CatmanV2
Member
- Messages
- 48,793
Yes they get more power and don't have to standardise.
Planes and rockets don't use cheap petrol either
C
Which Petrol?
- Thread starter EXCF350
- Start date
Yes they get more power and don't have to standardise.
Planes and rockets don't use cheap petrol either
C
CatmanV2
Member
- Messages
- 48,793
That seems hugely unlikely around here
I've just put super (Tesco Momentum99) in mine to see if it smooths out a bit.
I've effectively done a run to Cambridge and a loop of the M25 including stop go traffic. What is surprising is that it's showing just under 1/2 a tank left and 230 miles on the trip meter.
If that's maintained it would be unusual to say the least
C
CatmanV2
Member
- Messages
- 48,793
Come on, admit it...!!!
No really, we don't
Half a tank in one car is never going to be representative, before we even start talking about confirmation bias a self selecting groups. *But* if it really (by some mechanism) does mean I get IRO 300 miles from a tank, I'll keep using it.
What the mechanism *is* though is *almost certainly very little to do with the fuel. We'd be talking about 20% increase in efficiency, and I just don't believe it
I suppose we may end up with consensus that we don't agree
C
Klive
Junior Member
- Messages
- 724
I've nearly always put Shell SUL in my 4200. On the occasions when 98/99 wasn't available (whilst touring Europe and not understanding the pump signs) and I had to resort back to 95 I did notice a difference, although not necessarily immediately but more so when there were consecutive fill ups on the stuff.
CatmanV2
Member
- Messages
- 48,793
There have been quotes on this thread that have stated no improvement.
Putting some more tanks through won't prove why this happens (if it happens). It may be as simple as I'm sub-consciously altering my driving style (and before everyone chips in and claims they don't do that I'd invite deep consideration of the word 'sub-consciously' )
Now *if* that's the case, then clearly I could save money by running SUL. However, I could save *more* money by consciously modifying my driving style and using standard UL. This could be the same for *everyone's* subjective improvement *or* lack of it.
No control pretty much means no science.
Now if anyone wants to take over fuelling my car for a year, we could come up with a slightly more robust experiment. In fact I could still pay, it would just need someone to give me the fuel and not tell me what it was or how much it costs, then take the numbers from the trip computer. Run that for a year, and it might well throw some interesting results. We should in fact make it double blind and have someone *else* supply the petrol to the person supplying me.
Actually that's got me thinking. It would be a PITA but not insurmountable. Anyone interested?
C
Putting some more tanks through won't prove why this happens (if it happens). It may be as simple as I'm sub-consciously altering my driving style (and before everyone chips in and claims they don't do that I'd invite deep consideration of the word 'sub-consciously'
)Now *if* that's the case, then clearly I could save money by running SUL. However, I could save *more* money by consciously modifying my driving style and using standard UL. This could be the same for *everyone's* subjective improvement *or* lack of it.
No control pretty much means no science.
Now if anyone wants to take over fuelling my car for a year, we could come up with a slightly more robust experiment. In fact I could still pay, it would just need someone to give me the fuel and not tell me what it was or how much it costs, then take the numbers from the trip computer. Run that for a year, and it might well throw some interesting results. We should in fact make it double blind and have someone *else* supply the petrol to the person supplying me.
Actually that's got me thinking. It would be a PITA but not insurmountable. Anyone interested?
C
CatmanV2
Member
- Messages
- 48,793
Klive
Junior Member
- Messages
- 724
I work it out myself. I have a pretty graph to go with it as well, but it's not with me otherwise I'd share.
As I posted last year after a trip around Germany. More speed = more MPG and I'm pretty sure that was all SUL.
drewf
Member
- Messages
- 7,159
Just to throw a spanner in...
I've done exactly that with herself's car - I've fuelled it, she drove it with no knowledge of the type of fuel, no knowledge that there was any test being performed, so no sub-conscious change of driving style. In fact, I've done it on three different cars, 'cos clearly I'm a smartypants engineer type person.
Jag XK8 - done a few years ago, I don't have the exact figures any more, but there was essentially no difference whatsoever in mpg.
Porsche Cayenne S (4.5 V8 N/A) - somewhat better on the super-unleaded, but only to the tune of 3% on a tankfull.
Audi S3 (2014 car) - interesting this... It's almost certainly fitted with the most sophisticated engine manglement, and turns in a 5.2% difference in mpg. There's no detectable difference in performance - it's bonkers quick no matter what fuel is put in. It seems to me from this though, that the actual cost of the fuel per mile is to all intents virtually identical, regardless of the fuel I've put in.
I've done exactly that with herself's car - I've fuelled it, she drove it with no knowledge of the type of fuel, no knowledge that there was any test being performed, so no sub-conscious change of driving style. In fact, I've done it on three different cars, 'cos clearly I'm a smartypants engineer type person.
Jag XK8 - done a few years ago, I don't have the exact figures any more, but there was essentially no difference whatsoever in mpg.
Porsche Cayenne S (4.5 V8 N/A) - somewhat better on the super-unleaded, but only to the tune of 3% on a tankfull.
Audi S3 (2014 car) - interesting this... It's almost certainly fitted with the most sophisticated engine manglement, and turns in a 5.2% difference in mpg. There's no detectable difference in performance - it's bonkers quick no matter what fuel is put in. It seems to me from this though, that the actual cost of the fuel per mile is to all intents virtually identical, regardless of the fuel I've put in.
CatmanV2
Member
- Messages
- 48,793
So there's a consensus then
Best described as 'Maybe some improvement, but really needs *lots* more data'
C