Surely if supermarket fuel was as bad as the doom n gloom merchants would have you believe 1) they would not be allowed to sell it, 2) there would be thousands of cases suing for damaged engines. The only reports for fuel damaging engines I've seen was by Shell petrol a few years ago.

I don't think we are talking totally ruined engines or cars here. We are talking about a fuel pump and this and that that might fail... So in the big scheme of things not the end of the world and most people (like me with my Audi) just thought "oh well it is one of those things that need replacing due to age and mileage". It did not fanancially ruin me nor did I think to sue Audi or Tesco. The thought never crossed my mind. It is VERY difficult to prove that it was sustained use of a particular fuel that caused a failure. Audi will blame Tesco and Tesco will blame Audi. And that I suspect is why you never hear about "the thousands of cases of suing for damaged engines".

The world won't cave in the moment you use supermarket fuel! Not in the least. It might cause a repair of a few hundred pounds or more at some point for whomever owns the car at the 70 to 100,000 mark. But at those sort of miles most people will just think it par of the course for a car of that age.

I work for BP. I don't work in refining though so I am no expert but I my understanding is the process is as described by Llanigraham - i.e. same basic fuel (to the relevant standard) plus customer specific additives.

I am interested in many people's preference for Shell over BP though (or Total, Esso, Texaco etc. for that matter). I understand someone buying supermarket over branded on the basis of price but is there any engineering reason to pick one supermajor's fuel over another?

No-one is saying that supermarket fuel is going to break engines. What people are saying is that the likes of shell keep the engine clean and improve MPG.

With a diesel take a look at an EGR valve run on supermarket fuel and one that runs on a 'premium' fuel such as Shell Fuelsave then come back here. Casing point here is both myself and a mate bought a 130PD brand new within a month of each other (mine a bora, his a Polo). For most of their life up until the last year they did pretty much identical journies to Telford and back up and down the motorway. He runs on either Tesco or Sainsburys fuel and has done since day one. Mine has run almost exclusively on Shell. He needed an EGR valve at 85k and you could barely see through it, it was that caked up. This got me worried about mine which is now coming up to 90k and apart from a light dusting of carbon, it is as clean as a whistle.

But as cheezemonkhai pointed out, all fuel sold has to conform to EN590 (local Trading Standards sample and test the stuff that's sold on a regular basis to make sure that it meets the standard). The Yeti owner's manual (p200) speficies the use of EN590 fuel (and actually advises against the use of further additives). So the car is designed to use EN590 fuel. If you put EN590 fuel in the car and the car breaks, the problem is with the car, not the fuel.

I'm not denying that there might be other things in the branded fuels compared to the supermarket fuels. It's even possible that those things might help with certain aspects of the engine's performance. But to suggest as looby did (not you) that the supermarket fuels are missing "very important" additives which can result in damage to the car is actually implying that VAG can't design cars to meet the industry standards for automotive fuel.

Hands up anyone who believes that.

Thought not.

Thanks for actually reading my post.

That's exactly the point I was making, which is if it can't run on EN590 problem free, it's not fit for purpose.

@cheezemonkhai, I think your post was hasty and without sufficient research. I suggest you get your coat and comeback when you have given the subject more thought....

I think you'll find it's not since I went to uni with a number of people who now work in that industry

I've run diesels for all of my driving life (back when the derv pump was on it's own in a corner).

The cars I've run have over the years have had over half a million miles between them and none had fuel related engine issues.

Not injectors or fuel pumps either.

Take the relatives who run dervs into account and you can push that to well over a million miles on the fuel without problems.

Yes removing sulphur from derv did decrease lubricity, but that was because the sulphur is a lubricant itself.

The fuel pumps used to be lubricated by the fuel and when it went so did the lubrication.

Additives to counter this *are* part of the EN-590 standard and have been for ages. That plus modern engine parts are designed to work with the lower lubricity.

Edited 14 September, 201114 yr by cheezemonkhai

I think you'll find it's not since I went to uni with a number of people who now work in that industry

I've run diesels for all of my driving life (back when the derv pump was on it's own in a corner).

The cars I've run have over the years have had over half a million miles between them and none had fuel related engine issues.

Not injectors or fuel pumps either.

Take the relatives who run dervs into account and you can push that to well over a million miles on the fuel without problems.

Yes removing sulphur from derv did decrease lubricity, but that was because the sulphur is a lubricant itself.

The fuel pumps used to be lubricated by the fuel and when it went so did the lubrication.

Additives to counter this *are* part of the EN-590 standard and have been for ages. That plus modern engine parts are designed to work with the lower lubricity.

Shell, BP, Esso etc put extra additives in, there is no getting around this and you can argue it all you like but for the same money i know which fuel i will carry on using.

Shell, BP, Esso etc put extra additives in, there is no getting around this and you can argue it all you like but for the same money i know which fuel i will carry on using.

+1

Shell, BP, Esso etc put extra additives in, there is no getting around this and you can argue it all you like but for the same money i know which fuel i will carry on using.

I'm not trying to start an argument with this, but in the same way that I can't prove this beyond some mates say, I very much doubt you or anyone else can prove it beyond "my mate who worked for company X".

One of these days I'll get bored and actually do a chemical analysis of the fuels and then it'll be very clear just what's in them.

Anyway, obviously you're more than welcome to use shell, I'm not going to stop you, but it's not that personal choice I'm really commenting on, more the "Missing essential additives" type comments here really annoy me.

I do note that you don't seem to disagree with my point that if a car can't run off EN590, it's not fit for purpose, end of story.

This PDF shows everything in a fuel as it's a safety sheet for those who may be exposed to the fuel and these must be around for all fuels:

http://www.murco.co.uk/downloads/msds4.pdf

Looking at it from a pure finances point of view, if you do 24,000 miles a year and average 50mpg (mixed driving) then you're burning 480 gallons of fuel or 2182L.

3p per litre is typical although if you take in 5p vouchers and over the course of a year an average of 5p per litre is probably fair.

5p per litre * 2182 = 10910p or £109.10 over a year of driving.

Now fair enough, I'm not going to say that will make a huge difference to people over a year, but it's a cambelt change every 4 years.

If you're racking up 50k miles a year then it really starts to add up.

Now , as above, using the branded fuels isn't something I have an issue with and I'm not going to debate a persons preferences for brand X over brand Y. What I am going to debate however is the "Super Dervs" and the comments that "Supermarket fuels are missing essentials".

These things are quite frankly obnoxious to me.

You don't get pinking on a derv from pre-ignition and you always run with an excess air, so these are going to make little if any difference to a car and in my experience returned a worse MPG from one brand,

Either way, at another 5p-7p per L over normal branded derv it's starting to really add up.

Assuming the same 50mpg and 24k a year, if you take the 10p to 12p per litre more than the supermarket fuels into account, you're suddenly adding a lot to your fuel bill.

2181 * 10p = 21810p or £218 per year.

So your annual service paid for every year. In VAG service terms it's 2 variable services and a cambelt change over 4 years.

If you add that up over 10 years ownership, it's £2180 saved, which is enough for a lot of repairs.

When you look at it like that, then you do have to ask, what's more important to you, a regular service and cambelt change or the fuel being a little better.

Edited 14 September, 201114 yr by cheezemonkhai

Also from pure finances, if you do 24,000 miles a year and average 50mpg (mixed driving) then you're burning 480 gallons of fuel or 2182L.

3p per litre is typical although if you take in 5p vouchers and over the course of a year an average of 5p per litre is probably fair.

5p per litre * 2182 = 10910p or £109.10 over a year of driving.

Fair points made... but in my case (as stated above) my local Shell station is consistently 1p a litre cheaper than the local Tesco............... so win win for me!

It appears that Tesco Momentum petrol does have additives.....

http://www.tesco.com/Momentum99/productBenefits-overview.asp

It appears that Tesco Momentum petrol does have addatives.....

http://www.tesco.com...ts-overview.asp

Yes, but you generally pay MORE for that than basic Shell et al branded fuel!

Fair points made... but in my case (as stated above) my local Shell station is consistently 1p a litre cheaper than the local Tesco............... so win win for me!

I'd agree if it's cheaper then it's a no brainer.

It appears that Tesco Momentum petrol does have additives.....

http://www.tesco.com/Momentum99/productBenefits-overview.asp

Yes, but you generally pay MORE for that than basic Shell et al branded fuel!

The momentum 99 is in the same bracket as the super unleaded, in that you know if you need it and if not normal fuel is what your car has been set up for.

This is rather like a mens tennis match at The French Open. The ball is being battered from end to end with no conclusion in site. This rally could last for days.

This is rather like a mens tennis match at The French Open. The ball is being battered from end to end with no conclusion in site. This rally could last for days.

Indeed - which probably hints at the conclusion, ie folk believe what they want to (rather like the placebo effect in medicine, perhaps?).

Yes, but you generally pay MORE for that than basic Shell et al branded fuel!

+1 and the EGR valves tell it all to me.

To get back to the original question, last time I filled up I put Shell fuel save unleaded in my Roomster and the OBC recorded 45MPG over the length of a 90 mile journey which is about the best I have ever seen from this car. Coincidence, or?

Nice try at getting back on topic. A one off 90 mile trip is too short a journey to make a judgement on fuel. Too many other factors could be in play there.

Of course diesel which meets EN590 will successfully run your Yeti or any current diesel engine. I don't doubt that if it failed to do so it would not be fit for purpose.

Older type diesels will run on strained chip fat.

My Yeti is a valuable thing-22k+ is no small amount of cash.

I have read cheezemonkhai's emphatic posts but do not feel compelled to agree with him just because he so passionately believes he is right.

In life I find that the most emphatic advocate does not always present the most convincing case.

As a proportion of the costs of owning and running my car the likely savings he calculates are tiny.

In the absence of clear evidence I cannot be sure whether or not premium fuel gives me any advantage.

So I regard it -as so many of life's decisions-as a matter of risk assessment.

The anecdotal evidence of people who have a million miles under their belt-some of them no doubt before high pressure common rail systems is a bit like the man who assures you his great uncle smoked 100 capstan a day and never came to any harm.

It is true but does not give a good basis for deciding whether or not to smoke.

For my mileage about £150 a year will allow me to exclusively use Shell. I will buy at Tesco when vouchers give 16p a litre off but I will not scrabble around to save less than the price of a pint a week when there is any risk that it may leave my expensive car performing less well or breaking down.

There is virtue in thrift I gather-but not when it becomes an obsession.

Of course diesel which meets EN590 will successfully run your Yeti or any current diesel engine. I don't doubt that if it failed to do so it would not be fit for purpose.

Older type diesels will run on strained chip fat.

My Yeti is a valuable thing-22k+ is no small amount of cash.

I have read cheezemonkhai's emphatic posts but do not feel compelled to agree with him just because he so passionately believes he is right.

In life I find that the most emphatic advocate does not always present the most convincing case.

As a proportion of the costs of owning and running my car the likely savings he calculates are tiny.

In the absence of clear evidence I cannot be sure whether or not premium fuel gives me any advantage.

So I regard it -as so many of life's decisions-as a matter of risk assessment.

The anecdotal evidence of people who have a million miles under their belt-some of them no doubt before high pressure common rail systems is a bit like the man who assures you his great uncle smoked 100 capstan a day and never came to any harm.

It is true but does not give a good basis for deciding whether or not to smoke.

For my mileage about £150 a year will allow me to exclusively use Shell. I will buy at Tesco when vouchers give 16p a litre off but I will not scrabble around to save less than the price of a pint a week when there is any risk that it may leave my expensive car performing less well or breaking down.

There is virtue in thrift I gather-but not when it becomes an obsession.

+1

+1

+2

+1 = +3

See my postings earlier that debunk what Mr Cheese says!

The anecdotal evidence of people who have a million miles under their belt-some of them no doubt before high pressure common rail systems is a bit like the man who assures you his great uncle smoked 100 capstan a day and never came to any harm.

Capstan? What century are we in?

Capstan? What century are we in?

One with many advances and some disadvantages-have you tried to find untipped Gauloise lately?

Mais oui monsieur. Très difficile.

.

Vpower.