We've all heard the 'anecdotal evidence' - "my car definitely feels zippier on Brand X" etc, but is there any REAL evidence that I should use Texaco, Shell, City Diesel....?
I tend to use BP (nearest garage) or Tesco's City D (next nearest + 'points'!), & occasionally Shell, all with Millers diesel additive. No noticeable difference. Could I do better?
|
Hi Roger,
I tend to use Esso diesel, the reason being that i have never had any problems with it. I don't use supermarket fuel because they tend to have less additives in them, so you lose out in that respect. The other local garages ( Shell, Texaco, BP,Murco, ELF ) all tend to be around the same price so i tend to stick to what i know. I have used other branded fuel but Esso tends be be one of the cheapest.
I've heard that 'City Diesel' is the poorest in the quality stakes and i've also heard that 'Ultra Low Sulphur' diesel isn't all it's cracked up to be. Does using an additive bring any short or long term benefits and if so, what are they ?
Cheers,
Ash
|
|
Glad to hear you are already using the Milers additive Roger. Keep with it, it really IS worth it. City Diesel and all low-sulpher diesels may start throwing up loads of problems long-term with both pumps and injectors as sulpher (and other additives being removed) are there to help 'lubricate' things just as lead was in petrol. Also a good idea to use the Forte Diesel Fuel Treatment every six months, timing one of those treatments to be just before MOT test, followed by a good fast run (what we call an "Italian Tune-Up" !!).
|
|
|
Thanks, folks. I have used all of the above and "never had any problems" myself, with any of them.
However, what I REALLY want to know is NOT, as I said originally, 'anecdotal', eg "I've heard that.." "A motorist told me.." "may cause problems" "usually has less additives" etc etc.
I just wonder if there has been any comparitive, scientific testing from which one can confidently pick "The Best Diesel Fuel".
One reason for my curiosity: many years ago a senior oil company employee told me that the major companies had an agreement to supply all petrol stations near their various refineries with the same juice. So, if you lived near, say a Shell refinery, it was likely that, whatever the name on the pump, the petrol wd have come from the Shell refinery! Having no reason to doubt him, I used to chuckle to myself when the saloon bar racers extolled the virtues of their own favourite brands!
I rather doubt that this practice continues today, but I do often wonder if there really ARE significant differences between brands of fuel!
|
|
Roger, I do suspect that even today most of the petrol comes from the same refinery. For instance when the fuel protests were in full swing the blocking of the BP refinery near Edinburgh stopped the supply of petrol to about 90% of all petrol stations in Scotland. Needless to say BP does not own 90% of all petrol stations in Scotland!
|
|
|
|
|
Before City Diesel came in I used ordinary diesel. Supermarket City Diesel halved the mechanical noise and halved the smoke. However I have an old Perkins 2L DI diesel. I am experimenting with Millers additive as it was recommended here but it does not seem to have any affect.
I was told by a car owner that power was reduced if you have a turbo and use City Diesel.
|
|
In Brown's budget there's a reduction of duty on Bio-diesel of 20p. This stuff (which is made from vegetable oil) is reputedly better for the engine than the old fossil stuff, and of course carbon emissions are near zero. When are we going to see it in the pumps. Forget ULS Petrol (it's filthy stuff).
|
Chris
Bio-diesel is by no means carbon free! Plants sequester carbon from the atmosphere and build their cells with it. So, bio diesel certainly produces carbon dioxide.
The benefit of bio fuels is that they release contemporary carbon (ie that which is already in the atmosphere), whereas fossil fuels release fossil (ie 'new' carbon) into the atmosphere. The idea of growing 'fuel plants' is that they recycle the carbon in the atmosphere.
Regards
John
|
|
Sorry John, I was unclear. What I should have said was that NET carbon emissions are near zero. Only the cost of manufacturing the oil itself will create 'new' carbon emissions, and that will disappear as solar and other green technologies take hold. Now all we need to do is reduce the carbon emissions from manufacturing vehicles themselves - that's where most of the CO2 is produced anyway.
|
Chris
Sorry about that, but I've found few people actually understand the benefit of using crops as carbon sinks. Your point about emissions from car manufacture are very valid, but almost universally ignored.
I believe that the Confederation of Historic Car Clubs (or similar - apologies if that's wrong) have commissioned work on this, as a potential defence against the 'scrap them at 10 years' campaign by the big manufacturers.
Regards
John
|
|
|
|
