Do You Notice Petrol from Different Servos Yield Different Mileage?

wisdomtooth on 22/12/2024 - 14:47
Last edited 23/12/2024 - 14:18 by 1 other user

I do. I seem to get 15-20% better mileage from BP than from Mobil/7-Eleven. At least according to the dashboard (of a 2010 Toyota Kluger). Do you have the same experience? Is there an app or site that takes that into account when comparing prices across servos?

UPDATE: Wow, I didn't expect this post to turn out so controversial. I see many here scoff at the notion of product quality varying by vendor, confident that "the othorities wouldn't allow it", but many others have observed and experienced the same. Especially risible are the claims that a difference can only be considered if proven in a wind tunnel with some industry lab multi-million dollar testing equipment, but hilariously do not hold the claim of absence of difference to the same standard of evidence.

Automotive Car Fuel Toyota

Comments

  • SBOB on 22/12/2024 - 14:52
    +55

    get 15-20% better mileage from BP than from Mobil/7-Eleven

    I would wager that if you actually recorded km, litres and driving conditions/routes accurately, you'd find the difference in fuel consumption between these would be no where near this

    • wisdomtooth on 22/12/2024 - 14:56
      -7

      Yeah, I haven't done that, but my driving conditions/routes don't change much, and presumably the car CPU records litres and kms accurately, no?

      • zonra on 22/12/2024 - 15:04
        +27

        You're also assuming the following are constant across different seasons / times of year
        - head wind / tail wind
        - traffic / road conditions
        - your own footwork
        - other driver's behaviours (tailgating, abrupt braking etc)
        - traffic lights' timing / wait times at roundabouts
        - ambiant temperature / AC usage

        • skid on 22/12/2024 - 15:33
          +5

          Pedantic: Ambient temperature and AC usage can be their own individual dot points.

          • zonra on 22/12/2024 - 17:10

            @skid: Fair, and I didn’t neg you. The same can be said about traffic & road condition. I guess I grouped them into the same category to not have too many dot points.

            • wisdomtooth on 22/12/2024 - 17:34

              @zonra: It'd be great to have an app that took that info from the OBD, as well as the prices at the servos around, and only asked how much you paid and what fuel you put in when the tank went up, to control for those variations, and make a fair and accurate comparison.

          • jaypeee on 26/12/2024 - 22:36

            @skid: Oh yeah thats pedantic. Love it.

      • CurlCurl on 22/12/2024 - 15:35
        +5

        Yeah, I haven't done that, but my driving conditions/routes don't change much, and presumably the car CPU records litres and kms accurately, no?

        No they don't. The only way to check is fill to fill and Ks travelled. I use this link.

        https://www.petrolcostcalculator.com.au/litres-per-100-km/in…

        15% to 20% difference comes down to driving style, stopped at traffic lights, traffic etc

        • badg3rz on 25/12/2024 - 16:26

          I use GoFar which plugs into the cars OBD2, but it still doesn’t calculate how much the AC is on, traffic, etc…

      • OzzyOzbourne on 24/12/2024 - 23:23
        +1

        Assuming it's a modern car, they are accurate as they know how much fuel is injected and distance travelled. Also any error would be the same for any fuel assuming you are using the same car.

    • HeWhoKnows on 23/12/2024 - 08:12
      -2

      Also depending on the bowser, the angle it goes into the fuel tank, the temperature at the time of day, whether the station faces east or west - hence ground getting hotter and different times, you can fill with either slightly more or less on each occassion.

      Pertol is a highly volotile fuel, subject to expansion and contraction- according to temperature.

      • Pussqunt on 25/12/2024 - 01:38
        +1

        Yeah no.

        "The coefficient of thermal expansion for gasoline is typically around 9.50 x 10-4 per degree Celsius." Basically 0.1%/degree.

        Also tanks aren't surrounded by concrete, they are surrounded by earth.

        If you want to game it in summer I would buy after heavy rain fall, as you might approach 1% increase is mass per litre compared to the 40 degree day before. In winter I recommend driving from Sydney to fill up in Jindabyne. You might get 2% more mass!

    • iDroid on 23/12/2024 - 20:18
      +1

      At best 1-2% difference. In reality, much closer to 0.

    • us3rnam3tak3n on 24/12/2024 - 11:17
      +1

      I've recorded mine for years using Fuel Manager and also happen to drive a Kluger. No measurable difference between brands but as you point out, driving conditions will affect consumption.

      Towing and objects on the roof rack make the biggest impact. Highway vs city and loss of tyre pressure are the next most noticeable factors.

      https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=kb2.soft.fuelm…

  • hasher22 on 22/12/2024 - 15:08
    +5

    Fuel types can make a difference with milage but to be fully accurate primary data for yourself from one brand to another is time consuming and is it worth it? There are so many factors when recording fuel usage and to me it's not worth it.

    Let's say you did save 10% on KMs from brand A vs brand B, you constantly looking for fuel from brand A to save 10% but also, brand A may be $2.05 per/L, where brand B is $1.70 per/L that day…. Technically you're better off with brand B.

    My opinion: fill up your tank with whatever fuel your car recommends

  • GordonD on 22/12/2024 - 15:17
    +21

    Do You Notice Petrol from Different Servos Yield Different Mileage?

    No.

  • Ynk on 22/12/2024 - 15:26
    +53

    If this were the case BP would be screaming it from the rooftops!

    • iDroid on 23/12/2024 - 20:19
      +1

      The most factual comment I've ever read on the internet. I've been here since the start.

    • skillet on 23/12/2024 - 23:36

      Yes the marketing team would use any minor facts and maximize the returns.

    • No ONE on 25/12/2024 - 20:20
      -2

      well BP wouldn't do that because they would have to proof it or get sued for false advertising.

      • Keplaffintech on 06/01/2025 - 20:16

        Wouldn't be hard to:

        • run a real world study
        • explain how it's possible that their fuel defies chemistry and packs 20% more energy into the same chemical (petroleum)
        • wisdomtooth on 06/01/2025 - 20:39

          That's easy:

          • not the same chemical
          • Keplaffintech on 11/01/2025 - 20:53
            +1

            @wisdomtooth: Explain further? What chemical is in 98 that gives it more energy than 91?

            • wisdomtooth on 12/01/2025 - 12:45
              -1

              @Keplaffintech: Methyl tertiary butyl ether, heavier hydrocarbons…

              • Keplaffintech on 12/01/2025 - 15:25
                +1

                @wisdomtooth: Do you understand that in order to increase the energy density of the entire mix by 20%, you'd need to replace a large proportion of it with something that is significantly higher density than petroleum? No such chemical that also can be used in a combustion engine exists.

                You're just rattling off compounds pretending to know something but this is fundamental thermodynamics.

                • wisdomtooth on 12/01/2025 - 16:46

                  @Keplaffintech: Do you understand no car actually works on petroleum, which is a mixture of a wide range of hydrocarbons, that what we call petrol, i.e. gasoline, is a refined product, and therefore that different refinery processes produce different blends of petrol?

                  You're rattling off basic principles, pretending to know something but this is fundamental CHEMISTRY.

                  • Keplaffintech on 14/01/2025 - 22:17
                    +1

                    @wisdomtooth: The energy density of petrol is 46 MJ/kg. Can you cite a source for any petroleum (non-ethanol blend) that deviates from this by 10%?

                    Why wouldn't BP advertise a claim to this degree if it were somehow true? Instead they use vague statements like 'clean your engine' or 'run smoother'

                    • wisdomtooth on 15/01/2025 - 06:47
                      -1

                      @Keplaffintech:

                      1. The average energy density of U91 petrol is 47 MJ/kg. Higher octane petrol has higher energy density. And that obviously varies by the blend and the quality of the crude oil it is refined from, and the refinery process.
                      2. I never "claimed" BP petrol has higher energy density; I asked whether others saw the same I was seeing on their cars.
                      • Keplaffintech on 16/01/2025 - 11:37
                        +2

                        @wisdomtooth: Higher octane does not have higher energy density. That is a myth that is completely false.

                        • pegaxs on 16/01/2025 - 17:29
                          +2

                          @Keplaffintech: God, I wish I could upvote this comment more. You are my new spirit animal… I live for these "High octane fuel gives you moar powah!!" bullshit posts…

                          It literally is just regular petrol with more anti-knock additive in it. The reason some people might see a "slight" increase in efficiency on 98RON over 91 is a combination of a: the engine knocks less and spends less time retarding ignition timing. and B: because their brain is thinking "holy shit, this stuff is $2.20/litre, I better go a little easier on it if I want it to last…"

                          To prove to people 98RON is no more "energy dense" is I use E10 as an example. E10 is HIGHER in RON, but lower in energy density than 91. E85 is WAY higher in RON than even 98, yet is only about 60% the energy density (about 28MJ vs 47MJ).

                          RON is NOT a measure of "energy density" and anyone who believes it is has been sucking on the petro-chemical company emission pipes a little too long…

                    • JIMB0 on 15/01/2025 - 09:39

                      @Keplaffintech: Petrol is measured by volume not weight.

                      • wisdomtooth on 15/01/2025 - 10:17

                        @JIMB0: One can do either. Avg U91 energy content is 9,500MJ/m³.

  • MS Paint on 22/12/2024 - 15:28
    +24

    It's all in your head.

    • CrispyChrispy on 22/12/2024 - 18:38
      +14

      Petrol fumes produces scents. Cheers

    • iguana on 22/12/2024 - 22:15

      Lot's of empty space in the OPs if he thinks that there is a 20% difference between brands

  • skid on 22/12/2024 - 15:31
    +2

    Years ago I did, but not certain if that was the brand or that particular servo. The difference was large, but I don't recall it being close to 20% like you're seeing.

    • 2esc on 23/12/2024 - 11:08

      Chain of service station or one particular service station? Because sediment/water may contaminate a tank i got a bad tank of fuel once ended up having reconditioned fuel injectors put in fuel tank(completely out)and lines flushed.

      • skid on 23/12/2024 - 12:09

        It was a particular servo. Didn't go back after that.

  • apsilon on 22/12/2024 - 15:38
    +2

    Did you fill up with E10 at one and 91/95 at another because you will get less km out of E10 regardless of brand.

    • wisdomtooth on 22/12/2024 - 17:26

      Course not! I'm comparing U91 with U91 😄

    • Nickels n Dimes on 23/12/2024 - 19:24

      I was thinking the same, at some servos the price of 91 can be cost-comparable with E10 at other servos, personally I always get the cheapest option they have, often E10 isn't available. You can definately hear a difference in the engine performance with the E10 in some cars, and mileage would reflect that.

    • Pussqunt on 25/12/2024 - 01:49

      91 can have upto 10% ethanol. From memory, when I did the maths the energy loss from typical petrol to 10% ethanol was 0.6%. At less than 1% saving for upto 0.6% more energy, I don't see the point buying 91.

      And it will depend on your car's tune. E10 is often "94", so if your car is tuned for 95, you will often see less performance loss on E10 compared to 91.

      • wisdomtooth on 25/12/2024 - 07:11

        91 can have upto 10% ethanol.

        Isn't that what E10 is?

        At less than 1% saving for upto 0.6% more energy, I don't see the point buying 91.

        E10 is < 1% cheaper and < 0.6% less energy? Why don't you see the point of buying 91?

        • Pussqunt on 25/12/2024 - 08:24
          +1

          Isn't that what E10 is?

          E10 is 9%-10% ethanol.

          Many pumps will state their 91 may contain upto 10% ethanol. This is to allow that company to sell different blends. This is likely also regional.

          E10 is < 1% cheaper and < 0.6% less energy? Why don't you see the point of buying 91?

          I had

          • 91>1% more expensive for upto 0.6 more energy, or
          • E10>1% cheaper for 0.6% less energy.
            E10

          With that logic, I have since only bought E10.

          However, either I or my memory was wrong. Others found 3% more energy, which flips my logic. https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/e10-fue…

          This makes 91 without ethanol more energy dense, and better value if your car is tuned for it and 91 is less than 3% more expensive

          • Euphemistic on 25/12/2024 - 09:11
            +1

            @Pussqunt: The actual energy content is relevant, but so is the users experience and vehicle characteristics.

            When i had a petrol car, and tracked consumption, E10 appeared to not make a consistent difference to economy. It appeared to be less than the variation due to changes in driving conditions. Not scientifically analysed, but my records led me to think e10 was the better choice due to cost without significant increase in consumption.

            • Pussqunt on 25/12/2024 - 21:33
              -1

              @Euphemistic: Most stations I use sell 91 with upto 10% ethanol. Sorry for dropping the upto's.

              • Euphemistic on 25/12/2024 - 21:52
                +1

                @Pussqunt: https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/petrol-and-fuel/ethanol-and-other-biofuels#:~:text=Ethanol%20blended%20petrol%20(EBP)&text=E10%20fuel%20is%20a%20blend,suitable%20for%20purpose%2Dbuilt%20vehicles.

                If you are seeing pumps labelled with 'containing ethanol' its e10. Regular 91 cannot contain ethanol above about 0.5% without being labelled as having ethanol.

                In NSW there is a mandate for selling biofuels so many servos have dropped regular 91 and only sell e10 or premium. Some older cars cannot use ethanol, which is why it must be labelled.

            • wisdomtooth on 26/12/2024 - 01:54

              @Euphemistic: Would that be a function of the weight of the car? Or perhaps that against the power of the engine? I feel like lower energy fuels would be disproportionately less efficient than higher energy fuels as car weight increases (for a set engine), or as the power—to-weight ratio decreases.

              IOW, E10 may be more economical for economy cars, but not for heavy SUVs.

      • bomberswarm2 on 25/12/2024 - 15:33

        It's more like 10% worse fuel usage for 0.5% difference in price.

        • NeoM on 25/12/2024 - 18:30
          +1

          I tested 10,000 km of both fuels in my car and the difference was under 1%.

          • Euphemistic on 25/12/2024 - 21:54

            @NeoM: Similar results for me, although it was less rigourous, i just tracked consumptuon tank to tank and would do 2-3 tanks in a row of each fuel type.

        • Pussqunt on 25/12/2024 - 21:38

          Ethanol has energy in it. It's why I am fat.

          To make 91 10% worse fuel by adding 10% of something you would need to add something like drinking alcohol, with enough water in it to absorb the energy added by the ethanol.

  • El cheepo on 22/12/2024 - 15:53

    L/PKM is only a guide.

    BP just has great marketing.

  • Jaduqimon on 22/12/2024 - 16:07
    +4

    15-20% better milage lol… If that's the case other servos would be out of business. At best 1.5% -2%

  • Sye on 22/12/2024 - 16:15
    +7

    BP must have "Energy Polarizers" in their fuel pumps.

  • bhubb18 on 22/12/2024 - 16:20

    In my M135i fuel economy was give or take identical between brands (98 from all)
    In saying that, I have noticed previously that some of my old cars seemed to do better from some servos, but only empirical evidence really.

  • TEER3X on 22/12/2024 - 16:25
    +7

    It's because when the op fills up at BP, they only drive downhill

    • Sye on 22/12/2024 - 16:29
      +4

      That's like when I drive from Brisbane down to Sydney I get better fuel economy. Then when I drive from Sydney up to Brisbane I go though more fuel. This is also proof the Earth isn't flat.

      • TEER3X on 22/12/2024 - 17:08

        This is also proof the Earth isn't flat.

        I think you need to go to Antarctica to prove that one

        • wisdomtooth on 22/12/2024 - 17:28

          No such thing. Just a wall of ice, and an entrance to the hollow Earth.

          • TEER3X on 22/12/2024 - 21:51
            +2

            @wisdomtooth: Hard to tell, they started shooting at us when we got there.

  • Euphemistic on 22/12/2024 - 16:34
    +10

    I track fuel consumption on an app. Have done for last couple of cars. I dont generally get more than 10% variation across all fuel types and brands, even when i tried e10,91,95 and 98. I seem to get no more variation than same fuel and conditions back to back. Last 3 vehicles have averaged 8-10l/100 and generally dont get a variation outside 1l/100km - except under extreme driving conditions.

    Biggest variation has always been driving conditions. Urban, highway, towing or 4wding make the biggest difference and may make 20% variation. Lately, towing a stupidly big caravan equates to 30-50% increase.

    Unless you've got a spreadsheet pr app tracked usage, your butt dyno is lying to you.

    • wisdomtooth on 22/12/2024 - 17:45

      Which app do you use? I wish there was one that connected to OBD, tracked mileage/fuel consumption and compared prices around… I can only find ones that do one or the other. I use FuelMap to compare prices. Fuelio compares prices (though is much less compete than FuelMap) and tracks refills, but doesn't connect to the OBD. Infocar connects to the OBD and tracks refills, but doesn't compare prices. There's clearly an opportunity here for an app that does both, and simply prompts you for what you paid and what for when it sees the tank level go up.

      • Euphemistic on 22/12/2024 - 18:37
        +5

        I use fuelio. Not interested in connecting it to the car. Just use the odometer, litres and cost and it calcs consumption.

        Other things ive noticed and measured:
        AC makes negligible difference on a bigger motor. Not noticable on my utes. Used slighty more using AC on a forester, maybe .2l/100

        Lifting a 4wd hurts aerodynamics and therefore fuel on the highway, but not around town, up to 1l/100. Bigger tyres also make a difference, but the change in diameter also affects kms registered, so less than i calculated. Fitting a bullbar also cost more fuel, .5l/100 on highway. Increased approach angle is less effective aerodynamically the factory bumper sits lower and deflects air more effectively.

        Never measured roof racks on vs off because I'm usually doing something else unusual (lots of highway or towing) and take the roof racks off when not in use.

        • nigel deborah on 24/12/2024 - 20:46
          +1

          Presumably the added weight of the aftermarket bar is also a significant contributor to the gain.

          On a commodore I had years ago the roof rack (boxy style) added about 0.5L/100km on the highway. Was always surprised how big of a difference it made (and I studied aerodynamics!).

          • Euphemistic on 24/12/2024 - 21:24

            @nigel deborah:

            Presumably the added weight of the aftermarket bar is also a significant contributor to the gain.

            Inhavent noticed increased usage around town. Its probably 30kg, so not a lof pf weight. I think thw biggest factor is the way the sides are angled up for aplroach angle and expose a lot of the tyre to the wind.

            Ive seem a review of an american ute where the factory sticks a plastic 'air dam' below the bumper. Its only probably 100-150mm but removing it so it doesnt get ripped off 4wding did affect the economy

  • pegaxs on 22/12/2024 - 17:06
    +15

    Ahhh, yes, the pinnacle of automotive testing devices… the 2010 Kluger consumption read out.

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 22/12/2024 - 18:15
      +2

      O.P. trying to save cents. Cheers.

      • wisdomtooth on 22/12/2024 - 18:17
        +2

        How dare you shame my thrift! You are a traitor to our cause!!

        • pegaxs on 22/12/2024 - 23:14
          +2

          I work in a workshop with some very very expensive electronic equipment and have access to a dyno for the sole purpose of testing things like vehicle fuel consumption… but it’s good to be able to let the boss know we can replace all of that malarkey with a 2010 Kluger dash…

          Put basically, if you don’t have access to the type of equipment you would find in a lab and controlled environment, your “figures” are not worth the display they are printed on.

          You would need to run the test multiple times and within set parameters. Driving around from work to home and the shops is the exact opposite of a “fuel consumption test”.

  • zonra on 22/12/2024 - 17:13
    +10

    OP, wait till you find out it’s the same fuel trucks filling different servos.

    • wisdomtooth on 22/12/2024 - 17:38
      -2

      Ikr! That's what puzzles me.

      • gromit on 26/12/2024 - 18:43
        +3

        It shouldn't puzzle you, it should be a reality check that your anecdotal evidence is wrong.

    • welcomeUniverseWorld on 22/12/2024 - 19:37

      Is it? Really? The same fuel truck fills BP and others? Really? Wow..

      • Tight Tim on 24/12/2024 - 02:13
        +1

        BP will have their 'additivities' but all the fuel comes from the same few refineries.

    • JIMB0 on 23/12/2024 - 08:39
      +3

      The truck has more than one compartment to carry different types of fuel. Just like how factories can have more than one production line to produce products of differing grades.

      • CommuterPolluter on 23/12/2024 - 21:29
        +1

        Compartments are primarily for stopping wave formation.

        Do they really empty out the front of the truck and drive rear-loaded to another servo? Seems a bit dangerous to me.

        • JIMB0 on 23/12/2024 - 21:44
          +1

          Compartments are to keep things like diesel seperate from the petrol. You're thinking of baffles.

    • smartazz104 on 23/12/2024 - 20:09
      +2

      Next you’ll claim that Duff, Duff Dry, and Duff Lite are the same beer…

  • rumblytangara on 22/12/2024 - 17:51
    +2

    I seem to get 15-20% better mileage from BP than from Mobil/7-Eleven.

    Sigh.

    Something something declining education system.

  • michaelpls on 22/12/2024 - 18:31
    +3

    No, but I prefer the taste of Shell.

  • Protractor on 22/12/2024 - 18:54
    +2

    You're gunna need Mythbusters bro. There's variables to the enth degree. From wind, to traffic,tyre wear,radio volume,lipstick load etc, etc
    BTW: You should fit one of those cyclone things to your intake. Man! you'll never need to refill ever again.

    • brendanm on 22/12/2024 - 19:08
      +1

      Hiclone! Had to look it up, they are still around.

    • pegaxs on 22/12/2024 - 23:17

      Hyclone? And no mention of the “fuel/energy polerizer” from everyone’s favourite race car driver and philanderer… Peter Brock.

      • Protractor on 23/12/2024 - 09:13

        That's it. The physics defying enemy of servos….
        I'd forgotten about Brockys snake oil add on. Love it.

  • brendanm on 22/12/2024 - 19:04
    +4

    15-20% better

    Lmao

    • wisdomtooth on 22/12/2024 - 20:17
      -5

      I get 13-14L/100,000km on Mobil, and 11-12 on BP. Sometimes 10-11! What's funny?

      • brendanm on 22/12/2024 - 20:52
        +3

        Hot damn, 13-14l per 100,000km, you should donate that bad boy to science.

        What's funny?

        It's not possible, and you didn't even hand calculate it.

        • lgacb08 on 23/12/2024 - 21:41

          That 3.5l is petrol guggler, and it's known to vary a lot. A short 5km school pick up can easily show 15l/100km, if you add a 30min commute to the mix it can easily go down to 13-14l, hence the variation.

          • Euphemistic on 23/12/2024 - 22:50

            @lgacb08: This is why you cant rely on tank to tank comparisons. You need to look at trends and averages.

            • wisdomtooth on 24/12/2024 - 06:13
              -2

              @Euphemistic: What is legit funny is that my comment got triple negged for simply stating what I see on the car's dashboard 🙄

              • Euphemistic on 24/12/2024 - 08:44
                +3

                @wisdomtooth: If you dont want to be laughed at, record it with better records. Dont just 'notice it'. Humans are notoriously susceptible to suggestion, confirmation bias and a whole host of other effects. Thats why the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down.

                1. If BP was actually a better fuel and got you 15-20% better mileage one of two things would happen. Others would lift their game to compete, or BP would shout from the rooftops and charge an extra 10-15% for your fuel because 'better'.
                2. The difference between fuel suppliers is largely a tiny percent of additives as it mostly comes out of the same refineries.
                3. Getting that much variation in your consumption seems unlikely, unless your driving conditions vary a lot. Like lots of urban vs lots of highway or towing etc. Maybe there is something wrong with the vehicle.
                4. Human butt dynos are not accurate. Records count.
                • wisdomtooth on 24/12/2024 - 10:43
                  -1

                  @Euphemistic:

                  BP would … charge extra

                  They do. They tend to be the most expensive (within a given neighbourhood), in the Sunshine Coast at least. As a devout OzBargainer, I go for the cheapest available; Liberty usually, or 7-Eleven bc of the fuel lock. But the times I ended up filling up at BP, for convenience or necessity, I ended up pleasantly surprised with much better fuel economy (according to the car's dashboard, at least). And more and more I find myself preferring BP, when their price premium is less than the fuel economy difference I see on the dashboard. Hence my question here.

                  If you dont want to be laughed at, record it with better records.

                  The ones laughing and negging didn't do the due diligence you did. Like many here, I assumed it was all the same — same refineries, etc — and didn't see a need to audit the fuel yield. I'll endeavour to that now with an OBD app.

                  • Euphemistic on 24/12/2024 - 11:31

                    @wisdomtooth: I dont normally buy petrol (diesel). But a quick look local prices seems to show BP is equivalent prices to local competitors. A few cents at most between competing servos.

                    They arent advertising that you get 10% better economy nor charging 10% more. They do advertise its 'better' but so do ampol and shell. Yes, BP does have a bit of a reputation as having the best fuel for performance cars, but i suspect that the margins are less than 1%. As above, if the margins were bigger in oerformance or economy the competitors would be buyjng a few litres and doing a chemical analysis to work out why, then replicating it.

              • CurlCurl on 25/12/2024 - 20:28

                @wisdomtooth:

                What is legit funny is that my comment got triple negged for simply stating what I see on the car's dashboard

                That,s because the cars dashboard readout is incorrect, along with your speedo.

                As I sad in another post. Do fill to fill and use this link using litres used and distance travelled,

                https://www.petrolcostcalculator.com.au/litres-per-100-km/in…

  • stickingly on 22/12/2024 - 19:44
    +3

    My old car had the engine light on about 50% of the time. I always used to fill up with Ampol because it was convenient.

    My mechanic said his machine told him it was due to slight misfiring sometimes and asked what fuel I use and suggested I switch to BP or Shell to see if it made a difference

    I now always fill up with Shell and now only very occasionally see the engine light.

    Coincidence???

    • jemson on 23/12/2024 - 08:27
      +3

      My wife had the same issue with her Hyundai Accent from new. If she filled at any 711 her dash light would come on routinely (I think it was the O2 sensor).
      Mechanic advised same - use alternative fuel - and she filled at BP from then on and light never came back. Was forced to fill at a 711 over a year later and the dash light came back.

    • singingwolf on 23/12/2024 - 09:38
      +2

      Subaru told me Shell was the worst fuel.

      • CommuterPolluter on 23/12/2024 - 21:31
        +1

        Depends on where you live. Shell in Melbourne is likely to be from Geelong but other markets may be imported. Same applies to Ampol in Brissie.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join