Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ttimbo last won the day on 25 December 2019

ttimbo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,237 Excellent


About ttimbo

  • Rank


  • Location
  • Car(s)
    UR Pug 308 GTi 270 (the "other" French hot hatch)
    FRB 182 (SOLD)
    DB Trophy-R (SOLD)
    Clio Sport 200 Cup Trophee (SOLD)

Recent Profile Visitors

2,077 profile views
  1. I recall it all now — thought you were going to buy it??!! So, I’m guessing you didn’t do an inspection? (You have a PM [emoji6])
  2. I reckon the owner deserves to be offended, given the description of how it has been left/abused/etc. I drove past this car at least 6mths ago. That it hasn’t sold since suggests there’s very, very good reasons to low-ball
  3. Offer $5k — it’d make a great daily/beater/tracker
  4. Is that one STILL for sale? Please, save me someone! Buy it before I do.
  5. Just to clarify, 95 is “OK” — what Renault is saying is that 95 is the minimum octane rating fuel you should use in your RS, not that is “the recommended” or “the best”, just that it is the minimum. Whether you use “the minimum” recommended octane rating in your car is entirely a matter for you and the way you use your car. Equally, you can choose to use a higher octane rating fuel (98 in Australia) in your RS because the car is tuned to yield the higher power and lower pollution such fuel enables — hence, this use might be described as “more efficient”. Talk to any reputable tuner, and they will confirm more power is produced by an RS on 98 octane fuel; if you are not interested in pure power, remember this can equally be reflected through great efficiency as better fuel economy. A separate issue, as this thread discussed at the beginning, is the quality of Australian fuels, and whether there is much, if any, difference between brands. The ‘detuning’ of certain Euro cars’ outputs due to the stated reason of Australia’s poor fuel quality might also give RS owners cause to consider whether 95 might actually be adequate to meet “the minimum” fuel octane for Renault’s performance-oriented RS engines. For all the above reasons, I use 98 as an exercise of both educated judgement and free choice!
  6. cough! Data to support claims/anecdotes, please
  7. About 15% more consumption, too, I’d guess
  8. I thought I was following you this afternoon along Canberra Ave back towards Manuka, but now I see you still have Vic plates. I was following a “YJx xxx” ACT black and white plated, near identical car (I was in my Pug 308 GTi) They do look good in grey, as@jsr’s T-R really shows
  9. How does that help an RS owner?
  10. Apart from the detuned 1.6T in the Joke, there's nothing in the current Nissan Aus range that is "shared" with the current RS range (oh, there may be some basic hardware -- block etc, but noting tuned as in the RS range)
  11. Sorry — typo — lower fuel consumption! [emoji3526]
  12. Well, FWIW, I have fuel logbooks covering my old BMW M135i, our X1 25i, the Trophy-R and my Pug 308 GTi. Of these, the M135i had four 95 fills, the X1 8, the T-R 2 and none so far for the Pug — all when 98 was not available (X1 does most country travel, obviously). In all instances, the fill was 35+L. Every use of 98 delivers (ooops) LOWER fuel consumption, in some cases by 5% and a worst case of 7% in the M135i. But a bigger effect is the lethargic nature of the cars, which I’ve felt every time. That’s the data. Apparently, data beats opinion. Why does@Haakon have to add a political angle to every thread he posts? Perhaps his RS is broken down? Or perhaps he doesn’t own one?
  13. ttimbo

    Decision time...

    Meg 3...250-265-275 depending on budget A low km 275 Trophy should be $25-30k...great to drive on the road; fun and quick on the track
  14. Try http://www.jestercreation.fr/?fbclid=IwAR3LYjcznxqdi_zX2GGGBYh9I_wotOxuIaaVpi8A_BhC8KWLFbrI9N-MiQc He has a FB page. If you use Google Chrome, you can translate the website. Good to deal with
  15. A few years ago, with a Golf that said it needed 95 or 98, I ran a fairly extensive test of both. Will see if I can find the data, but the difference was discernible and measurable in terms of fuel economy (car used about 1.5-2L/100k more on 95), and through the world famous butt dyno - car just felt lethargic on 95, and lively on 98, in comparison.
  • Create New...