RD Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I run a CSR200 (2.3l Cosworth, 200bhp), registered 2005. The original handbook is too outdated to be relevant, but the pdf handbook on the Caterham website states that the CSR (200 & 260) uses 95 Ron (minimum). Question; assuming 95 RON is correct; anyone had problems, or use 98 RON? The car is used purely on road, no track use. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I use 95 in my 200 with no problem - all road use. Believe 98 won't do anything for you, or rather the car won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 It'll cost you around £3 more a tank! 🙆🏻 🙆🏻 🙆🏻 🙆🏻 🙆🏻 Alcester Racing 7s Ecosse™ 🙆🏻 🙆🏻 🙆🏻 🙆🏻 🙆🏻 Alcester-Racing-Sevens.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RD Posted September 6, 2009 Author Share Posted September 6, 2009 Malcolm, thanks for the reply. I will continue using '95 and save a few pounds. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 If you ever upgrade your engine and get it mapped on a rolling-road, I'd recommend sticking with 95 for practical purposes. It's a pain in the neck in some of the further-flung bits of Scotland etc. - and a surprising amount of Western Europe - to have to either carry bottles of octane-booster or to really keep the beans down... ☹️ 🙆🏻 🙆🏻 🙆🏻 🙆🏻 🙆🏻 Alcester Racing 7s Ecosse™ 🙆🏻 🙆🏻 🙆🏻 🙆🏻 🙆🏻 Alcester-Racing-Sevens.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RD Posted September 6, 2009 Author Share Posted September 6, 2009 Myles, I agree; filling it up is hard enough as most forecourt pump fuel nozzles don’t fit into the filler pipe. Similar problem as posted elsewhere on the forum. However I always carry the plastic nozzle part of a petrol can as an emergency. Takes a bit longer to fill up, but is quicker than walking. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbird Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Same as above in CSR200 have no problems with 95, BTW I have removed (actual got CC to remove at purchase) SVA flap from filler, now no problems with any pump, I believe it is pretty simple to do, there is a thread somewhere about it, will have a look and edit if found found one of the many here Tim Edited by - tbird on 6 Sep 2009 22:55:46 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RD Posted September 7, 2009 Author Share Posted September 7, 2009 Tim, thanks for the link. A very interesting link-thread. I have examined the Aero cap and note that all 4 relieved lobes are the same sixe, ie there is not an extra relief at the 12 o’clock position. From the thread you posted, this looks like a reasonable job. However, the new/euro style filler nozzles with the additional knurled ring would still pose a problem I think. As for the removal of the filler ‘flapper’, again do-able, but I am perhaps edging towards the safety conscious and may thank my luck stars one unfortunate day that I left the flapper in place ( an upside down moment, yikes). As mentioned earlier the plastic hose from a plastic jerry can has been used, albeit at slow fill rate. I have now added the high tech. wire coat hanger to my itinerary to side the flapper out of the way on new style filler pumps. Happy filling-up ! Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanns Per Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 hello, I also removed the flap inside the filling tube, otherwise its a pain to fill. Sinse 40k km I use 95 rgds Hanns Per my CSR 200 with Cosworth roller barrell blatting the alps in a CSR 200 now 220 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Cornford Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 CC now have available a revised Aero Filler cap & funnel c/w IVA flap that does allow use of the latest "humped" petrol pump nozzles. Since fitting, I have not had any problems.. Sigma SteVe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davelloyd Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Steve do you mind me asking how much to have one fitted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Cornford Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Dave, please ring Sharon Wilkinson @ CC Dartford on +44 (0)1322 625804 for a price inclusive of fitting, as I am sure she will ensure you get the right part ❗ There was some confusion when they got the first batch of modified parts as they put them in the same bin as the un-modified parts. If you take a cursory look at them both they look the same. The latest ones fitted for IVA purposes even have a "tether" retaining the Aero cap. Sigma SteVe Edited by - Steve Cornford on 11 Sep 2009 14:53:11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskossie Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 --"As for the removal of the filler ‘flapper’, again do-able, but I am perhaps edging towards the safety conscious and may thank my luck stars one unfortunate day that I left the flapper in place ( an upside down moment, yikes)."--- RD, I doubt that the internal flapper-thingie will prevent much flammable stuff from running out in case of an upset. I understood that the annoying flap was installed primarily to prevent the use of improper filler nozzles, or to prevent siphoning of petrol out of the tank, or for some reason other than upset-proofing the tank. Alaskossie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RD Posted September 13, 2009 Author Share Posted September 13, 2009 Thanks for all of your thoughts on the SVA flap merits. I have read some excellent threads on how to remove it, and plan to spend some of those winter hours removing it. On the original thread of fuel; I will be continuing with 95 RON fuel as stated in the online owners handbook on the caterham website. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Area Representative Nick Chan Posted September 13, 2009 Area Representative Share Posted September 13, 2009 I'd use 95 for road use and premium for any trackday events. The ECU will adjust accordingly to the fuel rating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete east Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 I believe it is entirely subjective on my part, as I have carbs + crossflow, so no EMS there to work out the fuel grade coming into the engine, but the car `seems to run much better if I use a 98, instead of a 95. I guess the only way I could be sure, that it is just me `thinking' it goes better on 98, is to have someone else fill the tank, but not tell me what they put in , run the tank, and then re fill again without me knowing what was put in, and then see if I could detect any difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 for road you can use 95 in a CSR for trackdays use 98 in a CSR For a crossflow use 98 road and trackdays 98 will avoid pinking in severe use as a trackdays. In all my car I use 98 and I prefer Excellium or V pwer to standard 98 The consumption is less, the performance better eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geko Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Hi, I think the ECU of the CSR is not able to adjust to the fuel quality because there is no knock sensor. Hot weather (more than 30°C) is also a reason to take RON 98 /100 gasoline. Best regards Gerhard Caterham CSR 200 MAZDA MX-5, NB, 1840ccm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z3MCJez Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Modern cars which are designed for 95 RON petrol won't run better on 98. HOWEVER, 98 RON petrol may well have a higher calorific value than 95 RON (it being "better" refined petrol with fewer nasty additives) and this will lead to either better fuel consumption or greater power. I run all my cars on 98 - In my tintops I've road-tested it and believe it's worth about 5-8% better mpg. Which broadly means it doesn't cost me any more to put in V-Power. In the Caterham, well, I race that and if it gives me 1 extra hp then it's worth it. If it doesn't, well, it's not losing me anything and the petrol cost is not the difference between being able to race and not being ... Jez Build Photos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bumble SV Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 A family member of mine is one of Shell's senior petro-chemical engineer. After discussing the issue with him, I now only use RON 95 in the 7! The knock sensor point above is the main issue - the K series engine doesn't have one (don't know about the zetec or cosworth though). Using RON 98 can actually give you marginally less performance, so in short you may be more than wasting your money! Roadsport SV - Yellow/Black Stripe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Taylor Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Are you sure Bumble ? I've always used 98 Ron Shell V-Power in my R400 K series from new. I've just checked in the Caterham owners booklet you get with the car and it says you should use unleaded 98 Ron. I'm going to carry out a test and try a few gallons of each type and see if I can notice a difference. Milo - R400 MGT Photos here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bumble SV Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Yes I'm sure BUT your sitation is different. DON'T change your fuel - stay as you are with the V-Power. You should use the correct RON for what your ECU is mapped to. It sounds like your R400 is factory mapped using RON 98. However, my K series is factory mapped using RON 95 so I should stick with that. However, if I chose to have a rolling road remap, then I might choose to fill with 98 and have it mapped based on that and use 98 going forward. The effect of the different RON is the amount of compression that the fuel can take before the optimum point to induce combustion (ie when the spark plug should fire). A knock sensor detects when the spark plug is firing sub-optiminally and adjusts things accordingly via the ECU. Therefore, in my A4 which does have a knock sensor, I can use either 95 or 98). Does that help? Sorry if I didn't make it clear in my original post. Roadsport SV - Yellow/Black Stripe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strongy Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 So what would the effect be in a tin top? (Mondeo st220) With a knock sensor I'm guessing 98 ron would just give a bit more MPG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bumble SV Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 So what would the effect be in a tin top? (Mondeo st220) With a knock sensor I'm guessing 98 ron would just give a bit more MPG? The use of RON98 in your ST220, provided it has a knock sensor should give you more MPG but also more performance as it is a powerful highly tuned engine. Whether this extra is sufficient and worth the cost is your call! FYI - my A4 is the TFSI engine which was specifically designed to use RON98 fuel. I can definitely notice the negagtive difference in performance and the loss of about 3 MPG when I use standard unleaded. Roadsport SV - Yellow/Black Stripe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now