|
That is a good point - I just looked at it from the fact that it contained a detergent - as you say it will probably be a different detergent to shell's (i.e not as good).
|
Or look at it another way, it is probably very similar to the one that Shell or other major oil companies were using say two years ago ...
So if Shell was great for my two year old car then, supermarket petrol is just as goos for it now ...
|
|
|
|
Just check it meets the required/latest standard. I vaguely remember it was BS590 was for derv, and Sainsburys had this stamped on the pump.
My local Shell garage is the same or cheaper than Tescos.
|
|
I've tended to be a bit sceptical about claims that supermarket fuel is inferior to 'branded', viewing it as mere marketing hype. However... I usually use Shell diesel and consistently get around 50 mpg on average (according to the fairly accurate trip computer). It's never averaged less than 45 even when driven hard. Last-but-one fill up was at Tesco and it cost around the same as the Shell. Horrified to get 38 mpg. Back to Shell on Monday and 50 mpg again. Coincidence?
|
Either way you're saving buttons really aren't you?
|
In the days of leaded petrol my cars liked Esso or Elf best. Never have got used to this other stuff although of course the modern jalopy has to have it.
Chainsaws used to have to have leaded 2 star but they seem to run OK on lead free ordinaire. Perhaps this modern 2-stroke oil is doped to cope.
|
|
|
>> Either way you're saving buttons really aren't you?
My commuting is 20,000 miles per year. A increase in fuel consumption from 50 mpg to 38 mpg represents (if my arithmetic is not too dodgy) at today's fuel price of almost £1 a litre, an additional £600 per year.
That's an awful lot of buttons. Even chocolate ones.
|
|
|
|
I've tended to be a bit sceptical about claims that supermarket fuel is inferior to 'branded', viewing it as mere marketing hype. However... I usually use Shell diesel and consistently get around 50 mpg on average (according to the fairly accurate trip computer). It's never averaged less than 45 even when driven hard. Last-but-one fill up was at Tesco and it cost around the same as the Shell. Horrified to get 38 mpg. Back to Shell on Monday and 50 mpg again. Coincidence?
You surely don't seriously think that swapping between Tesco and Shell is responsible for a mpg change of 38 - 50mpg?
The mileage you get will be the same. Both fuels will be to British Standard (its illegal to sell fuels that aren't) and both will have the same calorific value. In fact if you believe the advertising hype that Shell has got more 'additives' then the Tesco fuel would actually have a higher calorific value.
|
It's not what I think, seriously or flippantly - those are the figures that I genuinely got. My driving style was unaltered, the road and traffic conditions were not unusual ( my daily commute is 80 miles, always on the same roads and off-peak) and my car has always been remarkably consistent in its rate of consumption of fuel.
Incidentally - and here I AM being subjective - the engine seemed to run more noisily and with less 'pep' too. The only variable I can come up with to explain the difference in consumption was the change in supplier.
Perhaps for some reason that batch of fuel was contaminated in some way.
On further reflection and returning to your reply - yes, I am serious.
|
If consumption appeared to increase from 50 to 38mpg then either the pumps were out of calibration or you made a mistake in your calculation.
I have heard claims of up to about 8% change in Diesel fuel economy (allegedly due to different viscosities and cetane content of Diesels) but not the margin you claim. This kind of difference, between fuels which meet the fairly tight BS spec, would be the subject of a PhD thesis. Don't forget other factors (weather - air con switched on etc).
|
If consumption appeared to increase from 50 to 38mpg then either the pumps were out of calibration or you made a mistake in your calculation. I have heard claims of up to about 8% change in Diesel fuel economy (allegedly due to different viscosities and cetane content of Diesels) but not the margin you claim. This kind of difference, between fuels which meet the fairly tight BS spec, would be the subject of a PhD thesis. Don't forget other factors (weather - air con switched on etc).
Pump calibration or my mathematical abilities are not issues as my car's trip computer was doing the calculating, based on fuel actually used. Even if the computer were inaccurate (and my occasional top-up-to-top-up manual calculations have shown it is not) the relative readings would still be valid.
Over three years of owning the car, weather has only significantly impacted on consumption if it were extreme, such as snow; last week was unexceptional. Aircon use never seems to make very much difference, perhaps because I only ever use it intermittently.
Had the car suddenly developed a fault whether in engine management or the trip computer or whatever, it is not credible that the fault would disappear just as I returned to using Shell.
It's most perplexing.
|
Pump calibration or my mathematical abilities are not issues as my car's trip computer was doing the calculating, based on fuel actually used.
If your car's trip computer is anything like mine I wouldn't rely on it too much.
Although the "average mpg" on mine indicates to one place of decimals, it only ever reads either x.2 or x.7, i.e. when the reading changes it always changes by 0.5 mpg.
As for the "mileage remaining" reading it is clearly a load of rubbish. If I add the "mileage remaining" to the mileage driven since the last fill-up (i.e. the theoretical tank capacity in miles) it consistently changes from about 500 immediately before a fill-up to about 420 immediately after the fill-up.
It's just a toy ~ I play with it but I don't take it seriously.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
|
Horrified to get 38 mpg. Back to Shell onMonday and 50 mpg again. Coincidence?
Probably nothing more sinister than a combination of the inaccuracy in estimating the amount of fuel used, different driving conditions, different weather, different .....
Calculating fuel consumption over one fill-up is a waste of time. To do it properly you have to measure it over a reasonable length of time (say a month or more) to minimise all the inaccuracies. Even then the average driving conditions and average weather conditions have to be stated for it to be meaningful.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
I've tended to be a bit sceptical about claims that supermarket fuel is inferior to 'branded', viewing it as mere marketing hype. However... I usually use Shell diesel and consistently get around 50 mpg on average (according to the fairly accurate trip computer). It's never averaged less than 45 even when driven hard. Last-but-one fill up was at Tesco and it cost around the same as the Shell. Horrified to get 38 mpg. Back to Shell on Monday and 50 mpg again. Coincidence?
>>
I second your comments, diesel does vary hugely from vendor to vendor and I tend to stick to branded diesel having had similar experiences to above.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes but they probably aren't the same quality or quantity as the Shell ones! Overall you get what you pay for and if Shell is 2p a litre more than s'market stuff it probably costs 2p more to supply and is worth 2p more to a customer, or not, depending on your viewpoint.
Or maybe the branded fuels have a higher mark up than supermarket fuels. Look at the profits some of the branded fuel companies make for instance.
Supermarkets can afford to sell fuel at a lower price as they can often offset their prices against everything else they sell and make profits elsewhere within the company.
|
MUST NOT MUST NOT...
Oh to hell with it.
Petrol is petrol is petrol. Its all produced to the same standard it all comes out of the same refinery, produced from the same crude. Yes deterrents are now added and some detergents are different from others but so what. If there were any significant differences that gave any significant differences in fuel consumption or engine life then the manufacturers would state specify what fuel should be used in their cars to achieve their stated mpg figures and non-use of said fuel would invalid any warranty.
All petrol retailers have entered in to an end user agreement whereby if their is a local shortage on one retailer for whatever reason the other retailer will provide short time support. So quite literally Esso petrol could come out of a Tescos pump and vice versa.
Only premium fuels such as Optimax are exempt from this agreement.
Everything else is branding.
|
MUST NOT MUST NOT... Oh to hell with it. Petrol is petrol is petrol. Its all produced to the same standard it all comes out of the same refinery, produced from the same crude.
Well that told them Thommo!!
MD
|
|
Wife's Clio had an intermitment fault where it would not idle, a forced switch from Tesco to BP (due to moving house) cured it.
|
|
Just remember,the more additives in it,the less actual petrol you get.
|
my normal fuel of choice is Shell- not because i think its any better than anybody else's petrol. Its just that I pass at least two shell stations on my way to work, they're normally a penny or so cheaper than my local Tesco and I collect Shell pluspoints.
|
|
|
Just remember,the more additives in it,the less actual petrol you get.
I think there's only a relatively small amount of additives in each tankerful of petrol. I read somewhere that at some petrol terminals the tanker driver adds the additives, so one brand of petrol may be exactly the same stuff (ignoring the additives) as another brand.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
|
|
Seconded, Thommo !
And if 'premium' fuels could make my car go X% faster, or Y% further, the fuel companies would be telling us that in their advertising - but they aren't, and that speaks volumes....
--
Go on, get out of the car...
www.mikes-walks.co.uk
|
|
|
|
Supermarkets can afford to sell fuel at a lower price as they can often offset their prices against everything else they sell and make profits elsewhere within the company.
And it probably attracts more customers if they sell petrol as well as normal supermarket fare.
--
L\'escargot.
|
The difference between the Tesco diesel and Shell diesel could well have been down to the fact that most Shell diesel is now Shell Diesel Extra - with a higher cetane rating. So it should give better MPG, if the hype is correct.
Personally, I've never found supermarkets to be any cheaper than my local Shell, so it's Shell all the way for me. If the fuel is better (and I believe it is on the basis of long term experience of switching between fuel providers with the same car) than that's a bonus.
|
I never noticed any difference with my petrol Xsara.
My personal experience in the 9k I've had a diesel:
Shell Extra is a bit better than either supermarket or standard branded (Texaco and BP) diesel, and round here is marginally cheaper as well, which is nice.
BP Ultimate is quite a bit better than Shell, but about 5p a litre more expensive.
I could convince myself that the difference with Shell vs standard is a placebo, but there is no question that BP Ultimate makes a big difference at low revs before the turbo kicks in. The mpg appears to support this.
|
|
For under 2p per litre one can gain many of the benefits of using Optimax or Ultimate, by adding Miller's Diesel Plus, allegedly. Recommended by HJ and whatever it does or doesn't do it doesn't do any harm SFAIK.
|
For under 2p per litre one can gain many of the benefits of using Optimax or Ultimate, by adding Miller's Diesel Plus, allegedly. Recommended by HJ and whatever it does or doesn't do it doesn't do any harm SFAIK.
My Focus handbook says "Do not use supplemental additives or other engine treatments. They are unnecesary and could lead to engine and/or catalytic converter damage which is not covered by Ford Warranty". I see no reason to ignore this instruction.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
I have looked thru my Peugeot book (diesel) and can't find any warnings or disclaimers re additives. Millers sell loads of this stuff, it is recommended by HJ, and BR members find it useful for pre MOT Italian tune ups re emission tests. Obviously one would wish to comply with one's makers advice or instructions but I don't think that any harm results from using it!
|
It stands to reason that most manufacturers will put loads of disclaimers in the handbooks (especially American owned companies) to avoid litigation - even if the additives could work well.
After all, they won't have tested with every combination of fuels, oils and additives so anything *could* happen, even if in reality the risk is low to non-existant.
|
It stands to reason that most manufacturers will put loads of disclaimers in the handbooks (especially American owned companies) to avoid litigation - even if the additives could work well. After all, they won't have tested with every combination of fuels, oils and additives so anything *could* happen, even if in reality the risk is low to non-existant.
Exactly. That one reason is why you might follow their advice. It takes a long time to qualify any change.
Remember the revolutionary Formula Shell fuel that was eventually withdrawn due to concerns for engine damage. Took a long time for the issues to come to light.
|
|
Millers sell loads of this stuff, it is recommended by HJ ......
I'll take your word for that but, at the risk of having my account terminated, what are HJ's qualifications? No offence intended, HJ, but I've often wondered.
but I don't think that any harm results from using it!
Clearly Ford think otherwise. In respect of a Ford car I feel I am justified in trusting Ford's opinion above that of anyone else. Again, no offence intended.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
|
|
The difference between the Tesco diesel and Shell diesel could well have been down to the fact that most Shell diesel is now Shell Diesel Extra - with a higher cetane rating. So it should give better MPG, if the hype is correct. Personally, I've never found supermarkets to be any cheaper than my local Shell, so it's Shell all the way for me. If the fuel is better (and I believe it is on the basis of long term experience of switching between fuel providers with the same car) than that's a bonus.
The Shell stuff I buy is the Diesel Extra type - it's the only one they sell and costs no more than others sell their ordinary type for. I would not normally consider minor differences in mpg of great significance but 38 to 50 is a bit more than a minor difference and, as I stated before, the first time in 3 years that the car has had such poor figures. I take on board all that has been pointed out about fuel-is-fuel-is-fuel and can only surmise that the diesel was contaminated - could a proportion of petrol in it have produced the effect? No I did not use the wrong pump!
Incidentally the difference in price between supermarket and branded fuel is minimal these days. Indeed in my area I can get cheaper stuff from Shell or Esso than Tesco or Sainsbury.
|
The 2p extra is not buying you a better fuel, it is buying you lots of Shell TV ads (Never seen one for Tesco Petrol) and the right to have their nice badge sown on to MSC's racing overalls just where you can see it when he is on TV!
Never has my credit card cloned by Tesco or Sainsburys either!
Petrol is made to a BS standard - if the differences were significant then those with the better fuels would be pushing the numbers, not adverts with fish racing around like last years Shell ad. If my car can go from 48mpg to 53mpg on two consecuive tanks of fuel from the same group how can anyone objectively compare two tanks of fuel from different suppliers except on a rolling road!
|
Who said anything about 2p extra? Shell Diesel Extra is exactly the same price as Morrisons standard diesel and 1p cheaper than Esso standard diesel where I live.
Nothing to risk, everything to gain. :)
And just because they're all to the same BS, doesn't mean they are the same. Shell clearly states that the cetane rating for diesel extra will be higher than British Standard, as does BP Ultimate.
|
>>And just because they're all to the same BS
That's what it is, except Shell has more BS in its petrol than does Tesco...
Do you really, honestly, truly think that the major supermarkets would risk being sued for supplying substandard petrol? cos they would be if they did.
Shell & BP are 2p per litre more expensive because it costs them that to run their forecourts. There is not a ha'penny made out of selling petrol in the UK by anybody. Not a farthing. Money is made from selling chocolate biscuits, lemon sherberts & bottles of water at exorbitant prices to needy drivers. The petrol is a loss leader - and for supermakrkets the benefit they get in getting you through the door to buy petrol & going away with £40 of groceries means that they can afford to subsidise your petrol. Simple as that. You don't get Tesco value bread in their forecourt shops either; premium expensive bread only.
Spend £50 get 2p per litre off. Why???? because the margins on the food cover the loss on the petrol.
BP Ultimate, Formula Shell (or whatever this one is called) have higher octane/cetane ratings... just like Tesco premium.
Buy the cheapest fuel, it's cheaper and it's all the same. OP's computer has gone wrong or else he did a lot of town driving.
|
Oh yes, and what was the advertising campaign for Optimax (that's it).
Optimax makes you dress better.
All about performance then, not!
|
Optimax makes you dress better.
So I've been wasting my money putting Optimax drops in my eyes when they're tired ?. I was going to stop anyway, it just seems to make them sting more ;-)
--
Go on, get out of the car...
www.mikes-walks.co.uk
|
|
Esso: puts a tiger in your trunks.
|
|
|
I think it must be the driving. My computer seems consistent, I won't say accurate. It has just registered an effect which a posting here said that I would notice = an improvement in mpg with an increase in temperature. A full tank indicated about 630 miles range in the winter, now it is 690 and my mpg in day to day driving has gone up from 52 to 55, in the last couple of weeks when it has got warmer, in the East Midlands at least!
|
|
|
Bottom line. The majors have been trying to brand petrol for as long as I can remember.
IF their brand gave ANY significant advantage then that would be splashed all over the advertisements but unfortunately that naughty Advertising Standards Agency will only let them do that if they can prove it.
|
So BPs claims for 28 miles per tank (average) for BP Ultimate are lies then? Better tell the ASA...
Truth is, some fuels ARE better than others. All meet the British Standard, but some have higher cetane/octane standards.
It is a fact that some cars with electronic ignition timing can benefit from this, some but not all.
But I will not argue for one minute that Shell regular petrol is in some way better than Tesco regular petrol. In fact, Tesco offer 99 RON petrol - clearly better than the variable octane Optimax...
|
'But I will not argue for one minute that Shell regular petrol is in some way better than Tesco regular petrol.'
Thats all I'm saying. I specifically excluded the 'specials' from my argument.
I also think the extra for them is worthless to most but thats another argument.
|
Fair enough. I think we have some agreement on the endless Major vs Supermarket debate! :)
"I also think the extra for them is worthless to most but thats another argument."
To which I suspect there will never be any agreement.... ;)
|
|
Thommo has been over this already. He has his own steadfast views, and ignores evidence that improved additives reduce the tendency, with mileage, towards reduced efficiency through coatings of carbon etc on valves and combustion chambers. We've been here before. HJ is right: there are differences infuel quality as well as octane/cetane.
|
'He has his own steadfast views'
and 20 years experience in the oil industry...
|
|
Well, what does that mean? The evidence, such as it is, contradicts what you say, and I know as you do, that the ASA has looked at Shell claims re detergents and has not demurred.
|
Exactly 'such as it is'.
And the ASA adjudication is in respect of Shell Optimax as I suspectyou know.
I have stated that I am talking about the non-premium fuels.
No oil company to my knowledge has ever tried to claim in any advert that its non-premium fuel was in any way better than anyone else's.
If you want to broaden it out to premium fuels such as Optimax it may actually offer benefits but it costs more. You would need to do a full cost/benefit analysis over the life of a car to even try and prove anything and even then it would be pointless as no two cars and owners profiles would ever be remotely the same.
|
Interesting. Reading this thread there seem to be quite a few people that believe:
a. There is no money to be made in retailing petrol.
b. An unbranded fuel to BS EN 228 is inferior to a branded fuel to BS EN 228.
Just shows that all the money spent by oil companies on lobbying and advertising is not spend in vain!
|
Aprilia,
Without going too far and revealing my identify on the internet I was involved in the sale of the Mobil retail chain to BP. I've seen the numbers.
There is virtually no money to be made in petrol retailing. Its a cut throat tiny margin business.
People get confused between upstream and downstream and think that something so expensive must generate huge profit, missing the point that its mostly tax. They also seem to think that the huge oil company profits come from petrol retailing which they don't. Its all upstream.
And don't get me started on what the government charge you to lease the land for a motorway service station...
Your b. point is well made.
There calling my flight so I will have to leave you guys to it.
I believe my New Years resolution for 2001 was to not get involved in these discussions.
|
>>Just shows that all the money spent by oil companies on lobbying and advertising is not spend in vain!
Actually reminds me of certain Companys that say their petrol additive is the greatest going,and will give increased fuel economy,as well as cleaning the system out.
Not seen any proof yet of any of these statements,but it goes to show that joe public will fall for anything the majors say.
comment made before,about BP sign,outside our local said (Up to 28 mpg per tank better fuel economy)as all tanks are different in size,doubt much difference on small tanks if at all!
--
Steve
|
Some believe There is no money to be made in retailing petrol.
>>Just shows that all the money spent by oil companies on >>lobbying and advertising is not spent in vain!
The last data I saw, petrol is a break-even commodity. Given the barriers to entry and the large numbers of sellers I am not surprised. If you have a petrol station in Builth Wells it might be different, but otherwise, where did I hear wrongly?
|
Interesting. Reading this thread there seem to be quite a few people that believe: a. There is no money to be made in retailing petrol. b. An unbranded fuel to BS EN 228 is inferior to a branded fuel to BS EN 228. Just shows that all the money spent by oil companies on lobbying and advertising is not spend in vain!
Regarding point 'b', surely BS standards are only a minimum requirement/quality to be met. If a certain fuel companys additives enable their fuel to surpass the BS standard, as opposed to just meeting it, then it's a better fuel. No?
|
|
OK: I see where you're coming from on this!
|
|
That comment above was meant to fit below Thommos response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
