Supermarket fuel inferior quality says Telegraph. Really?

[Refined Detail]

The comment about the idling in the OP clip doesn't make sense to me, as every Honda I've worked on has a high idle from cold (I look after an FN2 Civic Type-R regularly in particular that idles at ~1500rpm when cold!)

However, I am a believer that certain cars run better on certain fuels.

My van has an inherent & persistent injector / fuel system issue which Ford have failed to fix on numerous occasions. The van is much more hesitant, returns lower MPG and runs generally worse on any diesel other than BP, Esso or Shell.

My M3 runs poorly on anything other than V-Power, I used to run it on Momentum, but noticed it used to return slightly lower MPG on this and felt a little less smooth through the revs.

My Forester I ran on V Power and Momentum for the first few tanks under my ownership to help clear the fuelling system, I didn't notice the difference between the 2 on this, but having now started to run it on normal 95 RON it actually returns better MPG!

[Scuffers]

Refined Detail said:

My Forester I ran on V Power and Momentum for the first few tanks under my ownership to help clear the fuelling system, I didn't notice the difference between the 2 on this, but having now started to run it on normal 95 RON it actually returns better MPG!

in theory, higher octane fuel has a lower calorific value - the more additives, the less fuel (by volume).

[kambites]

I suppose logically, having a higher octane rating than is required to avoid precombustion in your particular engine is a negative thing because you're actually getting less fuel for your money.

What actual volume of octane is required to up the RON from 95 to 99? I'm guessing it's quite small?

[Ozzie Osmond]

madbadger said:

We put some supermarket and branded fuel through our mass spectrometer to have a look.

100.0% the same.

The same as what??

IMO to say all petrol is "the same" makes no more sense than saying all water is the same.

[ManOpener]

Scuffers said:

in theory, higher octane fuel has a lower calorific value - the more additives, the less fuel (by volume).

The heating value of 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane (iso-octane) in MJ per KG is 44.310 if Wikipedia is to be believed. The heating value for "gasoline" is supposed to be about 42.4MJ per KG. So rather than additional iso-octane lowering the potential calorific value of fuel, wouldn't it increase it?

Of course, that's not the only octane-boosting additive they use in fuel, but I imagine that many of them also have higher (or similarly high) heating values to whatever selection of hydrocarbons make up most of the fuel.

Edited by ManOpener on Tuesday 23 December 16:24

[ryandoc]

All base fuel is identical, before additives. Most third part bog standard fuels get the exact same additive.

Then there's the super fuels. Im not 100% certain what BP use but Shell are the only company to use a gas to liquid product. Essentially C1H4 Methane gas converted to a synthetic liquid fuel. Google Shell Pearl GTL. Sure all others are adding ethanol.

Shell haven't owned a refinery in this country for about 3-4 years. Somebody else makes the base fuel and adds shell's additive for them

[mp3manager]

Mr MXT said:

Raman Kandola said:

Mates mum is a manager at a bp petrol station, she says the tanker that comes there is the exact same tanker that goes to sainsburys but i have no idea about additives just thought id mention it

Thats not true.

It might be.

Pesty said:

thought BP had their own branded tankers?

They do but you'll never see a BP-liveried vehicle delivering to a Shell or Texaco forecourt.

However, you will see a plain tanker delivering to all of the above forecourts and remember tankers have compartments, so can carry different fuels and make deliveries to different brands in the one trip.

[KTF]

How we would laugh if all the fuel that was supplied to all the fuel retailers was exactly the same bar the branding. The 'extra shot' of stuff added to the tanker just being a small amount of whats already in it to make it look like they are adding some magic formula...

[Devil2575]

hufggfg said:

Devil2575 said:

Cupid stunt.

I hate to burst your bubble but there is plenty of established science to explain why wearing a coat makes you feel warmer.

But then I wouldn't expect a simpleton like yourself to understand stuff like that.

Just to be a pedant... In lots of fields of science, there are lots of areas of established scientific theory to explain why you would expect something to be a particular way, but when you actually test it, it turns out to be different, often because of some other factor which hadn't been fully considered.

Of course, with putting on coats the evidence does show it works (and the anecdotal evidence of trying it yourself does give you the correct result), but there are examples where the result is surprising. One example is with bicycle helmets. Physics, and specific testing tells us that wearing bicycle helmets reduces injuries in a crash, thus maybe it would make sense that it is a legal requirement. However, in the best quality analysis that has been done, having that legal requirement actually has little impact on societal health. There are a multitude of possible reasons that I won't go into here, but ultimately, with many (particularly complicated) things, until you actually test the specific thing you want to know, you can't say for certain what the result will be... (obviously)

I'm familiar with the cycle helmet debate being a cyclist. I get what you're saying. While science may tell us one thing will happen there may be other factors that result in a different outcome.

[Pan Pan]

There have been some problems with supermarket fuel, but generally their very high through put, can mean that s Supermarket fuel is fresher than some of the smaller filling stations, with relatively few customers, and fuel that has been in the underground tanks for a long time.

[Devil2575]

KTF said:

How we would laugh if all the fuel that was supplied to all the fuel retailers was exactly the same bar the branding. The 'extra shot' of stuff added to the tanker just being a small amount of whats already in it to make it look like they are adding some magic formula...

Snake oil...

[madbadger]

Ozzie Osmond said:

The same as what??

IMO to say all petrol is "the same" makes no more sense than saying all water is the same.

I was referring to the same a and b results I posted above, based on my memory of some scans I saw.

They are chemically the same and if you gave me one of them in a blind test we couldn't conclusively say which one it is.

That doesn't mean I am saying all fuels are exactly the same. Also there is clearly a difference in higher octane fuels but the op was asking if there is a difference in supermarket and branded regular.

[Devil2575]

ManOpener said:

Scuffers said:

in theory, higher octane fuel has a lower calorific value - the more additives, the less fuel (by volume).

The heating value of 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane (iso-octane) in MJ per KG is 44.310 if Wikipedia is to be believed. The heating value for "gasoline" is supposed to be about 42.4MJ per KG. So rather than additional iso-octane lowering the potential calorific value of fuel, wouldn't it increase it?

Of course, that's not the only octane-boosting additive they use in fuel, but I imagine that many of them also have higher (or similarly high) heating values to whatever selection of hydrocarbons make up most of the fuel.

Edited by ManOpener on Tuesday 23 December 16:24

Octane number can be increased using additives or by changing the blend of hydrocarbons in the petrol. I doubt either method has a significant effect on the calorific value.

[996TT02]

Something to think about.

Where I am at the moment there is no choice of fuel. Not even anything better than the norm, no "Super" or anything like that. No brands or anything of the sort, just the state-agency imported stuff. It's just "petrol", and wherever you go it's exactly the same stuff.

Till the next consignment, which may be different. Or not. But there definitely is nothing special about the petrol here, it's certainly bought on price alone.

No one seems to be complaining about their car's odd behaviour being in any way fuel related.

Sure some performance car owners may add octane booster in order to make the most of their engines potential, but another thing is, they don't even know what the starting (fuel as bought) octane value is anyway.

It's the same with diesel, but this time it's different, when low sulphur diesel started being introduced, many older diesels started leaking fuel like crazy, costing a lot of wonga to sort out.

But petrol, never heard any complaints, despite no-one knowing what they are buying, today, yesterday, or tomorrow. I have run around 30 different cars to date over 25 yrs+ and never had any (petrol) fuel-quality related issues, whatsoever.

[S0 What]

996TT02 said:

Something to think about.

Where I am at the moment there is no choice of fuel. Not even anything better than the norm, no "Super" or anything like that. No brands or anything of the sort, just the state-agency imported stuff. It's just "petrol", and wherever you go it's exactly the same stuff.

Till the next consignment, which may be different. Or not. But there definitely is nothing special about the petrol here, it's certainly bought on price alone.

No one seems to be complaining about their car's odd behaviour being in any way fuel related.

Sure some performance car owners may add octane booster in order to make the most of their engines potential, but another thing is, they don't even know what the starting (fuel as bought) octane value is anyway.

It's the same with diesel, but this time it's different, when low sulphur diesel started being introduced, many older diesels started leaking fuel like crazy, costing a lot of wonga to sort out.

But petrol, never heard any complaints, despite no-one knowing what they are buying, today, yesterday, or tomorrow. I have run around 30 different cars to date over 25 yrs+ and never had any (petrol) fuel-quality related issues, whatsoever.

Never had a problem either and i only use tesco or morrisons fuel, not used a branded fuel staion for about 5 years appart from a local shell station that's a tesco.

[hman]

basically I look at it this way, 95 ron is the same wherever, V power is the best and anything else is in between.

Diesel on the other hand - it has made no difference to my cars running different brand diesel fuel.

So the bike and lawn mower gets v-power (mainly to get it to run cool and for the fuel to have the best chance of being "good" after long periods of non-use), the runabout gets any 95 ron and the 4x4 gets any diesel available.

[Eski1991]

Pretty sure it all comes from the same place, however the Saab used to dislike Tesco's fuel, kicked up the EML if I did two tank fulls but never noticed a change in performance, V-Power never caused any lights or problems so stuck with that.

[R2T2]

KTF said:

Assuming your car is the Punto in your profile then why are you not running it on 95?

I am. But it as it's heavily turbocharged it does seem to run a little smoother on SU.

[mike9009]

Devil2575 said:

KTF said:

How we would laugh if all the fuel that was supplied to all the fuel retailers was exactly the same bar the branding. The 'extra shot' of stuff added to the tanker just being a small amount of whats already in it to make it look like they are adding some magic formula...

Snake oil...

The cynic in me agrees with this. There seems to be a lack of industry experts defending the different brands and how different they are in terms of performance rather than branding (unless I have missed someone inside the industry commenting on this post??). So the great fuel 'secret' is perpetuated by various motoring forums and Honest John. Hence these discussions are on a never-ending loop.....

<continues filling up with Tescos finest >


Mike

[Grayedout]

mike9009 said:

The cynic in me agrees with this. There seems to be a lack of industry experts defending the different brands and how different they are in terms of performance rather than branding (unless I have missed someone inside the industry commenting on this post??). So the great fuel 'secret' is perpetuated by various motoring forums and Honest John. Hence these discussions are on a never-ending loop.....

<continues filling up with Tescos finest >


Mike

Fuels ARE different !

The link below give you the details of one of the industry standard tests that is used to classify fuels in Europe:

http://www.cectests.org/disptestdoc1.asp

All companies use these tests to classify fuels but each will set different limits that they require their fuels to meet.

For example the M102E is a cleanliness test and dependent on the amount of additive used and the type of additive then the differences can be over 400%!

Before you ask then I am not in a position to state which companies set which limits as I do not have those details but I do know we are running these types of tests 24/7 to support the fuel industry.