52 minutes ago, cheezemonkhai said:

 

All fuels require biofuel in them, so I don’t know where you got that bit from.

 

Oh excuse me, for my complete lack of any technical knowledge about the composition of petrol or diesel. Allow me to correct myself. 

 

Also having for example less bio-ethanol in your unleaded and/or diesel. 

17 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

 

E10 sounds great, allowing 2% reduction in CO2 without motorists lifting a finger. I do hope they bring this in sooner.

 

 

E10 can wreck some engines, check before you squirt.

1 hour ago, TDIum said:

 

Oh excuse me, for my complete lack of any technical knowledge about the composition of petrol or diesel. Allow me to correct myself. 

 

Also having for example less bio-ethanol in your unleaded and/or diesel. 

 

There is a legal minimum content for the bio component for fuels. It was fairly well publicised. 
 

The big brands don’t have their own refineries that only supply their stations. The fuels are not magic, that’s even more true for diesel. EN509 is fine and more problems come from poor oil and filter (air/oil/fuel) changes, heavy idling etc than poor fuel, as that standard is pretty high.

 

Be angry if you like, but if you’re going to post something as fact, maybe do your research before posting. That or don’t get angry if someone says otherwise.

 

55 minutes ago, RobGy said:

E10 can wreck some engines, check before you squirt.

I remember being warned not to put any bio in the car, but I too wouldn’t want to be the one to test the warranty on that.  E10 is not relevant for diesels though.

 

 

The whole supermarket fuel thing has been going for years and we don’t have piles of dead supermarket fuel cars. (Bar that one oops mentioned above)

 

Like rust in years gone by, electrical problems, emissions control and the high cost of parts will write a car off before the fuel quality causes issues.

 

if you say it’s 5p per litre more on average (more than that here) then after 10 tanks (approx 5000 miles) the difference has paid for an air filter and oil filter. By 20 tanks you’ve paid for the oil to do the oil change every 10 rather 20k.

 

i know what I would rather have on a car I was buying. What about you?

 

- oil and filters every 10k/year on supermarket fuels.

- oil every 18.5k/2 years, air filter every 40-60k and branded fuels.

 

I must have put 4-500k miles on supermarket fuel and not one of the cars went due to fuel system or emissions systems problems.

 

on the other hand lack of oil and filter changes will damage a car much more quickly.

 

if we take 100k miles, that’s approx £500 of extra fuel costs, which is more than enough to have the DPF removed and cleaned properly off the vehicle. That’s going to prevent expensive dpf replacement a lot more that some magic fuel.

 

basically, I just don’t see how paying more for fuel adds up.

 

 

 

Edited 9 October, 20196 yr by cheezemonkhai

15 minutes ago, cheezemonkhai said:

 

Be angry if you like, but if you’re going to post something as fact, maybe do your research before posting. That or don’t get angry if someone says otherwise.

 

 

You chose to be pedantic about a minor point in my posting that was really about something else. Fair enough, I'm not going to hang around arguing with you. 

 

@RobGy

Loads of E10 threads and worth staying factual.  There are some engines, and then there are modern engines.

 

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/472443-e10-petrol

 

Edited 9 October, 20196 yr by Roottootemoot

Whilst putting E5 unleaded at the local BP garage in the wife's 1.5TSi Karoq yesterday (now showing 19,917 miles and serviced at 18,700 miles for FREE by Skoda) couldn't help but notice the price difference between her fuel at £1.279 per litre and BP Ultimate (rip-off) diesel at £1.479 per litre. Based upon the 50 litre tank in most (not 4 x 4 versions) Karoq's and Octavia's that an extra £10 per fill.

20 minutes ago, TDIum said:

 

You chose to be pedantic about a minor point in my posting that was really about something else. Fair enough, I'm not going to hang around arguing with you. 

 

not pedantic, factual. 
magic fuel is not free from bio fuel, or in fact generally lower for most fuel.

 

people looking at the discussion may in fact be swayed by the above had it been true.

Edited 9 October, 20196 yr by cheezemonkhai

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

Nice!

Maybe, but probably not really: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/29/biofuels-are-not-the-green-alternative-to-fossil-fuels-they-are-sold-as

@shyVRS245

Some need to think on that and realise that a tenner can buy an extra Gallon & half that might give them 90-100 miles fuel to drive.

 

OT, 

When it is Super Unleaded from Sainsburys, or Tesco that might be £2.25 a tank extra over their 95 ron, so less than the price of 2 litres extra.

You might or might not get a few MPG more, or just notice more efficiency from the engine.

Cheap enough to try what ever you do, other than when it is 'Special Fuels' from BP / Royal Dutch Shell / ESSO / Gulf etc.

Indeed George based on her current actual 45mpg average then the extra 8 litres of unleaded compared to the BP Ultimate diesel would be enough to drive another 80 miles. So 58 litres (or 50 litres of diesel) would take her 575 miles.

Too risky now.

Talking petrol against diesel in the same cars.

 

I was meaning Diesel in Diesels, and petrol in petrols.

 

We will soon be at the time of year that people start taliking Veg / Bio in Diesels and some Petrol or Kerosene added.

 

PS

Long time since anyone admitted to using cherry or green if across the water.

Edited 9 October, 20196 yr by Roottootemoot

12 minutes ago, Wino said:

Maybe, but probably not really: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/29/biofuels-are-not-the-green-alternative-to-fossil-fuels-they-are-sold-as

:(

 

If only there's some sort of energy that can be generated by multiple zero emission methods (nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, etc)...... imagine if cars use that form of energy, which doesn't generate harmful emissions in school children's face.

 

 

If only people see sense and doesn't demand unreasonable amount of range on their cars that they may utilise once a blue moon.......

Crikey, EVangelism your middle name by any chance?

 

If the bases of turbines did not require steel and concrete and the turbines themselves, and other such stuff for Solar or Tidal, 

but yes EV's can be green.

Batteries, Chargers, minerals , particles from brakes, tyres etc. 

15 minutes ago, Wino said:

Crikey, EVangelism your middle name by any chance?

 

Good name for the next Tesla. Welcome to the all new, child friendly TESLA EVANGELISM. Guarantees an instant access pass to the best parts of Heaven.

1 hour ago, Roottootemoot said:

If the bases of turbines did not require steel and concrete and the turbines themselves, and other such stuff for Solar or Tidal, 

but yes EV's can be green.

Batteries, Chargers, minerals , particles from brakes, tyres etc. 

Except for brakes, all very valid points.

 

The brake dust research writers has obviously never actually touched an EV and don't understand regenerative braking.

According to Porsche, 90 percent of all braking events are covered entirely (except for the last few inches, perhaps) through recuperation.

And it says that while the pads in the Taycan may last “hundreds of thousands of kilometers” before they’re worn

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124889_why-2020-porsche-taycan-electric-car-wont-have-one-pedal-driving

Can do, should do and would do, Porsche could produce green diesels but decided to cheat and lie.   We are not all dim, there are brake pads and they do need replacing. I have driven ev, s and been in with others and believe me people still use the brakes. 

Edited 9 October, 20196 yr by Roottootemoot

99.9% or more will never drive a Taycan or ever sit in one.  Lots drive ev, s in the area around the Tay River though. Even more are in tin cans with fossil fuel engines.   More plastic cars are needed, produced from oil. 

Edited 9 October, 20196 yr by Roottootemoot

2 hours ago, wyx087 said:

there's some sort of energy that can be generated by multiple zero emission methods (nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, etc).

Shame there's nothing actually like it in the real world, where most electricity is not generated by zero emissions fairy dust at time of generation, and even less  of what is actually makes it to Scalextric cars when you allow for other applications.

It rarely takes me more than 30 seconds reading an article to see a howler:

 

 

Roughly three-quarters of the world’s vegetated land is already being used to meet people’s need for food and forest products, and that demand is expected to rise by 70% or more by 2050.

 

How will that work then, will they knock my house down to plant crops?

 

Any increase in demand for a finite resource will result in a price correction reducing the demand, I know that road fuel has a relatively inelastic demand curve but when the price of flights to Spain or deliveries of tat from China increase significantly demand drops.

18 hours ago, J.R. said:

It rarely takes me more than 30 seconds reading an article to see a howler:

 

 

Roughly three-quarters of the world’s vegetated land is already being used to meet people’s need for food and forest products, and that demand is expected to rise by 70% or more by 2050.

 

How will that work then, will they knock my house down to plant crops?

 

Any increase in demand for a finite resource will result in a price correction reducing the demand, I know that road fuel has a relatively inelastic demand curve but when the price of flights to Spain or deliveries of tat from China increase significantly demand drops.

 

Wow it's been fun reading the off topic wanderings this morning!  JR, if you ask me, if the predictions about population growth and demand are all true, then something has to give, something big, a drastic reduction in the human population of earth is ultimately inevitable, but let's not get bogged down by such things.  I got 69.9mpg on my commute home yesterday!

As a comparateur the fuel computer is fine but if you compare what it says to regular verified brim to brim calculations I bet you will find its very optimistic, it can be corrected via VCDS, both my vehicles showed MPG readings that were 12% optimistic.

 

As mine will be sold soon here in France I undid my correction in VCDS and pushed it 12% in the other direction so now the maxidot is showing a wildly optimistic reading of 4.1l/100 km overall = 69mpg, - buyer beware!

9 minutes ago, J.R. said:

As a comparateur the fuel computer is fine but if you compare what it says to regular verified brim to brim calculations I bet you will find its very optimistic, it can be corrected via VCDS, both my vehicles showed MPG readings that were 12% optimistic.

 

As mine will be sold soon here in France I undid my correction in VCDS and pushed it 12% in the other direction so now the maxidot is showing a wildly optimistic reading of 4.1l/100 km overall = 69mpg, - buyer beware!

 

Part of this test is also to test the obc too.  Too soon to tell at the moment having only done one brim to brim, using different fuel station too which has an impact I would imagine, and it was about 2mpg off.  This was also only looking at urban / semi urban driving, no long motorway runs.

One of the biggest variables I have to contend with is the strange phenomenon whereby on my way to work I am able to drive smoothly and gently and achieve 69mpg, on the way home the car always goes faster and returns more like 50.  I can't figure this out for the life of me.  The wife thinks the Octy might be partial to the odd glass of gin and since there is no gin at work.....

Is your work at the top of a hill?

 

You're probably just less gentle on the way home.

 

I know I can get 38-40mpg on my commute, however depending what mood I'm I can get as little as 29mpg. Without really driving much quicker

Edited 11 October, 20196 yr by Alex-W