Re: Total Excellium vs standard unleaded
Adrian
saying:
> I usually fill up at a local Total station, and normally use their
> standard ultra-low sulphur unleaded for my 2000 Astra 1.6 16v. They
> also sell an "Excellium" fuel which they claim gives better MPG and more
> power. Just wondered if anyone who has tried it thinks it made any
> difference, apart from costing more :-)
In a car like yours? None whatsoever.
If the car has a base ignition map set up for 98 octane, with a knock
sensor to pull the timing (or boost on a turbo) back to suit 95, then -
yes, it may very well make a sufficient difference. The majority of
"cooking" cars won't have.
Dave Baker
> I usually fill up at a local Total station, and normally use their
> standard ultra-low sulphur unleaded for my 2000 Astra 1.6 16v. They
> also sell an "Excellium" fuel which they claim gives better MPG and
> more power. Just wondered if anyone who has tried it thinks it made
> any difference, apart from costing more :-)
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/chip.htm
--
Dave Baker
Tommy
"Dave Baker" <Nu...@null.com> wrote in message
news:gfeaqf$8gq$1...@news.datemas.de...
higher mileage car may benefit from the "cleaning" effect from the
superfuels - Shell and BP also do them too.
Having said that I've a CRV petrol auto with an average MPG display - I'm
pretty sure that when I use BP ultimate I get around a 2mpg improvement from
around 26 to 28 per tank - nothing scientific but as I fill up once a week
and my weekly trips are pretty similar ...
A friend also uses Shell Ultimate diesel ocasionally as he was advised to by
his garage (after having a few running issues)
Its a newish 320 diesel clk and admitting it runs "better" with it being a
cheapskate he alternates :)
Chris Whelan
> I usually fill up at a local Total station, and normally use their
> standard ultra-low sulphur unleaded for my 2000 Astra 1.6 16v. They
> also sell an "Excellium" fuel which they claim gives better MPG and more
> power. Just wondered if anyone who has tried it thinks it made any
> difference, apart from costing more :-)
During the summer, I tried several tankfuls of "super" grade petrol in my
Focus, (although not the Tesco one). I was unable to find any good reason
to continue to use it.
Chris
--
Remove prejudice to reply.
DervMan
news:gfe79o$375$2...@south.jnrs.ja.net...
>I usually fill up at a local Total station, and normally use their standard
> ultra-low sulphur unleaded for my 2000 Astra 1.6 16v. They also sell an
> "Excellium" fuel which they claim gives better MPG and more power. Just
> wondered if anyone who has tried it thinks it made any difference, apart
> from costing more :-)
I don't know if your engine can compensate for the higher octane rating.
The additional additives may improve matters, but it's hard to distinguish
between higher octane and better detergents.
The Saab turbo performs better on it. I don't have enough data to
statistically confirm if the small consumption reduction is genuine or luck
at the moment.
This is a '04 9-3 1.8t, showing 39 to the gallon since I bought her *grabs
PDA* but this is broken down to:
95 RON: 38.7 mpg
97 RON: 39.2 mpg
99 RON: 39.2 mpg
But don't get excited, because 0.5 mpg is *way* too close to be
statistically significant. This is only over 1,200 litres (just over half
being 95 RON).
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Mrcheerful
You need to get out more (not in the car)
Mrcheerful
DervMan
news:TzGSk.86738$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
LOL!
Unusually for me, I didn't go out of my way to track these figures. I use
TealAuto on my Palm to track expenses and mileage and was putting brand /
octane / type / meh into it "just because." Then with a previous release,
the developer integrated the reporting features, giving me access to all
sorts of useful and useless information.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Mark W
<A.C...@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:gfe79o$375$2...@south.jnrs.ja.net...
>I usually fill up at a local Total station, and normally use their standard
> ultra-low sulphur unleaded for my 2000 Astra 1.6 16v. They also sell an
> "Excellium" fuel which they claim gives better MPG and more power. Just
> wondered if anyone who has tried it thinks it made any difference, apart
> from costing more :-)
>
> Andy Clews
> University of Sussex
> *** Remove DENTURES if replying by email ***
Don't they state on the pump that if you don't see any benefit, you get a
refund? Not sure how they administer that though.
Roger Hunt
A.C...@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk writes
>Thus spake Mrcheerful (nbk...@hotmail.com) unto the assembled multitudes:
>
>>> 95 RON: 38.7 mpg
>>> 97 RON: 39.2 mpg
>>> 99 RON: 39.2 mpg
>>>
>>> But don't get excited, because 0.5 mpg is *way* too close to be
>>> statistically significant. This is only over 1,200 litres (just over
>>> half being 95 RON).
>
>> You need to get out more (not in the car)
>
>since 1992. Cor, you oughta see the size of my Excel spreadsheets :-)
>
Since 1981 here, (all on Excel now), with ghastly-looking graphs for the
price of fuel.
--
Roger Hunt
Adrian
they were saying:
> Since 1981 here, (all on Excel now), with ghastly-looking graphs for the
> price of fuel.
Any chance you could share those graphs...?
Be interesting to compare them to the RPI and CPI.
Roger Hunt
<tooma...@gmail.com> writes
Could do. I should add that between '91 and '97 I was without car, and
never kept motorcycle fuel figures because I'm forever draining fuel to
clean something or other so the figures would be meaningless.
--
Roger Hunt
Dave Baker
"Roger Hunt" <nos...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gWldQJAx...@nospam.demon.co.uk...
Same here, other than the fuel cost. Every tank of fuel and mpg recorded and
graphed since 1983 and some data for the motorbikes before that from 1978
onwards but not entered into a spreadsheet. I think we must be too anally
retentive or summat.
One thing I have noticed is that despite all the cost and complexity of
modern FI systems and emission controls to supposedly improve mpg the
average mpg of similar cars I've owned hasn't changed a jot in 25 years. The
engine efficiency might have gone up a tad but the car weight has also
increased to compensate due to safety laws. The net effect is near as dammit
zero. We've basically just paid a lot of money out to try and prove how
green we are but none of it has actually had any effect. The most fuel
efficient cars I've owned have been small ones with small engines and with
carbs. It's hard to beat an SU.
--
Dave Baker
Duncan Wood
Peugeot 106 XND?
Roger Hunt
writes
(snip)
>
>One thing I have noticed is that despite all the cost and complexity of
>modern FI systems and emission controls to supposedly improve mpg the
>average mpg of similar cars I've owned hasn't changed a jot in 25 years. The
>engine efficiency might have gone up a tad but the car weight has also
>increased to compensate due to safety laws. The net effect is near as dammit
>zero. We've basically just paid a lot of money out to try and prove how
>green we are but none of it has actually had any effect.
Absolutely agree. Most of my driving is local stop/start, and the fuel
consumption mostly goes on getting the vehicle into motion.
Once I'm on a smooth long journey the consumption plummets.
>The most fuel
>efficient cars I've owned have been small ones with small engines and with
>carbs. It's hard to beat an SU.
Yea - what one loses in acceleration and top speed, one gains in other
areas.
--
Roger Hunt
Adrian
saying:
> I also record other expenses such as servicing, repairs, consumables,
> and tax, and with a 'current market value' stored (updated year by
> year), together with price originally paid, obtain an overall
> cost-per-mile figure. I'm not entirely sure whether or not my method
> is flawed, but currently it stands at about 23p per mile.
I don't. If I did, it's unclear whether I'd kill myself before 'erself
killed me or not.
Mrcheerful
Not including insurance the last time I had the Ferrari on the road for a
while it set me back about 5 pounds per mile. Good fun though.
I sometimes try to get people to realistically work out their actual running
costs. Mostly people don't bother or don't want to believe the results if
they do. For instance the economics of repairing their existing car rather
than buy another one (and repair the unknown faults on the new one)
I think life is too short to detail every expense though it is handy to have
an idea.
Mrcheerful
DervMan
news:gfomgq$2j1$2...@south.jnrs.ja.net...
>> running
>> costs. Mostly people don't bother or don't want to believe the results
>> if
>> they do. For instance the economics of repairing their existing car
>> rather
>> than buy another one (and repair the unknown faults on the new one)
>
>> I think life is too short to detail every expense though it is handy to
>> have
>> an idea.
>
> hard
> habit to break ;-) I get terribly upset with myself if I ever lose a
> petrol receipt before entering it in the table, and have to interpolate to
> keep the figures in line...<breaks out in cold sweat>
I'm with Mr. Cheerful on this, life is too short (so I just slap data into a
PDA and it does all the number crunching for me).
Most people think that the railways are expensive because they don't have a
clue about how much their car really costs to run. Petrol, service, VED,
tyres - all visible. People get used to seeing car payments leave their
bank account so tend to forget about them. As for depreciation, depr-what
you say? ;-)
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Dave Baker
<A.C...@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:gfomgq$2j1$2...@south.jnrs.ja.net...
>> running
>> costs. Mostly people don't bother or don't want to believe the results
>> if
>> they do. For instance the economics of repairing their existing car
>> rather
>> than buy another one (and repair the unknown faults on the new one)
>
>> I think life is too short to detail every expense though it is handy to
>> have
>> an idea.
>
> hard
> habit to break ;-) I get terribly upset with myself if I ever lose a
> petrol receipt before entering it in the table, and have to interpolate to
> keep the figures in line...<breaks out in cold sweat>
Lol. That sounds uncomfortably close to home. I had to stop on the motorway
on the way up to Aberdeen some years ago for a splash and dash as I came
close to running on fumes before reaching my destination. The thieves
running the station wanted far too much per litre for me to fill the tank so
I grudgingly put a tenner's worth or whatever in and then brimmed it later
somewhere cheaper like Asda. Well I never part fill a tank, it spoils my mpg
spreadsheet. You have to keep the milometer running and add that part fill
to the next full one to get the figures back in line. Even worse though, I
lost the bloody receipt and couldn't remember how many litres that tenner
had represented. I hunted high and low but eventually had to resort to
putting an estimate in! Oh the horror. Happily about 2 years later it turned
up when I was doing my accounts so my spreadsheets for every car back to
1983 are pristine again :)
Ah the simple pleasures of the OCD brigade.
Oh here's another thought. Do you ever jot down the mileage as you pass each
1/4 tank marker on the fuel gauge so later when you fill up you can
extrapolate back from the mpg to exactly how many litres each segment
represents and so get a better idea of whether you're getting good or bad
mpg on every trip? Ah, just me eh? Oh dear.
--
Dave Baker
DervMan
*cough mumble* Wretched OCD. I have a list of "low fuel light mileage"
figures...
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Roger Hunt
A.C...@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk writes
>Thus spake Mrcheerful (nbk...@hotmail.com) unto the assembled multitudes:
>
>> costs. Mostly people don't bother or don't want to believe the results if
>> they do. For instance the economics of repairing their existing car rather
>> than buy another one (and repair the unknown faults on the new one)
>
>> I think life is too short to detail every expense though it is handy to have
>> an idea.
>
>habit to break ;-) I get terribly upset with myself if I ever lose a
>petrol receipt before entering it in the table, and have to interpolate to
>keep the figures in line...<breaks out in cold sweat>
>
module of non-volatile memory which lives in the glove-box. A notebook.
--
Roger Hunt
Dave Baker
"DervMan" <thede...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:491fe5ad$0$2531$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> a PDA and it does all the number crunching for me).
>
> Most people think that the railways are expensive because they don't have
> a clue about how much their car really costs to run. Petrol, service,
> VED, tyres - all visible. People get used to seeing car payments leave
> their bank account so tend to forget about them. As for depreciation,
> depr-what you say? ;-)
If you can actually do without a car altogether then I perhaps agree, not
actually having worked out what trains cost. However if you need a car
anyway then the variable cost of each trip, given that the insurance,
depreciation, road tax etc are more or less fixed costs, is not so bad.
Petrol costs me about 14p a mile (33 mpg) and everything else, tyres,
brakes, oil etc is bugger all. Under 1.5p a mile for the lot.
Even at dealer prices for decent 205/50/16s on the Focus it's only about
£350 for tyres every 35000 miles so that's 1p a mile. It would be half that
or less for a smaller car with cheaper tyres that would probably also last
longer. In any case I have a mate who gets me good s/h tyres when I need
them. A couple of nearly new Goodyear Eagle F1s have just turned up for
peanuts - basically a swap of a favour so that's me good to go for a few
more years. The front brakes lasted 30k (£50) and the rears will probably
outlast the car. It doesn't use any oil so a tenner for the oil change every
6k is really about all I ever spend on it. At 7 1/2 years old it's still on
the original battery, exhaust, rear tyres and shockers although the clock is
probably ticking.
It's the fuel cost that's the killer and I could probably halve that with a
small diesel but for the mileage I do it's not worth it. I like the Focus
too much.
If I add the fixed costs back then that's about £1200 a year. For my
pathetic annual mileage of 3k or 4k that's a lot per mile but it's pointless
looking at it that way. I couldn't imagine having to do without a car and as
an annual cost it's not much to pay for instant mobility. For someone doing
the average 12k a year it's less per mile than the petrol.
When you get to brand new cars of course it's a different ballgame. The
depreciation is ridiculous. Thousands of pounds a year. My 2001 Focus cost
me £6500 when it was not quite 3 years old and is probably worth somewhat
under half of that nearly five years later so only about £800 a year
depreciation. It still does everything as well as a new car IMO and I can't
imagine ever wanting one unless I suddenly come into money to burn. Even
then I think I'd find better ways to spend it. I'd invest it wisely in
whores and booze before frittering it away on a new car.
The other side of the coin is bangernomics and having been there I'll stick
with buying something between 3 and 6 years old from now on. All the high
mileage old dogs I've owned have not saved me that much in depreciation
compared to the Focus but they've been nothing like as reliable and I'm past
the age of wanting to spend every weekend crawling under the bloody things
to fix them. The 10 year old XR2i I had previously only cost me £1650 but it
needed a battery, alternator, tyres and shocks almost immediately, lots of
welding shortly after and rusted away to nothing within 3 years and had to
be scrapped. It also leaked water like a sieve, grew mushrooms under the
front carpets (I'm not kidding), steamed up and/or froze up inside every day
in the winter and handled like a garbage scow. Depreciation £550 a year and
god knows how much for repairs and my time wasted underneath it.
Mind you the Mk3 XR2i was a dog by anyone's standards and the Focus will be
in much better condition at the same age. It might well still be rust free,
reliable and sensible to keep when it's 10 years or more old. The engines
certainly never go wrong and the bodywork and running gear is pretty tough
compared to Ford's earlier efforts.
--
Dave Baker
Dave Baker
>>
>> Oh here's another thought. Do you ever jot down the mileage as you pass
>> each 1/4 tank marker on the fuel gauge so later when you fill up you can
>> extrapolate back from the mpg to exactly how many litres each segment
>> represents and so get a better idea of whether you're getting good or bad
>> mpg on every trip? Ah, just me eh? Oh dear.
>
>
> *cough mumble* Wretched OCD. I have a list of "low fuel light mileage"
> figures...
It comes on at exactly 10.4 gallons (47.3 litres) used in the Focus leaving
me with a theoretical 7.7 litres or 64 miles under cruise conditions to the
supposed 55 litre tank capacity. I've never pushed that past 53 litres but
the day I did I was shitting bricks that a petrol station would turn up
soon. I'm comfy with 40 miles under the light though.
--
Dave Baker
Dave Baker
<A.C...@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:gfpn08$bjb$1...@south.jnrs.ja.net...
> Thus spake Dave Baker (Nu...@null.com) unto the assembled multitudes:
>> Oh here's another thought. Do you ever jot down the mileage as you pass
>> each
>> 1/4 tank marker on the fuel gauge so later when you fill up you can
>> extrapolate back from the mpg to exactly how many litres each segment
>> represents and so get a better idea of whether you're getting good or bad
>> mpg on every trip? Ah, just me eh? Oh dear.
>
> No, I'm not *that* extreme, but I do check the trip mileage (always reset
> to zero at each refill) as the gauge hits the 3/4 and 1/2 full marks [1].
> Anything less than 140 miles at 3/4 full, or 220 miles at 1/2 full and I
> know I'm in for a bad mpg day. You can imagine my unconfined joy when I
> once had a reading of 260 miles at 1/2 full during a long but fairly
> restrained drive. That led to 46mpg at the next fill-up! <gasps of
> amazement>
>
> [1] I realised long ago though that the marks on the gauge in no way
> actually
> represent 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 full.
So you do in fact do the same as me but can't admit to it. :)
You got it bad but are also in denial - and that ain't just a river in
Africa.
I can though imagine your unconfined joy. I dated a Joy once and although I
kept her confined I'm sure she'd have been just as nice unconfined.
--
Dave Baker
Roger Hunt
A.C...@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk writes
>Thus spake Roger Hunt (nos...@nospam.demon.co.uk) unto the assembled multitudes:
>
>> After fuelling I always immediately enter the relevant figures into a
>> module of non-volatile memory which lives in the glove-box. A notebook.
>
>pencil)?
>
GDT is effectively volatile memory (what with the availability of rubber
abrasion data dispersal techniques), so I use a Biro.
>I write the numbers on my fuel receipt for later processing in my data
>massage parlour.
>
I suppose one could write the figures on the right forearm of any front
seat passenger at the time.
--
Roger Hunt
DervMan
>
> "DervMan" <thede...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4920555c$0$24464$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> "Dave Baker" <Nu...@null.com> wrote in message
>> news:gfphhd$d2b$1...@news.datemas.de...
>>> Ah the simple pleasures of the OCD brigade.
>>>
>>> Oh here's another thought. Do you ever jot down the mileage as you pass
>>> each 1/4 tank marker on the fuel gauge so later when you fill up you can
>>> extrapolate back from the mpg to exactly how many litres each segment
>>> represents and so get a better idea of whether you're getting good or
>>> bad mpg on every trip? Ah, just me eh? Oh dear.
>>
>>
>> *cough mumble* Wretched OCD. I have a list of "low fuel light mileage"
>> figures...
>
> It comes on at exactly 10.4 gallons (47.3 litres) used in the Focus
> leaving me with a theoretical 7.7 litres or 64 miles under cruise
> conditions to the supposed 55 litre tank capacity.
I have a good idea when mine comes on, but since I have never managed to
fill it up within a mile or two of the light coming on... I am still at the
"extrapolation" stage... :-)
> I've never pushed that past 53 litres but the day I did I was shitting
> bricks that a petrol station would turn up soon. I'm comfy with 40 miles
> under the light though.
I have discovered that the trip computer is pessimistic by about half a
mile... ;-)
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Duncan Wood
> Thus spake Dave Baker (Nu...@null.com) unto the assembled multitudes:
>> If you can actually do without a car altogether then I perhaps agree,
>> not
>> actually having worked out what trains cost. However if you need a car
>> anyway then the variable cost of each trip, given that the insurance,
>> depreciation, road tax etc are more or less fixed costs, is not so bad.
>> Petrol costs me about 14p a mile (33 mpg) and everything else, tyres,
>> brakes, oil etc is bugger all. Under 1.5p a mile for the lot.
>
> I paid GBP 8,300 for my Astra in 2002 when it was about 20 mths old.
> Total
> costs so far (including purchase and taking depreciation into account)
> come
> to a little over GBP 18k, and I'll have spent 7k on fuel at the next
> fill-up.
>
>> It's the fuel cost that's the killer and I could probably halve that
>> with a
>> small diesel but for the mileage I do it's not worth it. I like the
>> Focus
>> too much.
>
> Well, my accumulated costs come to a lot more than I've spent on fuel...
>
>
I replaced the A6 with two bicycles, a very heavy lock for the station & a
good relationship with the local car hire firm. It's definitely cheaper.