Supermarket fuel v the rest

IanMSpencer

AdrianC wrote: »

So it's been defunct for half of your life, almost all of your motoring life - and that's ignoring the decade beforehand that it was on the way out. 5* was phased out two-thirds of your life ago...

Next up: Decimal money is SOOOOO hard!
(5* was phased out 7 years after decimalisation - how long ago does 2010 seem?)

Sorry, the point is to say that for many years there was a simple system that conveyed the technical requirements of the different fuels in a simple way - the man in the street didn't understand knocking or ignition retardation yet would know what they were supposed to put in their car. The fact that it was 5, 10 or 50 years ago is not relevant - there was a system that was clear and worked well for many years and we have not got a similar system today where people can quickly understand the relative merits of different qualities of products. I don't understand why you'd have an issue with that.

That clear designation of fuel products is not the case today - in part because of marketing and in part because of the adaptability of modern car engines and the more common usage of diesel. Yet we live in a world where supposedly there is far better regulation of information to consumers.

Here, one of the issues is that where manufacturers have tried to leverage the concept of octane differences of petrol and suggest that there can be similar differences in performance in diesel. That can be done in part because consumers are ignorant of the basics of fuel performance, more so than in the 60s and 70s where most people had a rudimentary understanding of engines actually needing different fuel qualities.

Surely the MSE philosophy is that people should be as fully informed as possible and therefore be able to make clear judgements on the costs and benefits of products. The fact that this sort of thread rarely comes to any unanimity is probably a pretty good indication that something is broken.

IanMSpencer

motorguy wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^

This. Exactly.

You do realise that you are vigorously agreeing with the point I was making which you objected to me making?
:rotfl:

AdrianC

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Sorry, the point is to say that for many years there was a simple system that conveyed the technical requirements of the different fuels in a simple way - the man in the street didn't understand knocking or ignition retardation yet would know what they were supposed to put in their car. The fact that it was 5, 10 or 50 years ago is not relevant - there was a system that was clear and worked well for many years and we have not got a similar system today where people can quickly understand the relative merits of different qualities of products.

Back in the day, different cars DID use different grades of petrol. Use too low a grade, they would pink and ultimately hole pistons.

Now, they don't. They all use the same. There is a very, very small subset of higher-performance cars that can take advantage of higher octane, but are perfectly happy with the default grade if you do not need the full performance.

Everything on top of that is simple marketing - there is zero technical basis.

As far as "premium" diesel products go, let's not forget that the detergents don't even directly reach the parts that are prone to clogging. The fuel is injected straight into the combustion chamber and burnt at very high pressure. Believing that a very small amount of brand-specific detergent additives will make a big difference to the combustion byproducts, while the fuel remains compliant with very tight technical standards, seems akin to homeopathy to me. Vehicles are developed to run on fuel meeting those technical standards. Where a manufacturer recommends a particular oil company's products, it's a purely marketing recommendation. EGR and DPF clogging is primarily down to usage patterns and driving styles.

motorguy

IanMSpencer wrote: »

You do realise that you are vigorously agreeing with the point I was making which you objected to me making?
:rotfl:

Whats the rotfl for?

I objected to it being brought up (and your lack of a clear definition and essentially confusing the issue for everyone) however i'm quite happy for Adrian to give a clear definition of the differences for those people you confused.

IanMSpencer

AdrianC wrote: »

Back in the day, different cars DID use different grades of petrol. Use too low a grade, they would pink and ultimately hole pistons.

Now, they don't. They all use the same. There is a very, very small subset of higher-performance cars that can take advantage of higher octane, but are perfectly happy with the default grade if you do not need the full performance.

Everything on top of that is simple marketing - there is zero technical basis.

As far as "premium" diesel products go, let's not forget that the detergents don't even directly reach the parts that are prone to clogging. The fuel is injected straight into the combustion chamber and burnt at very high pressure. Believing that a very small amount of brand-specific detergent additives will make a big difference to the combustion byproducts, while the fuel remains compliant with very tight technical standards, seems akin to homeopathy to me. Vehicles are developed to run on fuel meeting those technical standards. Where a manufacturer recommends a particular oil company's products, it's a purely marketing recommendation. EGR and DPF clogging is primarily down to usage patterns and driving styles.

Exactly. Yet we have ended up allowing companies to use marketing smoke and mirrors to suggest that there are a multiplicity of different products that have significantly different properties. Worse than that, even with the tight standards and the fact that we know that supermarket fuel comes from the same bucket as the branded fuel, plenty of people believe that there must be a SIGNIFICANT difference to justify the extra cost. (I'm off to do a sum on the lifetime cost of premium diesel).

... I'm back. Based on 100k at 50mpg, a conservative 10p/litre difference in premium diesel is £900 (it's more like 13p). Compare basic diesel from a supermarket with premium diesel from a brand, and you can be looking at 20p/litre so that is £1800.

That's not small.

AdrianC

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Exactly. Yet we have ended up allowing companies to use marketing smoke and mirrors to suggest that there are a multiplicity of different products that have significantly different properties.

You want legislation to restrict consumer choice...? Just this one product, or all?

Supermarkets must drive you utterly loopy...

IanMSpencer

motorguy wrote: »

Whats the rotfl for?

I objected to it being brought up (and your lack of a clear definition and essentially confusing the issue for everyone) however i'm quite happy for Adrian to give a clear definition of the differences for those people you confused.

Simply because you've done how many posts saying essentially "don't discuss the confusion". I am quite happy that Adrian has put it more succinctly than me. That is the point of a discussion, to explore ideas and gain better understanding.

IanMSpencer

AdrianC wrote: »

You want legislation to restrict consumer choice...? Just this one product, or all?

Supermarkets must drive you utterly loopy...

You're being awkward again

I'm suggesting that consumer choice is only a real choice when it is informed and the average consumer cannot make an informed choice - your previous post gave a pretty good informed view of why you are not convinced of the claims. Clearly, if premium diesel marketing depends on people coming to an erroneous view of the value for money of a premium product to make a decision to purchase then that is not reasonable.

If I make the analogy of of an mp3 player, I can buy a cheap one that sounds dreadful, I can buy a value for money one that sounds ok, I can buy a premium one that sounds amazing (but is also dreadfully over-priced). In that case I can make an informed choice, I can decide on what value I place on the result. I can also decide how much to pay for the same product from similar suppliers, or even knock-off products on eBay. Ultimately, I can judge for myself whether I spent wisely.

It strikes me that they are trying to make the image of the same thing happening with diesel, but in fact it is all one product underneath and I can never really know whether what I've paid a premium for is worth it aside from that vague warm feeling that either I've saved £1000s or my car has lasted as long as it has because I have chosen wisely despite those naysayers on MSE.

As you clearly pointed out, there is no performance relationship between premium and ordinary diesel unlike the relationship between super and premium petrol yet to me the marketing almost entirely depends on that confusion to be successful.

I'd also guess (because many company car drivers are banned from buying premium fuels on expenses) that the majority of premium diesel buyers are private owners driving nearly new cars who intend to change their car after 3 years - and where is the resale premium for that "investment"?

PS my other child of the 50s heritage is fair advertising, having had a diet of Valerie Singleton, Consumer Unit, That's Life and so on, and the principle of fair contracts, clear advertising is very important to me - many people fought hard to give today's generation the environment where we can depend on what we are told - I've got a win at ASA against a company being published on the 20th on the basis that someone tried to use an asterisk to T&Cs to justify a misleading claim. This is an area where it simply feels wrong that people are being misled into spending more than they have to and I don't subscribe to the "more fool them" mentality which pops up on MSE from some quarters (not necessarily on this thread, to be clear).

motorguy

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Simply because you've done how many posts saying essentially "don't discuss the confusion". I am quite happy that Adrian has put it more succinctly than me. That is the point of a discussion, to explore ideas and gain better understanding.

No, i've said "dont add to the confusion."

However, as you'd persisted, Adrians post gave a good summary for the people you'd confused.

IanMSpencer

motorguy wrote: »

No, i've said "dont add to the confusion."

However, as you'd persisted, Adrians post gave a good summary for the people you'd confused.

And I've tried to make it clear that if you ignore the confusion then people can't make sense of the debate. You think I've added to the confusion - I suggest by trying to ignore the confusion you add to the confusion. Rinse and repeat.

In simple terms you have:

A & B petrol where B is different and B can produce a distinct difference in performance.

You have C diesel.

There are also:
A+ and B+ petrol

and C+ diesel.

The benefits of the + are unclear, but the + element is real and charged for, does not create a significant difference in performance, might produce some effects in engine condition.

The brands are happy that some people believe that C+ is in some way D+ diesel and the fact that A and B exist and people are not clear what the difference between A+ and B leads to the opportunity for marketeers to allow the seed of fantasy D+ to remain in people's minds.

We can add to the pot that in a modern car A and B can be used interchangeably, but not all users will get the same benefit.

Note that in no place in this simplification do I really need to add in the word "supermarket".