|
Having speed watched the video (FFWD through the bits of fluff etc), I thought it only partially addressed the touted 'perennial' questions over whether to use super fuels or not:
It didn't address the large differences between standard and performance cars where the octane rating makes a bigger difference to the increase in power output in the latter than the former;
The effect of the cleaning agents in 'premium brand' fuels (especially superfuels) can make, especially on older engines and/or those gunking up to some degree, but particularly those that are port injected.
The cost / benefit analysis of using superfuels or 'premium branded' ones vs occasionally using fuel additive products, e.g. Redex or similar, that appear to perform a 'concentrated' cleaning benefit to engines, particularly port injected ones, at a far lower cost.
I wonder also actually how much of an 'environmental benefit' is apparent using these higher percentage biofuels etc when making and using them appears to be much more complex and requires a good deal more maintenance, both of which will obviously require personnel, equipment and power/fuel to carry it out, plus the (likely higher) incidence of errors in manufacturing that cause engine failures, that then also require large amounts of energy to be expended to remedy the situation.
I also wonder if those 'more environmentally conscious' investors come from certain large pension fund investors who have been driving policy that way despite no significant input from the average person who contributes pension payments. I don't recall giving them permission to tell such firms how to invest my money, for example - I think we should and have the option to do different things, which most people don't.
|
£9,388was £9,706Details
£17,316was £17,994Details
£32,795was £34,590Details
£18,530was £19,000Details
