Tesco Diesel

[mjr600]

I could believe that if it were true.

The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.

Not my words, those of the Saudi Oil Minister, albeit a few years ago before more more reserves were located.

 

[Nathanio]

In the real world i do IT for a humungous fuel research lab. I am surrounded however by real experts, and i do ask questions. In the real world you cant objectively test fuels easily, its done in a lab, using calibrated engines over tens of thousands of miles in effect, THEN LATER ITS GIVEN (THATS RIGHT, FREE FUEL) to loads of joe public who blind (they dont know what they are given) fill up at the lab and are asked to score it against the free fuel last week for up to 3 months.

As its mostly really established science, most of it is about doing it for less cost, or making a blend that works properly with some cra* eastern european chemical byproduct thats available in 10,000 tonne loads. Incidentally our north sea oil is amongst the best light sweet crude, its lower in sulphur than most.

Ultimately im truly objectively told, no-one can really tell the difference between plonk and champagne whilst driving unless its track conditions or the car is very special. BHP at the wheels can vary slightly but less than it does on a hot vs a cool day.

If you do give someone something very marginal and then next wek give them the ultimate, they will notice something, but probably not power, possibly it'll start differently or pull away from the lights differently. Old cars often run smoother on plonk i'm told.

If you want to make it go faster or more smoothly spend the money wisely, buy a better car (BMW Merc Audi and Skoda do nice bigger 6 or 8 cylinder diesels.) I however love the altea FR as it is, i have tried one mapped to 210bhp but i didnt really find it much different in my real world. VAG however would do well to make it as well trimmed, user maintainable or as reliable as Toyota are now making their vehicles (dont you just hate VAGs attempts to stop you servicing them), 175BHP diesel toyota auris or verso anyone ?

Come on bob you still have not explained why I (and many others) see a significant drop in MPG, increases in smoke and decreases in smoothness. Please explain.

Stop sprouting off about you work in a lab with billy bob jones and his team and explain to me why the Shell fuel I put in is a placebo and i'm imagining the extra 100 miles I get from a tank, no smoke and smoother engine....

Ok then take it away from diesel to petrol. My dad owns a 1988 Saab 900 Classic Convertible 2L Light Pressure Turbo. When my mum fills it up at tescos (std 95 ron) it runs bad; it becomes tappety, smokes, hesitant in sections of the rev range and poor economy. Fill with BP 95 and she runs better just down on the economy still slightly and power delivery is not as smooth. Stick in Shell or BPs top end stuff and she purrs like a kitten, pulls like a train and gets around an extra 50-75 and sometimes 100miles to a tanks. This is not 'placebo' or the lab, this is real world. Why does the car behave differently on different tanks of fuel? And why would makes recommend different grades of fuel for different engines if it was just a 'placebo' and its all the same?

I'd love to see hard evidence on your claims please...

 

[mjr600]

I agree with the previous poster, I am no naive fool happy to be tricked by fuel company claims, if I had not noticed a difference I would not report on it.

As I have said previously my last petrol car would only run on 98ron or higher, on lower grade fuel it was hesitant and unpleasant to drive.

I am still puzzled by the need for fuel research in 'humungous fuel research labs', it's not as if they've just discovered the stuff.

Research can't have come that far, you can fill a 60 year old classic at a modern pump with only a little alteration to the car.

Strikes me the people working in the labs are either not very good at what they do or are messing about all day.

 

[bobrob]

Even more...

Try reading my posting rather than getting all emotional about your view of the nasty oil companies.

I said, most research is about making it cheaper, or making it work with some nice big lake of byproduct that has no other useful purpose, which is actually pretty green compared with flushing it into lake bikal (sic.)

Biodiesel and bioethanol are a nice concept, and have a place if you can grow the required crops well and in enough quantity, the pollution is bad news (worse than normal diesel for athsma sufferers till WE figure out a fix) and the adatives are even more complex.

I have more hopes of fuel cells in the more distant future (costs are still all wrong) or hydrogen a little nearer - obtained from nuclear power stations of course....

Did you know that regarding nuclear emmissions, coal powered stations like Didcot chuck out millions of times more radiation than a nuclear power station, coal is radioactive, just a bit, like most of cornwall, but in the polllution quantities a power station produces, its significant.

Also read the info i placed re dynamic mapping, with dynamic mapping an engine uses the fuel it has more or less efficiently, and doesnt act much differently, but might have a higher power THAT YOU CANT FEEL AND ARE PAYING FOR ONE WAY OR THE OTHER without dynamic mapping, your car is bound to run differently on different calorific value fuels, and will be more widely affected by other factors like the environment around it and its current state of tune.

Lastly a question :

If fuels caused so much advantage, why is the only stipulation in F1 racing fuels that they meet a maximum calorific value ? Sure GPs use standard fuels so they dont have to test and they dont allow treatments cause they increase calorific value (and WE usually donate it) but the rules for most racing if there are any usually simply say it has to be a power rating.

 

[mjr600]

I'm watching Steorn closely, they have the potential to turn the whole thing on its head, early signs suggest it is more than just a hoax. We'll know by the end of the year.

 

[Tell]

What were you smoking Bob ?, Tesco finest or Amsterdams caffe societies special ? ....

 

[Nathanio]

Try reading my posting rather than getting all emotional about your view of the nasty oil companies.

I said, most research is about making it cheaper, or making it work with some nice big lake of byproduct that has no other useful purpose, which is actually pretty green compared with flushing it into lake bikal (sic.)

Biodiesel and bioethanol are a nice concept, and have a place if you can grow the required crops well and in enough quantity, the pollution is bad news (worse than normal diesel for athsma sufferers till WE figure out a fix) and the adatives are even more complex.

I have more hopes of fuel cells in the more distant future (costs are still all wrong) or hydrogen a little nearer - obtained from nuclear power stations of course....

Did you know that regarding nuclear emmissions, coal powered stations like Didcot chuck out millions of times more radiation than a nuclear power station, coal is radioactive, just a bit, like most of cornwall, but in the polllution quantities a power station produces, its significant.

Also read the info i placed re dynamic mapping, with dynamic mapping an engine uses the fuel it has more or less efficiently, and doesnt act much differently, but might have a higher power THAT YOU CANT FEEL AND ARE PAYING FOR ONE WAY OR THE OTHER without dynamic mapping, your car is bound to run differently on different calorific value fuels, and will be more widely affected by other factors like the environment around it and its current state of tune.

Lastly a question :

If fuels caused so much advantage, why is the only stipulation in F1 racing fuels that they meet a maximum calorific value ? Sure GPs use standard fuels so they dont have to test and they dont allow treatments cause they increase calorific value (and WE usually donate it) but the rules for most racing if there are any usually simply say it has to be a power rating.

Its amazing I didn't actually say anything about the 'big nasty oil companies'...

Still waiting to hear this hard evidence for this load of old tosh we're going on about. You've not answered the question at all. You have just skirted around the issue

 

[Viking]

1, The calorific value of fuels is controlled and tested by her majesties revenue and customs who just love to test and fail a hydroscopic fuel like diesel (its true, a garage owner could chuck SOME water in with very lttle to spot it apart from testing.)

2, The calorific value determines its power. Thats a fullstop.

Regarding point number 2. Essentially this is correct. However the calorific value isn't the only factor which governs how the fuel burns. While you're never going to get more power out of diesel than its calorific value will provide, the way it burns will determine how that power is released and how efficient the engine is.

Various additives will change the formulation of the diesel to suit different diesel engines based on the injection cycle and pressure (for example) which could explain why different manufacturers engines seem to prefer different fuels. An additive which increases the cetane number of diesel fuel will not give it more power as such, but it will change the way the fuel burns in the engine and will change the power delivery and smoke produced. Higher cetane fuels ignite quicker, giving more time for the fuel to burn which gives more complete combustion. As a result, the driver thinks he's getting more power when in fact he's actually not wasting as much. But the end result is a fuel which gives more power, better mpg, and less smoke, all from a fuel with the same calorific value.

Millers diesel plus (another example) does this, so those of you using supermarket fuel and dosing with Millers will get better mileage, less smoke etc. than those using the same fuel and not dosing with Millers. The Premium brands such as Shell, BP and the like simply add their "Millers" equivalent at the refinery.

 

[loadswine]

Just a little point about Bio diesel, I don't think that Seat like this on the 2.0 TDis. It will void your warranty if you use it as I understand it.
I do find the MPG issue with differing fuels baffling. The science makes sense, but the reports given make it harder to see what's going on.

 

[bobrob]

Bio diesel

Theres a sticker by the fuel inlet saying no bio-diesel on my FR, but the service manual (the official DVD) says you can so long as you use different services, you have to change the fuel filter regularly rather than never, and theres some other change too. Understandable really given its less stable nature, but a bit at odds with the reality of feeding standard mercs with filtered used chip fat and it works well !

 

[Richie D]

I was a bit of a sceptic about this subject when I first started reading it. I've been using Tesco fuel since forever as its close to my house and I collect the points (points mean prizes!), but of late I've used BP Ultimate diesel and Shell and I have to say the car certainly runs smoother, but I wouldn't say there are any noticable power gains.
I'm sure there are valid points to everyones arguments but some of the posts on here are getting a bit bitchy.

IMHO

Rich