Hi all,
Well just to add my two penny worth, I have recently filled up with Asda Diesel and to my amazement the car is as smooth as it has ever been and the economy is looking slightly better.
Saved two pence a litre as well.
On a different subject, why is there such a price differential between petrol and diesel, its certainly shot up in the last few weeks or is this another case of rip off britain.
regards
|
The more people convert from petrol to diesel the more the companies and Government make for charging more. I also read somewhere that as the USA convert to diesel cars there could be a future supply problem as the refineries are setup to make more petrol that diesel.
Strangely for me I did the opposite after spending many years driving diesels now my mileage is very small the petrol is the cheaper option overall and I must say it is nice to drive a refined, smooth, quiet no tapping, non-smelly engine again even my hands dont smell after refueling and I had not realised how much I had missed the petrols!
Running around locally the Accord Diesel did 36 - 38 and the CRV petrol does 30 - 32 doing the same daily journeys. Using premium fuels made absolutely no difference to economy but I admit on a long run the Diesel is much better on fuel. But the CRV is better on tyres as my Accord ate front tyres on the 18" wheels (8000 miles on first set and 12000 miles on second set) CRV done 12000 miles and tyres look hardly different to when they were new.
|
|
|
>>On a different subject, why is there such a price differential between petrol and diesel, its certainly shot up in the last few weeks or is this another case of rip off britain.<<
I'm afraid that is just standard practice in UK politics - entice the gullible into buying diesels with tax incentives for a couple of years and then when you have all bought one - jack up the price through more taxation.
Red Ken did the same with hybrids and the congestion charge.
To start with he exempts them from the charge. Everyone contributes to Toyotas massive profits by buying hybrids at list price cos they know you need to. Then after a couple of years include them in the charging scheme. Brilliant - we did not see that coming did we ?
All the while he is using the money to buy more dirty diesel buses increasing the pollution in London - how good is that.
The problem in the UK is that there is never a consistent strategy carried out over a long period of time, so we the poor consumer don't know whether to buy diesel, lpg, hybrids or bio-ethenal - we just get ripped off whatever we do.
|
ESSO Petroleum was commissioned to investigate the Tesco/Morrissons/Green Energy fuel problem on behalf of the companies, and found that the contamination came from reclaimed toluene which had previously been used in an industrial process to wash flux or something off PCBs. This is where the Silicone came from. There was a detailed article about this in their internal staff magazine some time ago.
" The contaminated fuel was eventually traced back to four tanks at a Vopak storage facility in West Thurrock, which fuel supplier Harvest Energy said contained "unusually high levels of silicon". "
As to how the silicon got there, has not yet been published afaik."
|
If there were scientific proof that burning BP or Shell rather than Tescos were better for car engines, then the scientific proof would be published on advertisements.
But it is - albeit from their own scientists/chemists.
If they are claiming something that is not true in their adverts, why don't Tesco challenge it to increase their own sales ??
Probably because they know they can't and there are differences in petrol additives etc.
If petrol was all the same why was it that shell petrol destroyed alot of vauxhall engines many years ago - but other petrols didn't ?
|
I agree, Pendlebury: Don't use too much of one type!
During about 2 years of ownership of each of two cars - different makes, different (petrol) engines - they both developed and retained a similar misfire problem.
One common factor was that their tanks were filled almost exclusively from the same supermarket filling station.
The second car finished up being tested on a rolling road, where the problem was reproduced, but no actual fault found with the car other than a curious green glaze on the plugs. The plugs were renewed and 'branded' petrol used thereafter, and the problem never recurred.
Since that time, I don't exclude supermarket fuel, but I rotate the brands -and stations- that I fill up from.
My original post here (I think):
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=13076&...e
|
I thought that run-of-the mill 95 RON unleaded petrol was usually called Premium and 98 RON unleaded petrol was usually called Super. Is the OP using a different meaning for the word premium?
|
Important point l'escargot. Engines are optimised for certain RON values and may? perform better with higher RON fuels. The discussion re Shell/BP etc v. supermarket fuel is opinion but lacks evidence.
What is needed is a double blind trial where fuel A is used for several thousand miles and then fuel B is used for a similar distance. Driver and measurer are unaware of which fuel is used at any time. Differences if any are calculated and after that the type of fuels are disclosed. This approximates to acceptable evidence but could be confounded by changes in weather, traffic or driving patterns. Can anyone point me to where a trial like this has been published?
Saying that I filled up with fuel X and my car felt quicker or was more economic is regrettably not evidence.
alfalfa
|
>>What is needed is a double blind trial.
I bet they have been done and proved inconclusive. These petrols have been around for years and yet there is no scientific proof of any difference. Either that, or nobody has bothered doing them because they already know the answer...
If you look at the ASA's report somebody posted earlier, www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adj...2
the only complaint that was not upheld was that "optimax detergents can remove deposits".
Note, there is no suggestion that supermarket fuels do not contain these detergents or that supermarket fuels cannot remove desposits; only that Optimax does and can.
Until I see scientific proof that suggests my course of action is wrong, I shall stick to Tesco petrol.
>>If they are claiming something that is not true in their adverts, why don't Tesco challenge it to increase their own sales ??
I'm still waiting to see proof of something that is claimed for Optimax that is BETTER than supermarket fuels.
" the Authority considered that the advertisers had not shown that Optimax produced better results than all other unleaded fuels, the Authority told the advertisers to delete the claim until they could substantiate it." February 2004
Edited by Mapmaker on 21/03/2008 at 14:28
|
I have never bought into this premium fuel. I hav efilled up at Supermarkets almost exclusively for the last 20 years and never suffered any problems connected with fuel.
Recently however I switched to Shell, primarily as my local one was open 24 hours and also I worked out that their Shell Driver's Club was better rewards than Morrisons Miles.
Have noticed absolutely no difference in performance or economy on either of my two cars.
Interestingly, my friend has a string of Shell garages and he fills up with V Power, fair enough. However he told me that in the city he is based, he is astounded by the amount of taxi drivers who fill up with Shell's V Power Diesel rather than the normal. Now IMHO forget what the scientists etc say, if taxi drivers are prepared to spend more to fill their tank with it I might start to show an interest!
|
|
I've run my Impreza on Shell V-Power almost from new. However, out of laziness the last two tanks have been 95RON from Morrisons (after shopping there). The car seems to run smoother on Morrisons petrol and do about 2mpg more. On the other hand it could just be my imagination working overtime and a change in the weather.
|
|
|
Autotrader (i think) did something like this, which HJ did report on. Their study found no difference between the fuels.
|
SWMBO's Golf is run exclusively on Shell Vroom (or whatever its called), so I can't judge whether it runs better or not on supermarket fuel. All my old BMWs were run mainly on Texaco (local garage brand) apart from in-between fills where it got proper branded fuels. The
Roomster was regularly filled with Texaco until a recent change to the Shell premium stuff, it runs markedly smoother at tickover, it feels a bit peppier, not measured the consumption. Landie is run on whatever's to hand.
Edited by Pugugly on 21/03/2008 at 15:42
|
Landie is run on whatever's to hand.
Mazola, Extra Virgin Olive, Petrol, Parafin, nail varnish remover etc. etc...?
|
My very thought Mapmaker... chainsaw 2-stroke... vodka...
But I thought it was too frivolous to post :o{
|
|
Evo (issue 44) carried out a test of 3 cars, with Shell BTW. They had run initially on their usual fuel diet. This varied from mainly supermarket to branded only. Bore scope examination of the valves before the trial of Optimax showed notable deposits on the car using cheap supermarket fuel, Type R Civic. BMW M3 run on brand name only, was pristine. Jag had some valves mucky, including inlet. Vehicles then run for 3000 miles on Optimax, and then retested (examination and timed runs) Cleaning of the dirty valves (other than the BMW, of course) was evident, improved performance also, particularly the Civic which had 95 octane only beforehand. Re supermarket petrol: it may contain suitable detergent, but EN590 does not require this, IIRC. The only way to be sure of the detergency effect is to use a fuel which claims to have it. Which commercial outfit would neglect to use all possible advertising puff to sell its wares? Silence on the matter is eloquent. The ASA verdict, on the performance issue, did not say there was no gain with Optimax, but Shell had implied all cars could benefit. They therefore were asked to modify the puff, so that it is clear that some cars could benefit: e.g. those with pre-ignition sensors.
|
I undertand that all the Tesco Petrol (95 as well as 99 RON) has up to 5% bioethanol, and comes from www.greenergy.co.uk/Products/index.html
" Bioethanol is used as a blend component in all the petrol we supply, up to the 5% ....
As well as standard grade (95 octane) petrol, we also produce the Tesco 99 Octane petrol that sells at Tesco stores .."
The diesel they supply ( does not say say to Tesco ) "All our main grade diesel is blended with biodiesel in blends of up to 5%, .. "
specifications here www.greenergy.co.uk/Products/standard_fuels.html
|
|
Surely there must be som tanker drivers reading this forum who could enlighten us as to wether petrol all comes from the same storage tank.
Edited by maltrap on 22/03/2008 at 17:33
|
Surely there must be som tanker drivers reading this forum who could enlighten us
Forum search may reveal the previous threads where precisely that has been done. The received wisdom is that the tankers contain the same fuel but the appropriate "brand" additives are added at the point of delivery to the forecourt storage tanks according to which "brand" the forecourt it is.
|
The additives are added to the tanker at the point of loading. Sometimes loading the tanker is also referred to as a delivery, so this may be where the confusion arose. In years gone by, tanker drivers climbed up a ladder onto the top of the tanker, and loaded the fuel into 8 compartments via a pipe hanging down overhead, but due to H&S rules they are not allowed to be on something more that 6' high without a harness. The tankers are now loaded by pipes fitted at the bottom via couplings, and the driver simply scans a barcode on a delivery note, or enters a code into a keypad and the correct quantities of fuel is loaded on with the additives appropriate for the customer.
Also in years gone by, the petrol station manager would have climbed on top of the taker and 'dipped' each compartment with a long dipstick to make sure he is getting the correct quantity. Now he has to believe the printed readings.
|
As a rule all petrol comes from the same tanks and has additives added at the last minute whilst the road tanker is being filled.
V-Power Diesel only comes from a Shell Refinery in Cheshire - normal Shell Petrol & Diesel for Scotland comes from the INEOS (formerly BP) Refinery in Grangemouth - as does BP/Esso/Asda/Tesco........
|
Lordy this old chestnut again.
However I Niallster have the definitive answer.
Just find a place where the supermarket station is head to head with a brand station. Its not difficult.
They will be charging the same price. Thus you can have the super duper branded miracle fuel rather than the near water dispensed by the supermarkets at the same price!
I am a genius...
|
Surely there must be som tanker drivers reading this forum who could enlighten us as to wether petrol all comes from the same storage tank.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=67...5
Just goes to show how long this debate has been running for on here. No problems whatsoever with running my 2.2 Vectra on Sainsbury's petrol, nor any of my other Vauxhalls come to that.
|
|
This is very last century! When supermarkets first started selling petrol the price was cut by reducing additives. This resulted in cars that needed a decoke after about 40,000 miles, something that had not been seen for about 35 years. People had a right to be wary then. However supermarket petrol is not a problem now. The claims made for pemium brands seem dubious to me as they as always vaguely worded!
|
Our Subaru Forester 2.0x (non-turbo) runs best on Tesco 99 octane
Tried Shell V power and Shell regular - regular feels as good as the V power but not quite as good as Tesco 99
I now use Shell regular, by far the best price/performance IMHO
MVP
|
I'm doing as close to a scientific economy test as possible with the Volvo (2.0 turbo) on V-Power vs standard 95RON Unleaded.
Will report the findings when I've used the £72 tankful I bought today. Will be a brim to brim figure with no computer to distort the readings. Car will be driven the same as ever on the same roads at the same times. I can't do much more than that though.
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 25/03/2008 at 12:47
|
Sorry, DP.
1. One tankful isn't enough.
2. You need not to know what is in your tank, otherwise you can influence the test, even subconsciously.
|
The petrol I often buy is Texaco Premium Unleaded 95 RON. From reading the posts a lot of Backroomers wouldn't see it as being premium petrol. Why not? The manufacturers call it Premium.
|
I didn't make that very clear, sorry.
My calculation will be run over three tankfuls which is how I've worked out the average on the standard fuel (31.2 mpg). I'm also guessing it will take a little while for the ECU to adapt to the higher octane fuel.
Volvo say the car will run on anything from 91 octane upwards, but claim that the car will deliver optimum performance and economy on 98RON fuel, so I would expect an improvement. The question I'm most interested in though, is does this improvement, if it exists at all, offset the 6p per litre premium at the pump?
The car is plenty quick enough for me on 95RON, so I'm not fussed about a performance increase, although if I can get that with the same or lower cost per mile using premium fuel, so much the better. The bottom line is cost, however.
I agree that I could subconsciously drive differently, but I can't do much about that. Sending SWMBO to fill up and not tell me what she's put in it would not go down well! :-)
The car's use pattern is about as consistent as it is possible to get. It does the exact same journeys every day at the same time of day. Only the weekend use is variable, but again I can't do much about that. I'm after a "real world" figure anyway.
Cheers
DP
|
Sorry for a late reply - not been able to get time to view the site for a week or so!
I certainly get at least 10mpg more with BP Ultimate / Shell V Power than with regular petrol.
My emmissions are also very much reduced.
Some time ago I e-mailed proof of this to HJ - I would be happy for him to publish the stuff I sent him. [ HJ - if you need another copy please contact me; I still have the e-mail on my system at home ].
|
I certainly get at least 10mpg more with BP Ultimate / Shell V Power than with regular petrol.. ..Some time ago I e-mailed proof of this to HJ..
No disrespect to HJ - bit I would let BP or Shell know directly.. It would do wonders for the share price!
|
Unfortunately the proof I e-mailed HJ relates only to the emmissions, which in one instance were so low that the CO2 couldn't be measured and the HC was almost zero as well, not the mpg.
Having said that, 45 - 50mpg off an 11 year old automatic with no fancy engine electronics that gets used typically once a week is pretty good going isn't it?
|
|
What car is it, Muggy? Engine size?
|
1996 Suzuki Swift 4 door, 993cc.
Tried to find out the official mpg rating for it but got lost on the mass of confusing web data!
[ Will reply further tomorrow - off home now! ]
|
So far (one tankful), premium fuel gives me an extra 1.4 miles per gallon.
Woo-hoo!
Cheers
DP
|
Muggy, just for interest, emissions for my 1.8 Astra at the last MOT. HC 0, CO 0.001. That's pretty much what it's achieved for the last 4 MOTs. They don't measure CO2, by the way.
Wonder fuel that enables this? Supermarket 95 octane at every opportunity 'cos of the price. Used it for the last 15 years, and never had the slightest problem. Yes, Tesco had a recent problem. Damaged far fewer cars than the Shell additive fiasco in the 90's.
Supermarkets - 40% of the petrol market but not owning any refineries. Guess where it comes from? Yes, the refineries that supply all the other petrol stations. Don't assume that the fuel in your local petrol station comes from a refiney with that name on the gate either. The 'majors' share refinery capacity so a lot of branded fuel comes out of refineries owned by rivals. All fuels sold in the UK meet the relevant British Standard, and none are going to give you a huge economy or performance benefit. Their calorific value will be the same. If you want to pay extra for the name, carry on.
JS
|
"Unfortunately the proof I e-mailed HJ relates only to the emmissions, which in one instance were so low that the CO2 couldn't be measured"
You've managed to burn fuel without producing CO2?? Seriously, forget emailing HJ or the fuel companies, get onto the Nobel Prize committee, you'll be up for a Nobel in Chemistry at the very least!
Alternatively there's an error there somewhere of faulty equipment, because that's just not possible.
|
Get someone else to fill the car so you don't know which fuel was being used. This would definitely improve the scientific basis of your test.
alfalfa
|
"...You've managed to burn fuel without producing CO2?? Seriously, forget emailing HJ or the fuel companies, get onto the Nobel Prize committee, you'll be up for a Nobel in Chemistry at the very least!..."
The slow idling test results, 2006 MoT, shows 0.000% for CO2 on the printout.
|
"The slow idling test results, 2006 MoT, shows 0.000% for CO2 on the printout."
Clearly a machine error. If the fuel is being burnt then there will be CO2 produced.
|
|
Or, you mean CO, Carbon Monoxide, in which case a 0% reading indicates that the engine is running well.
|
|
I'll check when I get home tonight.
|
Base fuel stock is indeed widely traded among fuel distributors, including supermarkets. The only exception used to be Shell Optimax and I assume, although cannot confirm, that its successor V-Power is the same -- exclusive base stock and additive package. Additives do differ between companies; some say that some supermarket fuels don't have any, but who knows?
Scientific evidence for real differences between fuels is scarce, to say the least, but some of the anecdotal evidence is persuasive: I heard about the members of a model-boat club being delighted with the cleansing properties of Optimax in their tiny engines.
|
" The contaminated fuel was eventually traced back to four tanks at a Vopak storage facility in West Thurrock, which fuel supplier Harvest Energy said contained "unusually high levels of silicon". "
As to how the silicon got there, has not yet been published afaik."
To respond to this earlier post, AFAIK, the silicon is usually added to DIESEL as an anti-foaming agent. Some idiot put it into the petrol by mistake and so inadvertently killed a lot of lambda sensors. I wonder if the perpetrator had shares in Bosch?
|
|
Would be a trifle unusual to add silicon (a semi-metal) in its elemental form to the fuel. They unintentionally had contamination by a compound of SILICONE which at least is miscible in some forms! I checked my elementary chemistry knowledge here: tinyurl.com/28ttah just in case. Explains how the Oxygen sensors were fouled.
Edited by nortones2 on 03/04/2008 at 14:58
|
10 mpg more, and No CO2 emissions!
I'll buy the company!
Now I might believe one on its own but both? No.. I suspect neither are true by the law of exaggerated claims#.
The Law of Exaggerated Claims states that one exggerated claim may be a genuine mistake but two (or more) are either sloppy work or a deliberate attempt to deceive. In either case, the presence of two or more Exaggerated Claims invalidates the entire argument or case.
|
Apologies, yes, it was zero CO not CO2.
Faulty memory!
But certainly 10mpg extra; when I was using ordinary petrol I was typically getting 35 - 40 mpg compared to 45 - 50 mpg with the premium stuff.
|
|
Muggy, I think you must be the sole beneficiary of such an astonishing improvement in fuel consumption. How do you measure it?
|
But certainly 10mpg extra; when I was using ordinary petrol I was typically getting 35 - 40 mpg compared to 45 - 50 mpg with the premium stuff.
;-)
Looks like Muggy has found the solution to the world's Carbon reduction problems, and cut down demand for oil. Every motorist should be forced to change to this wonderful new fuel that Muggy has found to save the world. I vote that Muggy should be awarded the Nobel chemistry prize.
from 35 to 50 mpg = 42% + gain
from 35 to 45 mpg = 28% + gain
from 40 to 50 mpg = 20% + gain
from 40 to 45 mpg = 12.5% gain
;-)
Edited by jbif on 04/04/2008 at 12:39
|
|
i estimate a 30% gain.(e's avin a giraffe).
|
Honest - no I'm not; these figures are "brim to brim" measurements.
The best I've managed has been 52.5mpg over 185 miles; that was on a single journey in near ideal conditions though.
If one of you could find the official mpg figures for the 1996 Suzuki Swift automatic with the 993cc engine I'd like to see them; I've looked on the web but not been able to find the correct data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
