3 key observations on my Kushaq 1.0 TSI post 5 tankfulls of XP95 petrol

The engine clatter because of being a 3-cylinder is reduced to a great extent along with the vibration levels.

BHPian Rambo-RS recently shared this with other enthusiasts.

I own a Skoda Kushaq 1.0 TSI whose rated fuel as indicated on the inner side of the fuel lid is 95 RON and a minimum of 91 RON:

I have filled only XP95 for the last 4-5 tankfuls and can confidently state that there is quite a difference that I notice with this fuel. The major differences:

• Pickup - Roughly 10% improvement.
• Engine note and vibrations - Tremendous difference here! The engine clatter because of being a 3-cylinder is reduced to a great extent along with the vibration levels. Also, I notice that engine lugging is reduced when driven at lower revs in higher gears.
• Fuel economy - The best part of filling in XP95 petrol. I get roughly 1.5 kmpl more on this fuel and I have checked and confirmed it multiple times using the tank-to-tank method. This literally offsets the extra cost that I pay per liter (i.e Rs.6) for XP95 over regular petrol.

That being said, I would also like to share the experience of my cousin who on my recommendation tried this fuel in his Creta 1.6 Petrol which is recommended to be run on 91 RON. He noticed no difference in power/ fuel economy but a bit of a smoother ride (which we both believe might just be a placebo).

So, to conclude, If your vehicle manufacturer recommends 91RON, filling 95RON is just a waste of money as the improvement noticed might just be a placebo or very less in reality.

On the other hand, if 95RON is recommended by the manufacturer, then filling XP95 is totally worth it both in terms of performance as well as fuel economy. Also, this might prolong the life of the fuel injectors and thus the engine, thus even saving money in longer run.

Ranvir

Check out BHPian comments for more insights and information.