Supermarket fuel inferior quality says Telegraph. Really?
Discussion
Grayedout said:
Fuels ARE different !
Quite so. Anyone who thinks all fuels are the same cannot have understood the mass chromatograms that madbadger posted on page 5 of this thread. The mass spectrometer does not lie. If you want to continue to argue that all fuels are the same, you have to suppose that someone has gone to the trouble of faking those chromatograms or that they were done in a completely incompetent way. I would regard that as extremely unlikely.For those who evidently missed madbadger's point, the chromatograms show that a sample of Shell 95 was very different from three other fuel samples. Those three were from Morrisons, Asda, and BP, and they were all the same. This is no surprise, as BP is said to supply some of the fuel that Morrisons and Asda buy. However, those two supermarkets are also said to obtain fuel at other times from Greenify, which supplies Tesco, so one can't rely on getting BP cheap by going to Morrisons or Asda.
To take one example, old Nissan Micras often go to the scrapyard because of gummed-up throttle bodies that would cost £500 to replace, so making repair uneconomic. That could be avoided by using a petrol with more cleaning agents. If you want to take your chances with supermarket fuel, good luck; you may well get away with it indefinitely. But don't complain if it comes back to bite you in the wallet.
mostly tosh!
show me picture of a gummed up engine from the last 10 years?
Look, as has been said, there are only so many refineries, all fuel comes from them, the only differences are (1) batch differences in processing and (2) what additive packages are added.
It may well be that Shell use a more comprehensive additive package, and with 97/98/99 pretty much all of them will, but for bog 95, unless somebody starts to sell base fuel (no additives) it makes bugger all odds.
I bet if you took fuel samples from all over the country and compared them, even the same 'brands' would be slightly different, but within one area, most would be the same (as the Mass spec plots show)
show me picture of a gummed up engine from the last 10 years?
Look, as has been said, there are only so many refineries, all fuel comes from them, the only differences are (1) batch differences in processing and (2) what additive packages are added.
It may well be that Shell use a more comprehensive additive package, and with 97/98/99 pretty much all of them will, but for bog 95, unless somebody starts to sell base fuel (no additives) it makes bugger all odds.
I bet if you took fuel samples from all over the country and compared them, even the same 'brands' would be slightly different, but within one area, most would be the same (as the Mass spec plots show)
Surely the proof that some fuels are better than others is provided by people who do custom remaps. If you mapped a turbocharged performance car on 95, it couldn't safely stand to run anything like the amount of timing and ignition they can on 99. The detonation would kill it, and quickly.
Prof Prolapse said:
It is inferior quality in the sense that Shell and various companies spend a great deal of time refining additives. It categorically is not all the same (close friend worked in this area).
Whether or not it makes a difference is the only question.
but the difference is not in the basic fuel - which for ordinary 95 ron u/l and diesel comes from one or two sites depending on location, not brand being sold ... but in the additives used.Whether or not it makes a difference is the only question.
Scuffers said:
show me picture of a gummed up engine from the last 10 years?
I didn't say engine, I said throttle body. Go down to the scrapyard and see for yourself.Scuffers said:
Look, as has been said, there are only so many refineries, all fuel comes from them, the only differences are (1) batch differences in processing and (2) what additive packages are added.
Yes, of course. That is taken for granted in what I said and it confirms what I said, doesn't contradict it. But you don't seem to like reading carefully. In Scotland there is only one refinery for the whole country (barring a few areas near the border where the supply is from England). The additive packages are what make the difference.Scuffers said:
It may well be that Shell use a more comprehensive additive package, and with 97/98/99 pretty much all of them will,
Again you make my point for me.Scuffers said:
but for bog 95, unless somebody starts to sell base fuel (no additives) it makes bugger all odds.
Wrong.Scuffers said:
I bet if you took fuel samples from all over the country and compared them, even the same 'brands' would be slightly different,
Maybe true, but quite irrelevant to this discussion.Scuffers said:
but within one area, most would be the same (as the Mass spec plots show)
You just aren't paying attention. They show nothing of the kind, as I explained.Grayedout said:
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 !<continues filling up with Tescos finest
>Mike
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.
But I have not seen any conclusive data from any source to say one fuel brand is better than another (unless you are comparing different RON) To say one brand is better than another is folly. Motoring journalists seem to test one sample of each in a similar car. I would be fairly certain the difference between refineries, batch to batch variation would be fairly significant.
The CEC may reliably set standards for fuels, engine wear, oils etc. but again I do not see any published data that brand X is better for your engine than brand Y. I suspect some of the variations mentioned before make it very difficult to make conclusions.... (PS I have no experience in this - but I have never seen a decent amount of data collated and sold to us punters - surely if the additives added to Shell V Power were far superior (and tested as such) Shell would be all over this like a rash, extolling its virtues.... unfortunately without data the advertising standards get involved. Hence why I think this is all cloak and dagger. The differences are miniscule and cannot be discerned)
Therefore I will keep buying Tesco until one individual tells me Shell V Power really 'feels' better than Morrisons and makes the engine wear 2 microns less over 250,000 miles. Really?
Mike
trashbat said:
Scuffers said:
mostly tosh!
show me picture of a gummed up engine from the last 10 years?
Define 'gummed up'. show me picture of a gummed up engine from the last 10 years?
Caveat: fuel additives will have minimal effect here
it's direct injection by the looks of it, so how did the intake valves get gummed up with petrol?
Scuffers said:
trashbat said:
Scuffers said:
mostly tosh!
show me picture of a gummed up engine from the last 10 years?
Define 'gummed up'. show me picture of a gummed up engine from the last 10 years?
Caveat: fuel additives will have minimal effect here
it's direct injection by the looks of it, so how did the intake valves get gummed up with petrol?
^ is my guess
B'stard Child said:
All the rest of the emmisions guff feeding into inlet tracts where they aren't able to be washed clean by fuel injected into the ports just upstream of the valves.
^ is my guess
Yup - certainly doesn't help. Oil vapour (crankcase breather) and I think exhaust gas gets recirculated. Although we reckon that only contributes about 25% and combustion byproducts the rest.^ is my guess
The injectors themselves do get clogged up (gummed?), whether by the same byproducts or by the properties of fuel (varnish etc) I don't know, but I can't show you a photo of that as there's nothing to see. You'd have to look at spray patterns and flow rates etc. You get injector cleaner which is essentially a concentrated set of fuel additives, and for all I know it does work, but it's very limited anecdotal experience so far.
trashbat said:
efine 'gummed up'.
Caveat: fuel additives will have minimal effect here
That is an EGR issue or an oil breathing issue, not a fuel related one IMHOCaveat: fuel additives will have minimal effect here
I've got more than a few cars through emmisions checks at the MOT with a cleaner additive (forte is my choice but others work), it's funny that back in the day i never had cases of blocked inkectors, i honestly beleive the new fuels on sale cause most of the problems the new (more expensive) fuels claim to cure, back in the day all you ever cleaned from a carb was dirt never a heavy varnish layer like i see nowdays.
As for gummed up throttle body ect, ni-on every time it's a breather ussue NOT a fuel issue, most cars that suffer have a stupidly placed breather into the inlet and it's a heavey breathing engine that needs a seperator/condensor before the gasses are added into the inlet and the very reason they gum up is due to no fuel flowing there to clean the crud off, exactly the same as that blocked inlet pic, it's the lack of fuel that causes the problem NOT the fuel itself
Edited by S0 What on Wednesday 24th December 18:25
It is a few years since I worked in the petrochemical industry but I suspect the following still holds true. Fuel at the refinery it well above British Standard, this is because if it needs to be transported significant distances the quality is degraded. This was particularly true of pipeline distribution where product was still in spec at the end of the pipe. Obviously the consequence of this is if you live near a refinery you should be able to purchase fuel above BS. Additives are not affected as they are injected at the loading rack. This could explain some variation between suppliers.
IIRC there is no specific requirement under EN**** for detergency. Therefore, in the absence of regulation, unless the brand states the fuel will clean up, or at least minimise fouling, the brand have not adopted a rigorous approach to engine deposits. Silence speaks louder than words.
Well I used to put in the occassional tank of Shell VPN+ into my 306 GTI-6 and I can't say I saw much of a difference so the 'good stuff' was a rarity.
However, now I have it's replacement, a Seat Leon Cupra 1.8T (180) I have noticed a significant and worthwhile improvement in MPG and running over the normal stuff. I only ever buy Shell so can't comment on Tesco/BP/Esso premium fuels though. I regularly get 30-40 miles further on a tank of VPN+ compared to 95 RON Shell Fuelsave. The car also seems to run better, revs more freely and 'feels' faster. To me that makes it worth it.
However, now I have it's replacement, a Seat Leon Cupra 1.8T (180) I have noticed a significant and worthwhile improvement in MPG and running over the normal stuff. I only ever buy Shell so can't comment on Tesco/BP/Esso premium fuels though. I regularly get 30-40 miles further on a tank of VPN+ compared to 95 RON Shell Fuelsave. The car also seems to run better, revs more freely and 'feels' faster. To me that makes it worth it.
Diesel specialist told me my injectors had lasted 100,000 miles more than they should because I ran the car on BP.
A quiet word recently from a bloke who changes pump filters at petrol stations suggested that a certain supermarket's filters have been clogged with crap of late and he advised not to buy their fuel.
A quiet word recently from a bloke who changes pump filters at petrol stations suggested that a certain supermarket's filters have been clogged with crap of late and he advised not to buy their fuel.
B'stard Child said:
Scuffers said:
trashbat said:
Scuffers said:
mostly tosh!
show me picture of a gummed up engine from the last 10 years?
Define 'gummed up'. show me picture of a gummed up engine from the last 10 years?
Caveat: fuel additives will have minimal effect here
it's direct injection by the looks of it, so how did the intake valves get gummed up with petrol?
^ is my guess
The image was taken from an Audi website relating to excessive oil usage on 2L TFSI engines.
Nothing at all to do with fuel.
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/audi-2l-tfsi...
mybrainhurts said:
Diesel specialist told me my injectors had lasted 100,000 miles more than they should because I ran the car on BP.
A quiet word recently from a bloke who changes pump filters at petrol stations suggested that a certain supermarket's filters have been clogged with crap of late and he advised not to buy their fuel.
Surely that just means the filters are doing their job?A quiet word recently from a bloke who changes pump filters at petrol stations suggested that a certain supermarket's filters have been clogged with crap of late and he advised not to buy their fuel.
daemon said:
NO.
The image was taken from an Audi website relating to excessive oil usage on 2L TFSI engines.
Nothing at all to do with fuel.
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/audi-2l-tfsi...
Great work, detective.The image was taken from an Audi website relating to excessive oil usage on 2L TFSI engines.
Nothing at all to do with fuel.
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/audi-2l-tfsi...
Except I posted that. And it's not an Audi website, nor is the picture of one.
Edited by trashbat on Wednesday 24th December 20:37
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff