|
Obviously this post is about a different fuel type, etc etc. Last year I did an experiment to see if premium diesel would make any measurable difference in my Volvo V60 D3.
Shell is my nearest forecourt, and for 10 successive fill-ups I'd used the ordinary FuelSave stuff, averaging 45.12mpg over the 10 tanks (i.e. about 6,000 miles). I then used 10 tanks of nothing but V-Power, and averaged 46.29mpg over around 6,000 miles)
So I got around a 3% improvement in economy, for an extra 6% cost at the pump. There was no discernible difference in performance.
I concluded for my particular car / driving style etc, the premium stuff wasn't worth it, although it did make a (small) measurable difference.
|
|
I drobe for 12 months on shell regular unleaded about 10000 miles and got a average of 40 mpg out of a 1.6 suzuki sx4. Then I decided to try out v power iv done 10000 miles on vpower and iv averaged 42.8 mpg on regular shell I get 400 miles per tank im getting just under 30 miles extra on using v power. Over mixd driving of mostly town and a few a roads and motor ways. But im sure some one will just say im charring b****ks.
|
|
|
Obviously this post is about a different fuel type, etc etc. Last year I did an experiment to see if premium diesel would make any measurable difference in my Volvo V60 D3.
Shell is my nearest forecourt, and for 10 successive fill-ups I'd used the ordinary FuelSave stuff, averaging 45.12mpg over the 10 tanks (i.e. about 6,000 miles). I then used 10 tanks of nothing but V-Power, and averaged 46.29mpg over around 6,000 miles)
So I got around a 3% improvement in economy, for an extra 6% cost at the pump. There was no discernible difference in performance.
I concluded for my particular car / driving style etc, the premium stuff wasn't worth it, although it did make a (small) measurable difference.
Just for the record what times of the year did your experiment take place.
Reason I ask is we have found that the combination of winter diesel and cold weather can make a very noticable difference to fuel economy. Until recently the wifes Kia Ceed SW 1.6 CRD 115 bhp got pretty much the same use all year round, normally about 65% commute (38 miles a day) and 35% town use. I have chosen Jan/Feb 2012 and June/July 2012 since no holiday trips were undertaken to skew the figures and by this time the car had enough miles on it to be fully bedded in.
Jan/Feb 2012 50.47 mpg
June/July 2012 52.57 mpg
The mileage for each period was withing 100 miles. Tecso and Asda standard diesel used in pretty much equal amounts.
So the percentage improvement simply beacuse of the season was just over 4% which is more than the 3% difference between the fuels.
|
Just for the record what times of the year did your experiment take place.
That's a fair point -- the 12K miles involved in this experiment is about my total annual mileage. The 6,000-odd miles with normal Shell was done in July - December inclusive, and the 6,000-odd on V-Power was roughly January to June inclusive.
It's probably a long enough period of time on each to even out the temperature, as neither year was particularly warm or sunny :)
|
|
|
|
Obviously this post is about a different fuel type, etc etc. Last year I did an experiment to see if premium diesel would make any measurable difference in my Volvo V60 D3.
Shell is my nearest forecourt, and for 10 successive fill-ups I'd used the ordinary FuelSave stuff, averaging 45.12mpg over the 10 tanks (i.e. about 6,000 miles). I then used 10 tanks of nothing but V-Power, and averaged 46.29mpg over around 6,000 miles)
So I got around a 3% improvement in economy, for an extra 6% cost at the pump. There was no discernible difference in performance.
I concluded for my particular car / driving style etc, the premium stuff wasn't worth it, although it did make a (small) measurable difference.
The figures you quote do not equate to a 3% improvement not by a long way.
|
The figures you quote do not equate to a 3% improvement not by a long way.
I said "around a 3% improvement" for the sake of not being pedantic. The actual improvement was 2.6%, so I think it's fair enough to round up to the nearest whole number.
|
The figures you quote do not equate to a 3% improvement not by a long way.
I said "around a 3% improvement" for the sake of not being pedantic. The actual improvement was 2.6%, so I think it's fair enough to round up to the nearest whole number.
.4% is a large figure when you are discussing such small figures if I bought something and the retailer rounded it up by such a figure I am sure and most people would refuse to pay.Any of your figures are not to believed if you round up or down to suit yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously this post is about a different fuel type, etc etc. Last year I did an experiment to see if premium diesel would make any measurable difference in my Volvo V60 D3.
Shell is my nearest forecourt, and for 10 successive fill-ups I'd used the ordinary FuelSave stuff, averaging 45.12mpg over the 10 tanks (i.e. about 6,000 miles). I then used 10 tanks of nothing but V-Power, and averaged 46.29mpg over around 6,000 miles)
So I got around a 3% improvement in economy, for an extra 6% cost at the pump. There was no discernible difference in performance.
I concluded for my particular car / driving style etc, the premium stuff wasn't worth it, although it did make a (small) measurable difference.
Similar story here, with our 2.2 Toyota RAV.
The V-Power Diesel (Or Uber-Nitro-Hardcore-Xtreme or whatever it's called now) has improved the mpg very modestly, maybe a 3-4% shift, but not really enough to be noteworthy and can easily be discounted with so many variables at play. Plus I don't always fill it up, and the other half puts in whatever she can find.
However, I am aware the engine runs noticably smoother with reduced 'rattle' despite the missus denying any change. It is certainly smoother at lower revs. I know this is subjective by the way.
Normal Fuelsave goes in the Note, I think that needs more than a change of fuel to fix the rattles it has....
|
|
Something I have noticed and what seems to be touched upon in this thread is that supermarket fuel is not quite the saving people think it is.
I have noticed that whenever I fill up with a supermarket brand I get about 3mpg less than with brand name fuels.Working out the figures roughly it costs me more to use it as I lose 30miles per tank but only save about £1.40 per tank full.
|
Something I have noticed and what seems to be touched upon in this thread is that supermarket fuel is not quite the saving people think it is.
I have noticed that whenever I fill up with a supermarket brand I get about 3mpg less than with brand name fuels.Working out the figures roughly it costs me more to use it as I lose 30miles per tank but only save about £1.40 per tank full.
More simple than that, other than the '5p off a litre' deals etc, the Shell garage (and BP up the road) are typically the same price as the supermarkets anyway. I filled up for 1.34 this morning at Shell.....
|
|
|
Something I have noticed and what seems to be touched upon in this thread is that supermarket fuel is not quite the saving people think it is.
I have noticed that whenever I fill up with a supermarket brand I get about 3mpg less than with brand name fuels.Working out the figures roughly it costs me more to use it as I lose 30miles per tank but only save about £1.40 per tank full.
It may well depend on the vehicle etc. Having done the 10x tanks experiment with V-Power, I've used supermarket fuel occasionally (especially when I get a 10p off voucher) and noticed no difference ...
|
It may well depend on the vehicle etc. Having done the 10x tanks experiment with V-Power, I've used supermarket fuel occasionally (especially when I get a 10p off voucher) and noticed no difference ...
I agree, and I still take advantage of the voucher(s) if we have one, but otherwise I try and put the 'good' stuff in the diesel.
Plus I'm trying to do all I can to keep the engine running after my recent bother, so if a bit of voodoo in the tank convinces em it's running fine then it's money well spent!
|
|
|
|
Like many people I have tried different fuels and additives, and remain to be convinced.
The trials we do are so subjective that they must be close on meaningless. Filling up 10 tanks for some may mean a 10 week period, for me it would be an 8 month period, this spans 2 to 3 seasons. Air temperature is seldom mentioned, yet may be a major factor influencing economy, a drop in air temperature will increase drag and hence the power required to maintain a speed. Simple factors such as wind speed, direction and humidity will also have a bearing.
It would be interesting to see what tests and control measure the fuel companies use to support their claims.
|
It would be interesting to see what tests and control measure the fuel companies use to support their claims.
Many years ago Shell ran ads in which two cars were driven round a test track together until they ran out. One had petrol with and one without a 'mileage ingredient' in the petrol.
The car with the 'mileage ingredient' went some distance further (surprise!)
I believe, however, that the 'mileage ingredient' was included in all brands sold at the time anyway!
My nearest filling stations are Shell and Jet, usually both same price, not a much more than supermarkets which involve the drag through town centre traffic, so not worth the trip.
|
Many years ago Shell ran ads in which two cars were driven round a test track together until they ran out. One had petrol with and one without a 'mileage ingredient' in the petrol.
The ASA upheld a complaint against Shell for advertising a 2% improvement in fuel economy due to the addition of friction modifiers (PEA) to their petrol (not diesel). The ASA argued (unreasonably in my opinion) that the evidence Shell provided was insufficient to warrant the claim.
I note that no petrol retailer advertises improved fuel consumption as a benefit of their fuels. I think the absence of such claims is rather revealing...
|
I note that no petrol retailer advertises improved fuel consumption as a benefit of their fuels. I think the absence of such claims is rather revealing...
Really?
BP
www.bp.com/retail/ultimatearticlesection.do?catego...y**=9036615&contentId=7067738
"Our hard-working, BP Ultimate fuels help your engine to run at its most efficient, so as little precious energy as possible is wasted – helping you get more miles from your tank."
Tesco
www.tescopfs.com/momentum99/
"Tesco Momentum99’s cleaning additives clear carbon build-up in the fuelling system and prevent debris forming. It is also designed to give you more miles per gallon. An average of 6.2% more across a range of eight everyday car’s."
Esso
www.exxonmobil.co.uk/UK-English/about_what_refinin...x
"Energy Unleaded (95 octane): our regular petrol grade designed to help improve your fuel economy"
|
Really?
Really.
"Our hard-working, BP Ultimate fuels help your engine to run at its most efficient, so as little precious energy as possible is wasted – helping you get more miles from your tank."
Vacuous aspiration devoid of quantatitive falsifiable claims.
Tesco Momentum99’s cleaning additives clear carbon build-up in the fuelling system and prevent debris forming. It is also designed to give you more miles per gallon. An average of 6.2% more across a range of eight everyday car’s."
Car's what? Misplaced possessive apostrophe tells it all. If you actually read the report you'll see that the 6.2% refers to the Golf 1.6FSI tested on the US06 FTP test cycle. This is the very best result-not the average. The Golf (and all the other vehicles) exhibited tiny (less than 2%) gains in many of the other test protocols carried out for this report. Tesco (or their agents) were careful to choose an (unmamed) competitor fuel whose density was lower than tesco's. You don't think they sent out a minion to buy a gallon of petrol from every competitor and pick the least dense one for comparison do you? Perish the ignoble thought!
Energy Unleaded (95 octane): our regular petrol grade designed to help improve your fuel economy"
As opposed to fuels specially formulated to decrease fuel economy?? As for BP, this is unquantifiable nonsense.
It's easy to realise gains when you set the benchmark very low.
Edited by unthrottled on 18/09/2013 at 02:15
|
|
It's easier to improve fuel consumption by driving better...
But that requires thought and attention to detail. Based on my observations,both of these traits are sadly lacking in some motorists..On my Jazz it's worth 10% less fuel..based on practical results of analysing the same routes driven in different styles.
The weather, traffic and the route also play a major part.
|
|
Unthrottled's remark about fuel density set me thinking - liquid fuels are generally sold by volume but burnt by mass (for the purposes of calculating sfc), whilst underground storage is a fairly constant temperature if you fuel after the station has just taken delivery of fuel at ambient temperature you might get short changed, now the difference in diesel density between 6C (average ground temp) and 20C (Summer day) is around 1% which throws another spanner in the calculation.
What we need is a dyno cell with mass and flow measurement of fuel.
|
|
The ground temperature (at the depth of the storage tank) is fairly constant all year round.
But the density of the fuel can be in the range of 720-775. Moreover, refines are permitted to add alcohols to the blended petrol-which have a lower energy density...
|
|
FCOL man, you said the petrol companies do not claim fuel economy improvements - my quotes are claims of exactly that from several fuel companies, they may be worded in such a way that lawyers can weasel their way out of law suits after quoting acres of smallprint, but that is not what you said. They do make claims of fuel economy improvements – even if they are not worth the paper they're printed on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
