sumplug said:

All the different companies fill their tankers from the same refinery. In the North where i live, its in Cheshire and you can see Shell, Elf, tesco, Morrison, Total, Esso. Bp etc etc tankers all waiting to fill up!! So if supermarket petrol is contaminated, so are the others!!

Click to expand...

very true, but you're not supposed to leak that type of info. tut tut

levemir said:

I did hear a few years ago when supermarkets started selling petrol, that the fuel they were selling was 'stale' petrol that had been in tanks for a long time, have no idea if theres any truth in that, probably just another rumour.

Click to expand...

i remember reading a report at the time that said supermarket fuel was cheaper because they did not have additives such as detergents so their costs were lower. however shortly after that came out they began sticking the additives in.

jug said:

i remember reading a report at the time that said supermarket fuel was cheaper because they did not have additives such as detergents so their costs were lower. however shortly after that came out they began sticking the additives in.

Click to expand...

• Not once has a manufacturer like Shell advertised their standard fuel* as better than standard supermarket fuel.

If it was, they would have done.

• British Standards cover fuel standard, storage standard and pumping.

These must be kept to.

• This has impacted companies other than Tesco/Morrisons.
• Plenty of examples worldwide where branded fuel has had bad batches.

It's terribly unfortunate but could have happened to any fuel retailer, the cause isn't yet known and people are just being presumptious right now.




*ignoring diesel extra from Shell.

if you see tankers going into a refinery, how you know they are all getting the same product from the storage tank?

dave said:

if you see tankers going into a refinery, how you know they are all getting the same product from the storage tank?

Click to expand...

Because i know someone who drives one of the tankers, and he told me the fuel is all the same and from the same tanks. BTW, he works for BP. Next time i see him at my local BP station, i will ask him the inside info on the fuel problem.
The fuel comes under the BS standard and Weights and Measures are checking forecourts all the time.
The refinery cannot have different blends for different companies. Storage would be a problem, and cost to blend it all would be expensive, so unleaded is all the same. Super unleaded is a different matter.

Andy.

I would like to say, that dodgy petrol is not new. About 3-4 years ago, there was a mass panic over bad fuel. It turned out to be water in the storage tanks at forecourts. There had been 2 weeks of heavy rain turning to floods, and some tanks got contaminated. No doubt with cars currently being tested, the truth may yet emerge.

Andy.

dave said:

if you see tankers going into a refinery, how you know they are all getting the same product from the storage tank?

Click to expand...

Dave, it would cost a massive amount of money to be able to supply different products to different tankers, let alone the blending process changes. It's costly enough to have summer and winter blends but it's common across the market so it's an acceptable cost.

The Negotiator said:

Not once has a manufacturer like Shell advertised their standard fuel as better than standard supermarket fuel.
If it was, they would have done.

Click to expand...

since its the same fuel they cant say its better. Shell do advertise the fact that they have additives such as detergents (even says so at the pump), and supermarkets did not, and could not, until they started using additives. i dont know why Shell didnt also have a sticker at the time saying supermarkets do not use additives, i guess by the time they found out the supermarkets had already started using additives. it wasnt long after supermarket fuel came out that they started using the additives.

I don't know about that argument; it's also irrelevant since none of us are using fuel from that era. This fuel problem could (and has) impacted any brand, not just supermarkets.

I personally think it's an urban myth

The Negotiator said:

I personally think it's an urban myth

Click to expand...

i think the urban myth that supermarket fuel is inferior comes from the additives issue. obviously its the same fuel, and always has been, but so many people still avoid supermarket fuel because the press publicised this additives issue so much when the supermarkets started selling fuel. people cant remember why they think supermarket fuel is inferior, and the facts prove it isnt, but it takes a long time to repair the damage done by the media.

if you've any doubts, just google it, you'll find enough evidence to keep you reading for a few weeks.

Fact is that this episode won't help at all, yet millions of drivers use supermarket fuel for years and never have an issue.

The Negotiator said:

Fact is that this episode won't help at all, yet millions of drivers use supermarket fuel for years and never have an issue.

Click to expand...

Agree..

Ohh no wait i've broke me suspension.... lets blame Tesco! What do you mean i've not serviced my car, i put fuel in it dont I?

Thankfully havent done anything of the sort, but for reasons in previous post there seems to be some bias about supermarkets, not from you guys but from the gen pop. The reason they can sell there fuel cheaper is because they're not relying on forecourt sales like BP, shell etc, the reason the have a fuel station is to draw customers into the store where they make money off them.

My firend beleives that Tesco fuel broke his subaru, ermm no. And tells me i get worse mpg than i would if i used super etc from BP or shell. Well i'm in the process of running that little experiment at the mo, so we'll see.

mountainmachine said:

My firend beleives that Tesco fuel broke his subaru, ermm no. And tells me i get worse mpg than i would if i used super etc from BP or shell.

Click to expand...

yeah i hear that crap from people all the time. many people are so convinced by urban myths that they happily ignore the facts. even when the facts are proven, published, and readily available. i dont mind, if people want to be daft let them get on with it. i'm not the one wasting my money so its no problem for me.

Hi Guys,

Just been browsing the web and found this page which talks in detail about octane ratings are effects.

V Interesting.

http://kapitalmoto.co.uk/node/24

Mycos...

mine still runs sweeter on Shell V Fuel (99 Octane)

in that link-
according to the US Federal Trade Commission, "Studies indicate that altogether, drivers may be spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year for higher octane gas than they need. using a higher octane gasoline than your owner's manual recommends offers ABSOLUTELY NO BENEFIT. It won't make your vehicle perform better, go faster, get better mileage or run cleaner."

all things we have known for a long time and are common sense, even if many people still live in denial.
yet you still claim that "mine still runs sweeter on Shell V Fuel (99 Octane)" even thought that is not possible unless you have a car designed specifically for the 99RON fuel.
what will it take to make you see sense. you're wasting the extra money you spend on petrol. the only gain you get from it is in the placebo effect in your mind.

Different issue in the US though, very different fuel, If a car is mapped for 95 and you give it higher, don't be surprised to find nothing.

The Negotiator said:

Different issue in the US though, very different fuel, If a car is mapped for 95 and you give it higher, don't be surprised to find nothing.

Click to expand...

in the uk our cars are mapped for 97RON, so surely if there were gains to be had from running 99RON they would be twice as big in the US, but yet again we see no gains at all.

US Fuel is sold with a MON rating, not RON. So comparing 93 unleaded from their pumps to our 95 unleaded is pointless.

Modern cars have knock sensors, and can adapt their mapping to suit higher octane fuel. They run to the point of knock, and then back off the timing. So putting higher octane fuel in will have a benefit on modern cars even if they were origonally mapped for lower octane fuel.

Also, i don't know why this (paul.. any technical reason why?) running a higher octane fuel makes the engine run slightly cooler. This was noticed on Vivs car, and also on a guys car at work.

arc said:

Modern cars have knock sensors, and can adapt their mapping to suit higher octane fuel. They run to the point of knock, and then back off the timing. So putting higher octane fuel in will have a benefit on modern cars even if they were origonally mapped for lower octane fuel.

Click to expand...

if you can explain how i'd love to know, as would the world's motor industry, since all tests so far have proven that there is no gain at all on cars designed to run on standard unleaded. any gain in the short term is lost within minutes as the ecu adapts to the higher octane, it is not the other way round.

i just explained how.. the ECU uses knock sensor to figure out where optimal spark timing is, and so the ECU adjusts and fires the plugs at that time. I'm sure the worlds motor industry aren't too keen on being represented with such big sweeping statements.

exact spark timing will allow for more efficent burning, better fuel usage and more power.