Price Difference between super and UL!
02 April 2001, 08:29 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im bloody annoyed.
My local garage have a difference of about 9p and so do all of the other main brand stations I can find in Ipswich. I dont want to use cheapo stuff, we have had problems in the family that were proved to eminate from supermarket petrol. Plus a friends Mrs who works at one says they ignore the minimum levels for the tanks, so that you can literally get a tank of ****e of they havent had a delivery.
Does anyone know anymail addresses for the big brands esso/bp etc so that I can mail them.
Its out of order now, I think they are just taking the ****, relying on the fact that the change in duty slipped past most people in the budget, and are making excessive profits on it!
robski
My local garage have a difference of about 9p and so do all of the other main brand stations I can find in Ipswich. I dont want to use cheapo stuff, we have had problems in the family that were proved to eminate from supermarket petrol. Plus a friends Mrs who works at one says they ignore the minimum levels for the tanks, so that you can literally get a tank of ****e of they havent had a delivery.
Does anyone know anymail addresses for the big brands esso/bp etc so that I can mail them.
Its out of order now, I think they are just taking the ****, relying on the fact that the change in duty slipped past most people in the budget, and are making excessive profits on it!
robski
02 April 2001, 09:49 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robski.
I e-mailed BP, Esso and Shell when they went from 98Ron to 97Ron and argued the points about poor quality affecting engines performance/longevity and the ridiculous price difference between NUL, SUL and LRP. (I think I still have the e-mails if you would lke me to send them to you).
I got back standard-ish replies (which I also still have copies of) which basically said that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) had given approval for the reduction in RON and that the price difference was due to lack of demand. They also said the only reason that SUL was available at all was that it was the basis of LRP (which is SUL with an additive, which would surely make it a dearer product???).
I pointed out that in France where SUL is only a couple of pence (relative) dearer than NUL, their sales are a lot higher. Also why don't they promote the product and it's merits??
No comment.
Incidentally I e-mailed the SMMT and asked them if they did in fact give approval for the RON reduction, and if so what was their rationale as it affects performnce, longevity blah blah blah.
No reply!
The reason for the drop in Ron was given as "octane is expensive and rare" (although amazingly the rest of Europe still has 98Ron from all the same oil companies???) and they are striving for better emmissions. Although an engine actually runs more efficiently, hence with lower emmissions if the Ron is higher!!
I also quoted a magazine article on the whole subject of fuel and oil company ripoffs (BMW Car) which stated that some major car producers were asking the oil companies to produce a 100Ron fuel in order that they could achieve the emmisions and efficiency they desired.
No comment.
This is a subject that makes my blood boil and the only reason I stopped pursuing it was to stop myself having a heart attack due to the frustrating brush offs and dogmatic replies I was getting from all the companies I contacted.
I hope you have better luck, let me know how you get on.
Anyway, Monday morning rant over....
Neil.
I e-mailed BP, Esso and Shell when they went from 98Ron to 97Ron and argued the points about poor quality affecting engines performance/longevity and the ridiculous price difference between NUL, SUL and LRP. (I think I still have the e-mails if you would lke me to send them to you).
I got back standard-ish replies (which I also still have copies of) which basically said that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) had given approval for the reduction in RON and that the price difference was due to lack of demand. They also said the only reason that SUL was available at all was that it was the basis of LRP (which is SUL with an additive, which would surely make it a dearer product???).
I pointed out that in France where SUL is only a couple of pence (relative) dearer than NUL, their sales are a lot higher. Also why don't they promote the product and it's merits??
No comment.
Incidentally I e-mailed the SMMT and asked them if they did in fact give approval for the RON reduction, and if so what was their rationale as it affects performnce, longevity blah blah blah.
No reply!
The reason for the drop in Ron was given as "octane is expensive and rare" (although amazingly the rest of Europe still has 98Ron from all the same oil companies???) and they are striving for better emmissions. Although an engine actually runs more efficiently, hence with lower emmissions if the Ron is higher!!
I also quoted a magazine article on the whole subject of fuel and oil company ripoffs (BMW Car) which stated that some major car producers were asking the oil companies to produce a 100Ron fuel in order that they could achieve the emmisions and efficiency they desired.
No comment.
This is a subject that makes my blood boil and the only reason I stopped pursuing it was to stop myself having a heart attack due to the frustrating brush offs and dogmatic replies I was getting from all the companies I contacted.
I hope you have better luck, let me know how you get on.
Anyway, Monday morning rant over....
Neil.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post