So a 3p a litre cut will be made on Ultra Low Sulphur Petrol. This fuel is expected to take over from UL within a year.

Anyone used it or know how the Scoob reacts to it?

Is it 95 Ron only or will it be available as 97 Ron Super?

http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/confused.gif

Cheers
Lee

You beat me to it!
I'd never even heard of it before todays budget speech. I thought Herr Braun oops Brown had made a slip of the tongue and was refering to diesel. I'm probably demonstrating my ignorance but someone out there must be able to help. It'll probably turn out to be 92 ron or something!

Speaking to a guy at my local Shell petrol station he was talking about LRP and SUL being replaced shortly with ONE fuel which would do the job of both.

I was complaing about the availability of SUL at filling stations.

Hope this is the one being talked about in the pre-budget speech.

Doubt it thou'

http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/frown.gif

It was mentioned on 'working lunch' on BBC 2 today. The woman said that it is better for the environment and gives a 20% increase in fuel economy with no side effects.

Hmmm...i'll let my knocklink be the judge of that.

I also have never seen the stuff round here, and hadn't heard of it until today.

Phil. - (checking its not 1st of april)

From BP's website :

Probably more questions than answers at this stage, but it has always struck me as somewhat contradictory when unleaded fuel was introduced as environmentally better, but at only 95 RON.

It is widely acknowledged that global warming is the major environmental problem. It is also a fact that higher octane fuel allows superior performance and therefore more mpg, which equals lower greenhouse gasses.

Call me cynical, but the introduction of catalytic converters and 95 RON unleaded fuel has both increased the cost of cars (more profit), and increased fuel consumption (more profit). Neat scam between car and fuel manufacturers if you ask me.

Hoppy

PS The other excuse for scrapping leaded petrol was that it caused brain damage. But unleaded additives give you cancer. What the world really needs is high octane petrol without the carcinogenic extras. Is that too much to ask?

what the world really needs is that invention
that guy had a while ago...

he basically modified a *standard* petrol
engines fuel system to use hydrogen gas.

he figured out a way to break water into
its component eliments and the car ran as
good as on petrol but with water!

the sad thing was that he had to go into
hiding. Apparently the oil companies wanted
to buy the idea..offered him millions of
$, only so they could shelve it. When he
refused the death threats came. I even think
there was an attempt on his life :O(

hehehehe, Mattski, the chap who claims that you could run a car on water(H2O), by splitting it into Hydrogen (H) and Oxygen (O) was of course correct , its easy, anyone could design it.

The tricky bit is splitting the H2O into H and O unfortunatly this requires energy which has to come from somewhere. GCSE/A level chemistry will tell you that. Any talk of "catalytically" cracking the water (which is the usual dodge) doesn't hold any water( http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/wink.gif) catalytic reactions do not create energy, they just enable reactions to take place under a different set of conditions.

If some chap had actually come up with a system that worked all he would have to do is Patent it and then publish, any newspaper would print it, his interests are protected by the patent.

Its all a Hoax mate

Edit for bit of text having been moved to the end of post, probably by an oil comany conspiricy

[This message has been edited by Paul Wilson (edited 09 November 2000).]

Paul,

I don't pretend to know the exact physics/
chemistry behind it but it was a reputable
source, Panorama I think.

They basically followed the guy around and
he demonstrated the thing live and it was
pretty impressive stuff. The engine looked
normal apart from some extra pipes etc.

Apparently the one that he demonstrated
was an 'old' one, a much more advanced one
being hidden away.

As for the papers protecting interests etc
I am not so sure that holds water!

Remember oil companies are mega powerful
and ruthless...remember the 'BP secret army'
stuff?

I think if there was a threat to them (and I
believe there is) they would do anything to
stop it, there is too much money involved in oil to see it vanish over night.

Loads of these sort of things have happene,
lightbulbs that never blow, mega high capacity batteries with huge life, all bought and shelved by the appropriate companies...

Paul, oh bu99er. It's worse than I feared, then. I just thought I'd come up with a good excuse to get some cheap SUL at the pumps!

Hoppy

Hoppy

So sorry mate but you've fallen foul of the 'pseudo science' given out by all government sponsored idiots.

I'm afraid the cats on our cars are THE major cause of increase in the (badly named) greenhouse gases . . . sad but true.

Also "It is widely acknowledged that global warming is the major environmental problem" - oh no it's not.
Actually there is NO proof that it even exists!
Small example: being an old git when I did A level Chemistry in 74/75 the widely accepted "reality" http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/biggrin.gif from the great environmental scientists was that oil (i.e. petrol) would run out BEFORE 2000 . . . . yeah right, so they REALLY have got it right THIS time?

Complete muppets I say.
Next they'll be telling us that diesels are green (well if you ignore the tons carginogens they are) http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/frown.gif

We get what we deserve if we let the politicians run our country. https://smilecwm.tripod.com/ut1/rocketwhore.gif

Paul https://smilecwm.tripod.com/net4/jump.gif

On a serious note,

If emissions are cut by ultra low sulphur fuel does this mean that cars with only one (or no) Cats may pass the MOT emissions test.

AndrewC...

mattski:

"You canny change the laws o'physics Cap'n"

O level Physics, lesson one.

To change Water to Hydrogen & Oxygen requires energy! It is this energy which is then released when the two are re-combined by being burnt.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it is merely changed from one form to another.

Here endeth the lesson

Chris

ah, but isn't there some weird quantum
physics that suggested the change of state
thing could change... might have been on
Slashdot...

besides, my scoob is powered by dilithium
crystals so I don't need earthly petrol
anyway :OP

oh, and 7 of 9 is my 'co-pilot' ... yumyumyum

sulphur is not a green house gas anyway, all coblers to get the gov off the hook, bring down tax yet not look like they did, just before an election. t0$$ers.

cats on cars, worst decision for the environment ever, missed out on all the lean burn technology.

very sad!!

I wonder what they will do with all the sulphur they remove from the petrol?

By the way, back in the 60's the same scientific community which is now going on about global warming was predicting the start of the next ice age (which is overdue)this was after a number of cold winters.

It's amazing how the scientists suddenly discover planet threatening scenarios when they run short of funding.

I thought the same thing John, why go on about freezing duty then give a cut on Ultra Low Sulphur fuel. 99% of Deisel is already Ultra low Sulphur, Brown just didn't want to say it outright.
Still a little conserned about putting an unkown fuel in the Scoob, I can still remember the Shell saga.

See you on Sunday @ Donno.

Lee

Re John F's comments (totally agree BTW), I seem to remember reading years ago that the group that did the initial research into the pros and cons of catalytic converters just happened to part of a company that owned some of the largest platinium mines in the world. Conflict of interest? No...
Could be an urban myth, but somehow I don't think so.

Also read recently that CCs have been blamed for the destruction of roadside forests in Germany - the cause? Heavy metal poisioning (ie platinium amongst others).

And lets not even start about the use of benzene in unleaded fuel...

Chris