Murco fuel

[MikeHiow]

It amuses me when I see people saying the quality of fuel is better at one station than another a mile down the road.

I'm pretty sure that 99% of the time*, the base fuel is all the same as it will all come from the nearest refinery regardless of the petrol station - the only thing that changes is the additives, so suggesting supermarkets skimp on the refinery process is lolworthy.

*That is at least how it works down here, and the guy that owns my old 'local' petrol station informs me this is how it is done everywhere.

With all that in mind though, I guess its entirely feasible that one fuel smokes more than another if an element of the smoking is kept down with additives (which we all know supermarkets do skimp on).

 

[Rainmaker]

Le sigh. I already said Fox I should have worded my initial claim better. It was you who evolved the argument to be "Tesco fuel can't possibly smoke more or return less MPG". I don't see the point in a quoting war.

My mistake, which I admit, was in using a 'week' of driving. As you may remember I'm disabled and use my car for EVERYTHING. I freely admitted this wasn't comparing the same trip to the same trip etc. But the fact remains, Tesco fuel drops MPG quite a bit and smokes like all hell. The car is also less responsive.

Do a Google for "Tesco diesel smoke" or similar, and you'll see that hundreds of other people say the exact same thing. I may have given a bad example initially but you turned this into "Tesco can't possibly create more smoke or get less MPG than other fuels". Which is demonstrably false.

If you read post #5, I stated (before you even entered the thread and took issue with MrLOL) that I know supermarket fuel meets EN spec, but in my area branded fuels are around 1 to 2PPL CHEAPER and exceed EN spec. Given they're cheaper, arguably better equipped (additives etc) AND don't smoke (zero smoke visible on branded fuel, proper clouds of grey on Tesco) I'd be silly to patronise Tesco and pay more for less.

The rest of it has spilled out of control, and out of context.

 

[Duke]

Most the time I use Tesco diesel, as its the most convenient petrol station to get to and use. Sometimes I use Texaco and not noticed any difference in driving or MPG etc.

 

[Wicksta]

Wow, way to misquote me and add absolutely nothing to the debate. I'm amazed at your knowledge of fuels and the incisiveness in which you destroyed my position.

Eh? I was being serious - he drives a diesel van and uses the local Tesco all the time. If he can improve his MPG by even half of what you are he will be very happy.

What are the actual MPG savings you are seeing then? As if I've 'misquoted' you I must have misunderstood you when you said 'struggling to get 40mpg' to getting 'up to 50mpg'.

 

[Rainmaker]

As I've tried to explain, I've been taken entirely out of context. Read the start of the thread again, and you'll see me say categorically that Tesco and other supermarket fuels MEET EN spec, but in my case branded fuel is CHEAPER as well as being arguably better for engine longevity (better detergents) as well as returning greater economy. That's basic maths (fuel density within spec, calorific value etc).

If you run a car on Tesco fuel as a rule, you're not going to notice much difference from the odd tank of Texaco. Your car/van is already well run on the 'other' stuff and arguably much more gunked up. That's the basis for Ultimate and VPower etc as we all know. The odd tank of 'premium' fuel (even Ultimate, VPower) isn't going to instantly transform your driving experience.

Conversely, running on high-end fuel and THEN trying more basic stuff would provide a more immediate reaction. Surely that's common sense?

As I said, my thread was simply asking whether Murco was considered a 'brand' of quality fuel (refining their own to spec etc) or whether they resold pot luck a la Vopac etc which most supermarkets do. In that context, I simply said I found going back to Tesco fuel (which did happen) resulted in more smoke and less economy.

THEN Fox took issue and started an argument which wasn't to do with my original question, making my original quote look bad in context of the NEW argument. He stated that Tesco couldn't possibly smoke more or return much less MPG, which for me (and others) it does.

As I said, over a WEEK of mixed driving, I'd get 40s overall and around town and up to 50mpg (motorway). Dropping in Tesco stuff did indeed take my mpg down to the high 30s (town) and into the mid 40s (motorway). That's not as much of a difference (once explained) as Fox took it to be (omg high 30s up to 50 is a massive jump). In fact it's around 4mpg like for like.

I wasn't explicit in my meaning because, at the time, we weren't arguing about economy I was simply dropping an off the cuff comment about something UNRELATED to my thread. I didn't elaborate or carefully explain myself because at the time I had no need to.

It's 100% true that Tesco drops my fuel economy, and it definitely absolutely smokes more in a car used to running on 'good stuff'. When I point out that hundreds of others online say the same thing (after I LATER check) I'm told it's heresay and urban myth self-perpetuating. Given that I didn't check until I was challenged on my independent assertion, I don't see how that can be the case.

In fact if you look online, or ask around, you'll see that in general those who use supermarket fuels as a rule don't see as much by way of issues. It's those who normally use 'premium' fuels and THEN try supermarket stuff that suffer most. That ties in with what I said earlier.

I categorically stated I didn't want a "a is better than b" thread, wasn't making claims, and just wanted to know about Murco as a company. I wrote in that spirit and had it turned against me, effectively, by an argument started later about a small part of one post I made off the cuff.

 

[[TW]Fox]

As I've tried to explain, I've been taken entirely out of context.

Not really, no. Your quotes are quite clear.

One thing I will ask - how have you managed to develop the level of understanding your several thousand word thesis on cetane ratings demonstrates without having heard of Murco?

 

[Rainmaker]

My quotes were clear when I was talking about something else. I'm not going to argue the fact any more. I made an off the cuff (i.e. not clearly explained and referenced) comment which you turned into a massive "omgwtf" rant not even related to my OP.

I learnt about diesel fuels and systems in the years I was developing and using my own biodiesels from UK feedstocks to use in my own car. That meant I knew exactly how diesel works and burns, but didn't necessitate me coming into contact with Murco.

My original question has been answered amply, and frankly this thread is descending into the ludicrous. Thanks for all your advice folks.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I made an off the cuff (i.e. not clearly explained and referenced) comment which you turned into a massive "omgwtf" rant not even related to my OP.

To be fair claiming Tesco fuel is pretty much substandard by saying it seriously affected your Berlingo is quite a belter as far as off the cuff comments go.

Maybe the reason your car has such a bad smoking problem is all the damage you've done to it using home made biofuels in a commonrail diesel engine

 

[Rainmaker]

To be fair claiming Tesco fuel is pretty much substandard by saying it seriously affected your Berlingo is quite a belter as far as off the cuff comments go.

Maybe the reason your car has such a bad smoking problem is all the damage you've done to it using home made biofuels in a commonrail diesel engine

You really are good at this politicians stuff aren't you? I used to use biofuel in my old cars (mainly XUD engined 405s, and Isuzu engined Cavaliers). THEN I got a Berlingo with a HDi, and moving back to dino-diesel (hence this thread). BTW the PSA HDi is warranted to run on B30 (30% biodiesel in 70% normal diesel) at any rate, so your point would have been moot regardless.

That's like me saying to you "Well Fox, you seem to know a lot about BMWs. How can you say you know about BMWs but not be able to name me all the main dealers in, say, Austria?"... Knowing the product doesn't mean you have to know every dealer and reseller of the stuff. I moved house last year (December) and this town has a Murco. My initial response was "Who the **** are they?". I'd never heard of them before, and given they have barely a couple of hundred outlets it's not hard to see why.

I stand by my original claim. Tesco fuel MEETS EN spec. That doesn't mean it's as good as stuff that EXCEEDS the spec. Tesco fuel most certainly burns 'dirtier' and produces more smoke in my experience. Around town it gets late 30s to early 40s mpg. Branded stuff gets mid 40s under those circumstances. That's a 4 to 5 mpg difference. On the motorway Tesco gives mid 40s, branded gives me late 40s to 50 mpg. Again, about four or five mpg increase.

YOU took that to mean I was saying Tesco = 38mpg, branded = 50mpg. Not so. That is indeed (if we take those as absolute figures) a 12mpg increase and not very likely to say the least. You took my lowest (town) figure for Tesco and my highest (motorway) figure for branded and tried to make me look silly with it, when all I was saying is that yes Tesco meets EN but I find it runs like crap compared to branded stuff.

 

[[TW]Fox]

That's like me saying to you "Well Fox, you seem to know a lot about BMWs. How can you say you know about BMWs but not be able to name me all the main dealers in, say, Austria?"...

Not really as I've never claimed to know about BMW's

YOU took that to mean I was saying Tesco = 38mpg, branded = 50mpg. Not so. That is indeed (if we take those as absolute figures) a 12mpg increase and not very likely to say the least. You took my lowest (town) figure for Tesco and my highest (motorway) figure for branded and tried to make me look silly with it.

Thats because you never said you only got 38mpg around town! I didn't 'take it to mean' anythig, I simply read EXACTLY what you had wrote. You said:

To my mind, yes. I struggled to hit 40mpg a lot of the time on Tesco stuff, it really was poor and smoked like buggery

No mention of town at all. Infact, no mention of a figure higher than 40mpg at all. All you told us about the fuel economy you got with Tesco was that you STRUGGLED to hit 40mpg. You didnt say 'But it did 45mpg out of town'.

You said:

Murco stuff returned no less than 45mpg and often 50mpg over the same driving week on week. A return to Tesco fuel always dropped MPG to the high 30s

See that? ALWAYS dropped mpg to high 30's. Murco returned 'NO LESS' than 45 and 'often' 50'. You even said 'The same driving, week on week'.

Stop doing a MikeHiow and changing the story as the thread progresses. If you make a statement, stand by it, don't try and pretend you never said it by flooding us with a several thousand word thesis on cetane content.

It's pretty obvious to anyone who can read English that you quite clearly said that over the same driving, Tesco was high 30's and Murco was 45-50. It's right there, in your post. Clear as day. Nothing out of context about the way its quoted - its exactly what you said.

 

[Antipasti]

I've done 120k in my work van on Tesco diesel. Never a problem.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I've done 120k in my work van on Tesco diesel. Never a problem.

What about the huge smokescreen behind you and the massive power loss?

 

[Antipasti]

Infact, pretty much all 7 of our vans use Tesco fuel, so thats nearly a million miles with no smoke screens/loss of powwwwaahhhhh

 

[Rainmaker]

I acknowledged this ages ago, and said I should have worded it better. At the time I had no reason for it to mean anything and explained myself better later on when it became apparent you'd made it 'important' in the context of the thread. I was only asking about Murco remember, not asking whether premium fuel is worth 6ppl more than supermarket. In that case you'd have had a point, but alas it was irrelevant.

I also said things like:

All fuel meets EN standards (EN590 in the case of diesel), yes. But that standard isn't very new, and doesn't take into account things like detergents, cetane improvers etc and so base EN fuel will 'go' but it might not let your engine live to be half a million miles old.

That wasn't my question anyway. As I said I didn't want to spark another "which is best" debate, I just wanted to know a bit more about Murco.

and crucially

To my mind, yes. I struggled to hit 40mpg a lot of the time on Tesco stuff, it really was poor and smoked like buggery. Murco stuff returned no less than 45mpg and often 50mpg over the same driving week on week. A return to Tesco fuel always dropped MPG to the high 30s or early 40s tops.

So I did indeed refer to the 40s for Tesco you just missed it and tried to beat me into the ground with it. The snippet you quote back at me missed that part out (again), where you conveniently snipped "OUR EARLY 40S TOPS" from the end while telling everyone in the next breath I never said Tesco could hit the 40s. Clearly you are wrong in that.

You also keep saying I refer to Tesco as substandard, when I've done no such thing.

I didn't just say "ALWAYS" - I also said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by [TW]Fox
Significantly?

To my mind, yes. I struggled to hit 40mpg a lot of the time on Tesco stuff, it really was poor and smoked like buggery.

If you're going to call me for not sticking to my story, at least quote me in entirety and not snipping bits off the end that make your argument moot.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Are you MikeHiows brother?

Seriously, it's been made pretty obvious exactly what you said and exactly why it got the response it did but no, you are STILL going. I can quote your entire post if you like, the message was the same!

 

[Rainmaker]

Are you MikeHiows brother?

Seriously, it's been made pretty obvious exactly what you said and exactly why it got the response it did but no, you are STILL going. I can quote your entire post if you like, the message was the same!

How is it the same, when you say "Rainmaker did NOT say Tesco could hit over 40", and your so called quoted evidence was a quote where you CUT OFF the part where I said Tesco hits over 40 so it suited your digs at me?

In fact had you quoted the entire sentence, not half of it, your jibe would have been meaningless and self defeating. When you're going to quote me half way through sentences, deny the other half existed (even when it's quoted back to you in defence) I won't need to ask who MikeHiow is, only whether you work for a Chinese government propaganda machine.

You said:

Infact, no mention of a figure higher than 40mpg at all.

And you were quoting a sentence ENDING in "or early 40s tops". You chopped that bit off. Had you INCLUDED that bit you'd have had nothing to say. You accuse me and assasinate my character in every post you make, without arguing back with anything of substance, and yet accuse ME of being an idiot while you doctor my quotes to suit. Nuff said.

 

[[TW]Fox]

How is it the same, when you say "Rainmaker did NOT say Tesco could hit over 40",

I didn't say that - I said 'no mention of a figure over 40mpg'

and your so called quoted evidence was a quote where you CUT OFF the part where I said Tesco hits over 40 so it suited your digs at me?

This is fast becoming a comedy goldmine. The bit I didnt quote said 'early 40#s' which I took to mean '40mpg' given you'd previously explained how it struggled to reach 40mpg. I presumed if it had reached, say, 44mpg you'd have mentioned that - its a reasonable assumption that the term 'early 40's' in a post which had previously said 'struggled to reach 40' probably meant... 40.

In fact had you quoted the entire sentence, not half of it, your jibe would have been meaningless and self defeating.

Well not really, no

And you were quoting a sentence ENDING in "or early 40s tops". You chopped that bit off.

See above.

accuse ME of being an idiot while you doctor my quotes to suit. Nuff said.

Doctor your quotes? I quote the bit I'm replying to. I don't change any of your text, I don't modify what you've said. And I've not called you an idiot.

Would it make you feel better if I quoted your entire post?

Bottom line: You told us Tesco fuel gave you high 30's and you struggled to reach 40mpg. You said Murco sometimes gave up to 50mpg. It really is rather pointless trying to argue to the contrary because.. thats exactly what you said. The longer this goes on the more silly it becomes.

If I was the only one to have intrepreted what you said in the way I did I may have a bit more sympathy for you, but I wasn't, so unsuprisingly, I don't.

 

[Rainmaker]

I didn't say that - I said 'no mention of a figure over 40mpg'

Erm... Yeah that's what I said you said. Here it is again:

No mention of town at all. Infact, no mention of a figure higher than 40mpg at all.

What I actually wrote, that you were replying to:

A return to Tesco fuel always dropped MPG to the high 30s or early 40s tops.

So clearly "early 40s" is indeed "mention of a figure higher than 40mpg". Yes?

This is fast becoming a comedy goldmine. The bit I didnt quote said 'early 40#s' which I took to mean '40mpg'

How does "EARLY 40s" (note the S on the end) mean 40mpg dead and no higher?

Doctor your quotes? I quote the bit I'm replying to. I don't change any of your text, I don't modify what you've said. And I've not called you an idiot.

Would it make you feel better if I quoted your entire post?

In this case? Yes. Not the entire post, just the entire SENTENCE would be nice. When I said "Late 30s to EARLY 40s" you don't cut the quote in half to say "late 30s" and then try to say I didn't mention the 40s. You're clearly talking **** and it's there in black and white.

Bottom line: You told us Tesco fuel gave you high 30's and you struggled to reach 40mpg. You said Murco sometimes gave up to 50mpg. It really is rather pointless trying to argue to the contrary because.. thats exactly what you said. The longer this goes on the more silly it becomes.

If I was the only one to have intrepreted what you said in the way I did I may have a bit more sympathy for you, but I wasn't, so unsuprisingly, I don't.

No as above you've clearly misconstrued me, even to the degree you're only reading half a sentence to back up your point. Tesco gets late 30s to early 40s. Murco gets mid 40s towards 50mpg. Not quite as dramatic as you were making out. I don't see dozens of other people thinking I said Murco gets 12mpg more, so your "If I was the only one" isn't very substantial either. I just asked someone to read this thread and they had no trouble at all comprehending my meaning.

It's funny how I'm not the only one referring to you as overly pedantic and argumentative for no reason, yet it's everyone else at fault not you. My meaning is clearly adequate and you have to chop my sentences in HALF to make your argument make sense. I don't see what else I can add. The comedy is all you my friend.

 

[G J]

delete...

 

[[TW]Fox]

Erm... Yeah that's what I said you said. Here it is again:

Erm

Yes, thats pretty much what I said I said I admitted I said that to you, you've even quoted my admission

So clearly "early 40s" is indeed "mention of a figure higher than 40mpg". Yes?

How does "EARLY 40s" (note the S on the end) mean 40mpg dead and no higher?

It's a hugely murky and entirely unclear way of mentioning a figure, isnt it? I took the assumption that you'd have said '45' had you meant nearly 45mpg, and 'early 40s'' had you meant, well, 40mpg.

In this case? Yes. Not the entire post, just the entire SENTENCE would be nice. When I said "Late 30s to EARLY 40s" you don't cut the quote in half to say "late 30s" and then try to say I didn't mention the 40s. You're clearly talking **** and it's there in black and white.

I said no mention of a figure higher than 40's. Are we going to delve into a grammar argument now or are you you quite happy to admit that the term 'early 40's' is not a specific figure? It isnt, is it? I've explained above what it could very likely mean.

Tesco gets late 30s to early 40s. Murco gets mid 40s towards 50mpg. Not quite as dramatic as you were making out.

Well, it depends what you meant by early 40's really doesnt it? You made massive emphasis on the late 30's thing - given how poor a light you wanted to portray Tesco in - so I rather doubt the figure in your mind was 44mpg. We'll never know how, as you'll simply claim it was to save face.

My meaning is clearly adequate and you have to chop my sentences in HALF to make your argument make sense

I chopped it to save space, seroiusly, get a grip.

Bottom line: Your claims about how terrible Tesco fuel is are vastly over-rated. End of. Arguing till the end of time about specifics and trying to tone down what you said and crying war crimes because I didnt quote your entire post each time is just a waste of everyones time.

Sadly my character flaw - everyone has them - is that I always have to have the last word. If i was a bigger person I'd have given up and left you to ramble on to yourself about how Cetane Ratings prove your precious Berlingo isn't a happy bunny on the nasty fog generating Tesco fuel hours ago.

I suspect the rest of the forum is looking at both of us in pity now, not really caring either way. I doubt many of them think the same you do about Tesco diesel, mind.