned above plus increased MPG which may even negate the premium over 95 RON fuel.

Paul

 

Fifth Gear have in recent years shown a couple of episodes where they have compared 95 / 98 RON and whether there are benefits between either:

Shell V Power came out top in following report (Golf GTI used for test too):

 

Yep, understand all that, but how can lambda 1 be 'too rich'? It doesn't drop to 0.9-0.85 lambda until at least eighty % load and past 5000rpm, so for the majority of any given journey, it's running at stoich. Torque curve shaping is a fundamental part of ME7's power delivery, so MBT mapping is exactly one of their strategies.

Power from a remap comes mainly from increasing the rev limit.

They should have run lambda 1.2 or so under very light throttle conditions instead of lambda 1 (to keep the cats happy), which is where some mpg reductions could come from!

I've datalogged my engine several times and I definitely do see more knock activity on 95 RON compared to 99 RON, especially in the summer months. Can hear it as well, but thankfully ME7 is very fast at pulling it back, so only a quick 'ping' can be heard. ECU is running optimally. Long term fuel trim is 3%.

Yep, I used to run Morrisons E85 in my VR6 Turbo and also injected water / methanol. These things help but aren't practical for a daily driver as E85 forecourt supply is patchy and the pump is very slow and meth / water is extra faff.

 

Really? I can't believe the afrs stay that high with any sort of meaningful throttle input, especially up to that rpm level. You're unlikely to be up there unless there's heavy to wide open throttle at which point the afrs will richen up.

Sorry , I don't understand the ME7 reference.

I'm struggling to understand how power and torque increase with a remap just because the rev limit is increased... Sure peak power may climb a little if it's made very high up the rpm range but its not with the BUB which in stock form hits peak power at 6300rpm, before the stock limiter.

If you can hear the knock unaided you have a lot of it and I'd get it looked at. That may explain why you have a 3% LTFT, if the ecu is adding fuel consistently to cool the combustion chamber because of the knock values it's seeing...

Paul

 

I have a copy of the R32's AFR target map at home somewhere and it surprised me how much load and rpm it needs before moving off 14.7:1.
Some engines, such as the Saxo VTS, run 14.7:1 at full load and max rpm! VAG throw a bit of fuel in at the top for component protection.

ME7 as in Bosch ME7. The ECU the R32 uses.

Power comes purely from revs, past the 5252prm cross-over point. VTECs have loads of power past where the torque falls off. I'm not great at explaining it though. I understand it in my head but can't put it in words. I suppose some gains could be found in the midrange by running it richer than 14.7:1 and tweaking the intake cam angle (cylinder filling).

R32s run into knock as standard. Well, the ECU 'allows' a certain amount of knock events before it retards the timing. 3 or 4 I think it is as standard. Sensible remappers allow 6-7 and reckless ones 10+. ME7's knock retarding is VERY aggressive. So much so it can be felt by the driver as a bad flat spot, hence the famous 6463 ECU update on MK4s. So by allowing some knock events, it prevents flat spots.

BUB knocks less than a MK4 as it has 10.7 compression compared to the MK4's 11.3. I have a MK4, hence my knock comments, but I'm not concerned by the knock I've heard or seen in the logs. 3% LTFT is very good for an R32.

 

Power comes purely from revs, past the 5252prm cross-over point. VTECs have loads of power past where the torque falls off. I'm not great at explaining it though. I understand it in my head but can't put it in words. I suppose some gains could be found in the midrange by running it richer than 14.7:1 and tweaking the intake cam angle (cylinder filling).

Power won't just appear because the engine is spinning faster. Torque and power are a factor of how powerful the explosion is in the cylinders plus engine speed, Just because the engine revs faster, it won't by proxy generate more torque and power. The factor there is that the variable cam timing comes into play and lets more air and fuel in and more exhaust out past the 'cross-over point' as you say.
In an N/A engine, you'll not gain much performance by optimising the fuel mixture. You'll gain the most by optimising ignition advance across rpm and load points. And of course on the R32 you can optimise the VTC to maximise combustion chamber filling and make sure the exhaust stroke is evacuation as much gas as possible.

And it you look at V-TEC dyno graphs, you'll see that power drops off within a couple of hundred rpm of torque. It has to as power is a function of torque x rpm (/5252 (where torque and power cross on a graph)).

Paul

 

Had it looked at it seems to be leaking or gaining extra air into the system causing the under powered ratio / mix which feels like i have put wrong fuel i.e. diesel. Getting it smoke tested to see if there is a leaking where extra air is causing the in balance or its something else.

But great to see the replies and thoughts of your experiences and knowledge etc..

Will keep this updated in case it can help others etc... but small steps to reach my perfection of it running 100%

 

That's progress. There's probably a vac pipe off somewhere but, the smoke test will show that pretty quickly.

Paul

 

Power won't just appear because the engine is spinning faster. Torque and power are a factor of how powerful the explosion is in the cylinders plus engine speed, Just because the engine revs faster, it won't by proxy generate more torque and power. The factor there is that the variable cam timing comes into play and lets more air and fuel in and more exhaust out past the 'cross-over point' as you say.
In an N/A engine, you'll not gain much performance by optimising the fuel mixture.

Let's just agree to disagree on that. Power does come from revs. Just because VW put a limiter in at 6500rpm, or wherever, the engine wouldn't just suddenly stop making power at 6500 if the limiter was raised to 7000. Past 6500, there is zero exhaust VVT and around 5 degrees intake VVT and timing in the low 20s advance, so there really isn't much you can add by playing with the timing and VVT. VW already optimised it as I said previously by MBT mapping.

You'll gain the most by optimising ignition advance across rpm and load points. And of course on the R32 you can optimise the VTC to maximise combustion chamber filling and make sure the exhaust stroke is evacuation as much gas as possible.

There is very little gain to found in these areas on the standard engine. We are talking about a high compression engine with a relatively large 84mm flat top piston, as well as positive pressure induction tuning. How much extra timing do you think you can add? It already runs very low timing as standard because the cylinder burn is so fast.

And it you look at V-TEC dyno graphs, you'll see that power drops off within a couple of hundred rpm of torque. It has to as power is a function of torque x rpm (/5252 (where torque and power cross on a graph)).

The VTEC's torque curve is further up the graph, so stands to reason.

 

Let's just agree to disagree on that.

Sounds like a good idea. This has been way off topic for sometime and it's only spamming up the OP's thread.

Paul