evosapper Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Hello all, With the price of fuel creeping up in an unstoppable manner has anyone put any thought into LPG conversion for their GTI? I read in EVO about a conversion on a Megane 225 which seemed to work very well, so if you do more than 12k a year it may be worth it as by there maths it pays for itself in 18 months. Any thoughts?? ES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarmac_Terrorist Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Isn't performance seriously hindered on LPG converted cars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEWEY Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Isn't performance seriously hindered on LPG converted cars? yes i thought this too. i would rather pay the prices myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evosapper Posted July 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 mmm well i was under the impression that there was no performance loss at all with a LPG conversion, the only thing that does drop is the MPG whilst on LPG. I'm heading towards a REVO re-map at the moment so maybe LPG is a non starter as REVO is recommended for 98 RON only. ES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evosapper Posted July 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 Just read a e-mail back from a big LPG conversion company who do not recommend an LPG conversion for the 2.0lt FSI... Puts an end to this thread then! ES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 ....LPG on the 2.0T FSI engine? - You gotta be joking! If someone is bothered by the price of V-Power etc, then it's time to get a diesel. A Revo doesn't stop you running on normal 95(?) RON petrol but you won't get the best out of it. The 2.0T FSI engine works best on 98/99 RON petrol and it's also better for its longevity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evosapper Posted July 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 RR, I was just thinking out loud FFS!! The Megane 225 in EVO was running without any loss of power, and at 60p a litre then it must be worth a thought.... Or maybe not.. ES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ92 Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 mmm well i was under the impression that there was no performance loss at all with a LPG conversion, the only thing that does drop is the MPG whilst on LPG. I'm heading towards a REVO re-map at the moment so maybe LPG is a non starter as REVO is recommended for 98 RON only. ES .....Do me a favour..:nono: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 RR, I was just thinking out loud FFS!! The Megane 225 in EVO was running without any loss of power, and at 60p a litre then it must be worth a thought....Or maybe not.. ES ....Sorry if the tone of my post was a bit sharp but I was only expressing my opinion of horror at such an idea Nothing personal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarmac_Terrorist Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 ....LPG on the 2.0T FSI engine? - You gotta be joking!If someone is bothered by the price of V-Power etc, then it's time to get a diesel. A Revo doesn't stop you running on normal 95(?) RON petrol but you won't get the best out of it. The 2.0T FSI engine works best on 98/99 RON petrol and it's also better for its longevity. Robin, are you aware as to how the 98/99 better for the engine longevity? I thought / assumed that the timing was slightly retarded if you use 95 RON and whilst you may experience a slight loss of power that was the extent of the effect. I always use 99 RON personaly but I'm just curious to know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chav Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 ....LPG on the 2.0T FSI engine? - You gotta be joking!If someone is bothered by the price of V-Power etc, then it's time to get a diesel. A Revo doesn't stop you running on normal 95(?) RON petrol but you won't get the best out of it. The 2.0T FSI engine works best on 98/99 RON petrol and it's also better for its longevity. I feel obliged to write that that is tosh. A 2.0T, 3.2, 4.2 or 6.0 W12 will run to 98-99% efficiency on normal 95 RON. Also forget the longevity crap, 95RON petrol in the uk is amongst the best in the world. Paying for super unleaded is a complete waste of time, unless you're tracking it and need the extra 0.1 second advantage round the track. I'm so bored of reading 3rd party hearsay nonsense on this site. 95RON is fine. 99% of the improvement is pyschological. You'd need a huge boost pressure to feel an actual benefit from the difference between 95 and 98/99 RON. I hope that saves you all a few pennies!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 Robin, are you aware as to how the 98/99 better for the engine longevity?I thought / assumed that the timing was slightly retarded if you use 95 RON and whilst you may experience a slight loss of power that was the extent of the effect. I always use 99 RON personaly but I'm just curious to know! ....On the question of longevity, I believe Shell when they claim their additives in V-Power clean and contribute to longer life. On the question of 95 RON, I remember reading (but can't remember the exact detail) that prolonged use of 95 RON wasn't as good for a FSI engine as 98 - VW strongly recommend 98 RON or higher. Knock on effects? I expect Snoopy will know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chav Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 Isn't performance seriously hindered on LPG converted cars? A modern LPG will give the same performance as the unmodified petrol engine. More hearsay gibberish. Read the A8 forum to see plenty of examples of quality LPG conversions with neglible performance loss/reliability problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 ....Not the first time you've weighed in with such opinions, Chav. You just don't accept anything which you view as marketing. Yes, 95 RON may indeed be the amongst the best in the world, but Volkswagen strongly recommend the use of 98 RON in the 2.0T FSI. Perhaps you think VW are conspiring with the petrol companies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoopy Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 ....On the question of longevity, I believe Shell when they claim their additives in V-Power clean and contribute to longer life. I don't believe anything shell has to say myself, they lied in the 80s big time so i don't trust them now. But thats personal opinion. I run mine on 95 ron for daily commute use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 ....From the RAC : - "Converting your vehicle to LPG reduces the space in your vehicle. The tank may be located in the boot, reducing space for luggage and possibly meaning the loss of the spare wheel. Motorists considering travelling to France should be aware that Eurotunnel does not allow any LPG propelled vehicles on Channel Tunnel crossings. There are also restrictions in other tunnels in the UK and Europe for LPG vehicles. Although the weight of particulates emitted from LPG is so much smaller than diesel, a recent study by the Harvard Centre for Risk Analysis has found that vehicles powered by LPG produce large amounts of ultra-fine exhaust particles. Such pollutants have been associated with breathing difficulties, lung cancer and heart attacks. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is looking closely at this issue." ....Hmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 (edited) I don't believe anything shell has to say myself, they lied in the 80s big time so i don't trust them now. But thats personal opinion. ....[thinks]When was it that my Godfather was a very senior executive in Shell?[/thinks] Edited July 23, 2008 by RedRobin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarmac_Terrorist Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 I feel obliged to write that that is tosh. A 2.0T, 3.2, 4.2 or 6.0 W12 will run to 98-99% efficiency on normal 95 RON. Also forget the longevity crap, 95RON petrol in the uk is amongst the best in the world. Paying for super unleaded is a complete waste of time, unless you're tracking it and need the extra 0.1 second advantage round the track. I'm so bored of reading 3rd party hearsay nonsense on this site. 95RON is fine. 99% of the improvement is pyschological. You'd need a huge boost pressure to feel an actual benefit from the difference between 95 and 98/99 RON. I hope that saves you all a few pennies!! I have to disagree Chav. I have proved to myself without doubt that I can achieve better mpg from 98/99 RON under normal driving conditions in my Golf. I have from time to time used it in my BMW - only a 318i. Whilst I honestly don't believe it makes the car any quicker (BMW), It definitely pulls under load better - less inclined to 'pink' and pulls away at juctions cleaner in 1st & 2nd. Does it warrant the cost? Well probably not in my BMW but, as I can get an extra 3mpg under normal driving conditions in the Golf, there is a finanacial case for continued use. My father in law in his late 60's is probably one of the biggest cynics around and if he can save a bob or two, he will! However, he has also found the same as myself with his Ed30 Golf. Each to their own though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chav Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 ....Not the first time you've weighed in with such opinions, Chav. You just don't accept anything which you view as marketing.Yes, 95 RON may indeed be the amongst the best in the world, but Volkswagen strongly recommend the use of 98 RON in the 2.0T FSI. Perhaps you think VW are conspiring with the petrol companies Sorry mate, that's because if I know something is bollox, I say. Nothing to do with a conspiracy, its car companies attempting to minimise liability for maintaining the vehicles they produce. The most important component is the oil you use. The petrol gets blown to smithereens - whilst the moving parts are separated only by a very thin layer of oil. Show me just 1 engine in the whole world which can be proven to have lasted longer because of 98RON petrol being used, versus 95 RON....... Have you never seen taxis which have done 400-500k miles? Bet your arse they've not being running on 98 RON. They'll have just been serviced regularly. The only blinkered views are those of people who listen to rhetoric rather than proven science... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chav Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 I have to disagree Chav.I have proved to myself without doubt that I can achieve better mpg from 98/99 RON under normal driving conditions in my Golf. I have from time to time used it in my BMW - only a 318i. Whilst I honestly don't believe it makes the car any quicker (BMW), It definitely pulls under load better - less inclined to 'pink' and pulls away at juctions cleaner in 1st & 2nd. Does it warrant the cost? Well probably not in my BMW but, as I can get an extra 3mpg under normal driving conditions in the Golf, there is a finanacial case for continued use. My father in law in his late 60's is probably one of the biggest cynics around and if he can save a bob or two, he will! However, he has also found the same as myself with his Ed30 Golf. Each to their own though An extra 3mpg would imply a 10% gain in efficiency - not possible in a low boost 2.0T. maybe 3-5% max. (imo) most of the gain is pyschological. eg. you fill up with a certain type of petrol to measure your increase in mpg - so you're not pressing the pedal as hard as before huh?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 Sorry mate, that's because if I know something is bollox, I say. ....I respect that, but I don't happen to agree on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelson_R32 Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 I agree with Chav to some extent. Running a car on 99RON when it's mapped for 95RON (like most people do with R32's) is pointless in my opinion. UNLESS you are running a remap like REVO which has had an ECU fueling adjustment. It is recommended you run an M3 CSL on 97RON fuel. See below the results of different grades used... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 ....I run Revo Stage1 and my car is fuel remapped accordingly. For what it's worth a series of power runs on a Dyno-Dynamics rolling-road recently plotted what was described as a perfect Air-Fuel shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarmac_Terrorist Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 An extra 3mpg would imply a 10% gain in efficiency - not possible in a low boost 2.0T. maybe 3-5% max. (imo)most of the gain is pyschological. eg. you fill up with a certain type of petrol to measure your increase in mpg - so you're not pressing the pedal as hard as before huh?? But even taking say 5% gain in efficiency (your opinion) 98/99 RON is usually around 5% more expensive than 95 RON. The financial case still stands? I know the placebo effect is always going to be a return arguement but I have on many occasions calculated my MPG benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoopy Posted July 24, 2008 Report Share Posted July 24, 2008 It is recommended you run an M3 CSL on 97RON fuel. See below the results of different grades used... As a Scientist/Engineer I would be dubious of these types of results until i know what parameters were used in this test because if you don't use the scientific method i.e. all the variables excluding the fuels are the EXACT same the results are meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now