Diesel fuel thinner for cars increases MPG efficiency by 19% - Page 2

Kearton · 2nd October 2008, 15:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddybrown

I personally was a bit sceptical but then it's not a company who came up with the idea it's a university which to my mind adds more weight to the research. Still after reading the responses on that page I've gone back to being sceptical until there's some REAL evidence with some fair testing.

The principle, if what they've done is what I suggested previously, is sound. Some years after writing it I realised that one of my university projects provided some of the basic evidence for it. (so I could have had a valuable patent now. Doh!)

Kearton

tigerchubs · 2nd October 2008, 16:11

The gready oil companies would love an 19% reduction in diesel sales i'm sure.

I find I get far better fuel economy & increased power from BP standard Diesel when compared with Jet, Total or supermarket diesel.

Kearton · 2nd October 2008, 16:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigerchubs

The gready oil companies would love an 19% reduction in diesel sales i'm sure.

I find I get far better fuel economy & increased power from BP standard Diesel when compared with Jet, Total or supermarket diesel.

Yes. I've heard this before too. It is what I use so I have no obvious comparison.

Interestingly there was a report recently (Which? magazine possibly) comparing the 'super' versions of fuels with the 'ordinary' ones. Whether you got any benefit, and how much, for the extra layout varied a lot between cars & brands. in terms of diesel, the Shell 'super' version did best. I don't recall whether it covered the extra outlay though. BP basic diesel came out well too as stated above.

Kearton

JamesP · 2nd October 2008, 16:29

I don't know anything about engines, but I do know that a Merceds 300D is not fitted with a common rail engine. Is this why having the box fitted saves fuel?

keiron99 · 2nd October 2008, 18:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kearton

Interestingly there was a report recently (Which? magazine possibly) comparing the 'super' versions of fuels with the 'ordinary' ones. Whether you got any benefit, and how much, for the extra layout varied a lot between cars & brands. in terms of diesel, the Shell 'super' version did best. I don't recall whether it covered the extra outlay though. BP basic diesel came out well too as stated above.

I heard this on R4 too. The conclusion was that the super-duper expensive fuels were a complete waste of money.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7635303.stm

2nd October 2008, 16:11	#12
tigerchubs Gets stuck in Rover 75 CDT+ in Yorkshire Gold Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Sheffield Posts: 975 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	The gready oil companies would love an 19% reduction in diesel sales i'm sure. I find I get far better fuel economy & increased power from BP standard Diesel when compared with Jet, Total or supermarket diesel. __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

2nd October 2008, 16:29	#14
JamesP Loves to post Rover 75 ConnSE CDTi 131 Starlight Silver Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Truro Posts: 354 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I don't know anything about engines, but I do know that a Merceds 300D is not fitted with a common rail engine. Is this why having the box fitted saves fuel?