Supermarkets vie to cut fuel prices

takman

bigjl wrote: »

What variables are there?

A vehicle should actively Regen when Soot reaches a set level.

In my case Regens went from once or at most twice weekly to every day, sometimes twice a day.

In my case there is no driving style to it, nose to tail congestion most of the time.

And only one driver in my case, me.

Weekly mileage in my case was between 1000/1200 usually, occasionally as high as 1500.

I am not taking about putting in £20 or £30 of diesel a week I am talking about £160/200 of diesel a week.

When you spend 10/12 hours a day I the same vehicle you can spot differences in vehicles behaviour, fuel range and regularity of DPF Regens.

Feel free to join Addison Lee for 6 months and try it out for yourself though.

I am not overly bothered if my experience affects you To be fair, you are entitled to your opinion.

Feel free to buy Supermarket diesel all you like, it's a free Country.

Or are you going to suggest that additives in fuel, specifically Diesel in this case, are irrelevant?

Head to Africa and have a look at the soot being pumped out of the local diesel vehicles.

Better yet head to Nigeria and fill your common rail diesel with the black market stuff. That has no additives so should suit you perfectly.

Now that you are providing a bit more of a backstory then your conclusion that supermarket fuel causes more soot is sounding more plausible.

My main point was that someone simply saying that you get less regens on branded fuel is very vague and because it's not what you would expect due to the small differences in fuel then it would take more evidence to convince me!.

Fuel from other countries is a bit of a red herring in this discussion because they will have a different base fuel standard that may not be as good as the British standard, so a big difference is possible!.

But one thing I should point out is that I don't use supermarket fuel!. I use bulk Diesel with no brand name and no more than the bare minimum additives simply because it is cheap.

takman

bigjl wrote: »

Just because you are unable to tell the difference in how your vehicle performs and spot differences in Regen patterns (if you could even spot a Regen when it happen) doesn't mean other people can't.

You likely have other skills that other people don't.

I always fill up at the same place and use the same fuel and my car doesn't have a DFP so I don't have anything happening to notice!.

But I did have my car on a dyno a few weeks ago and using this basic fuel it still achieved the BHP it came out the factory with even though it's now at 193,000 miles. So I know what I'm using isn't negatively affecting the car.

Robisere

There really is no point in trying to convince those that believe their own POV, no matter what anyone else says.

Yes, I carried out complete tests of (10x) Supermarket and (10x) Shell V-Power tank fillups, alternating between tankfulls. I am an ex-workshop foreman and a qualified Motor Engineer. I took notes of distance, conditions, types of road, times, speeds and fuel used. The result was a clear winner for V-power in terms of engine running, distance covered and acceleration. Because of my professional history, I had driven and maintained many types of vehicles and many engine types. I know the difference between an engine running even slightly 'rough' and the same engine running 'smoother'. I know how an engine should run under load, such as climbing a steep hill with "four-up" and climbing the same hill with only the driver. In short, I did it properly.

Anyone is perfectly entitled to disbelieve that, I just do not give rats'.
This is my last post on this subject, thank you all.

takman

Robisere wrote: »

There really is no point in trying to convince those that believe their own POV, no matter what anyone else says.

Yes, I carried out complete tests of (10x) Supermarket and (10x) Shell V-Power tank fillups, alternating between tankfulls. I am an ex-workshop foreman and a qualified Motor Engineer. I took notes of distance, conditions, types of road, times, speeds and fuel used. The result was a clear winner for V-power in terms of engine running, distance covered and acceleration. Because of my professional history, I had driven and maintained many types of vehicles and many engine types. I know the difference between an engine running even slightly 'rough' and the same engine running 'smoother'. I know how an engine should run under load, such as climbing a steep hill with "four-up" and climbing the same hill with only the driver. In short, I did it properly.

Anyone is perfectly entitled to disbelieve that, I just do not give rats'.
This is my last post on this subject, thank you all.

It's not a case of disbelieving other posters, if someone makes a subjective statement without providing any evidence then it's logical to question what data they have to prove that!.

It sounds like you have taken the time to carry out a scientific test and record all the possible variables!. So obviously you understand the importance of having to collect data before deciding which is best. So you must be able to appreciate that someone who hasn't done this may simply think it's better due to the physiological effect of the branding, price and advertising.

One interesting point to mention is that Shell themselves only say their Diesel will give up to 3% better fuel consumption than other sources. For a car that is doing 50MPG that is only 1.5MPG more. Considering that a change in the weather can give a bigger change in MPG it would be very difficult for anyone in the real world to prove that their MPG increases by using this fuel. Plus when they claim that it actually gives them more than 1.5MPG increase then it is even more doubtful.

Rubidium

Robisere wrote: »

There really is no point in trying to convince those that believe their own POV, no matter what anyone else says.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Anyone is perfectly entitled to disbelieve that, I just do not give rats'.
This is my last post on this subject, thank you all.

You are correct stating that nothing that you post will change my opinion, especially after you recently posted the following rubbish.

This company supplies the best of modern electric storage heaters, I have a friend who uses them and works all day:
http://www.fischerfutureheat.com/

Anyone gullible enough to believe this companies claims has zero credibility on MSE and really should be ignored.

Joe_Horner

DragonQ wrote: »

Yes, many people feel/think/notice/whatever their cars are better when using more expensive fuel. And many people think homeopathy works. Both facts are irrelevant to what happens in reality.

Many people think the long established, posh (for Holyhead) jewellers in town will do a better job on repairing their watch than my new little shop in a mall. They pay between 2 and three times as much in there and I do the job anyway as their trade repairer.

A couple of times I've even had people come in for an estimate, go away to think about it, then have the same watch in for the same job through the jewellers. And I KNOW she triples what I charge her and then adds VAT.

But some people will always be convinced that you always "get what you pay for" and, to an extent, it's true. Only, what you're paying for is very often little (or even nothing) more than a name and an advertising budget.

personally I've stopped trying to help such people and just see them as an indirect subsidy on my moneysaving. BP, Shell et al will get their money somewhere and, if people stopped paying those extra few pence per litre then they'd just charge the supermarkets more for the bulk.

DragonQ

Robisere wrote: »

There really is no point in trying to convince those that believe their own POV, no matter what anyone else says.

Yes, I carried out complete tests of (10x) Supermarket and (10x) Shell V-Power tank fillups, alternating between tankfulls. I am an ex-workshop foreman and a qualified Motor Engineer. I took notes of distance, conditions, types of road, times, speeds and fuel used. The result was a clear winner for V-power in terms of engine running, distance covered and acceleration. Because of my professional history, I had driven and maintained many types of vehicles and many engine types. I know the difference between an engine running even slightly 'rough' and the same engine running 'smoother'. I know how an engine should run under load, such as climbing a steep hill with "four-up" and climbing the same hill with only the driver. In short, I did it properly.

Anyone is perfectly entitled to disbelieve that, I just do not give rats'.
This is my last post on this subject, thank you all.

This has nothing to do with the discussion whatsoever. You are comparing premium 98-99 RON fuel, which intentionally has a higher price, to standard 95 RON unleaded. I have no doubt that higher octane fuels could improve engine efficiency and other things. The discussion is about whether supermarkets' 95 RON fuel is worse than other vendors' equivalents.

Crabman

On the topic of the original story... the local unleaded prices per litre are as follows:

Tesco: 108.9p
Sainsbury's: 109.9p
Asda: 105.7p

As ever drivers are still flocking to buy fuel from Tesco & Sainsbury's...

Rolandtheroadie

Crabman wrote: »

On the topic of the original story... the local unleaded prices per litre are as follows:

Tesco: 108.9p
Sainsbury's: 109.9p
Asda: 105.7p

As ever drivers are still flocking to buy fuel from Tesco & Sainsbury's...

Local to here.


Morrisons 105.7
Asda 105.7
Sainsburies 105.9
Tesco 106.9

DragonQ

Crabman wrote: »

On the topic of the original story... the local unleaded prices per litre are as follows:

Tesco: 108.9p
Sainsbury's: 109.9p
Asda: 105.7p

As ever drivers are still flocking to buy fuel from Tesco & Sainsbury's...

All I have near me is an Esso, Shell, and BP, all within about 200 m. All are 109.9 for both petrol and diesel right now.