Superfuels "Waste of Money"

Which? Magazine has concluded in a report that super fuels are a "waste of money" and fail to improve performance.

Which? tested three of the premium fuels against standard petrol and said that they were not better for a car in the long run.

"For many cars it is a waste of money paying over the odds for so-called 'super fuels'. The standard fuels we tested were all up to the job, whether from a major fuel brand or a supermarket. There is no conclusive evidence to show that super fuels are better for your car in the long run. So in a time of high oil prices, why would you choose to pay more?"
Richard Headland, Editor, Which? Car Magazine

The report said that Shell V-Power gave a 1.6-litre Ford Focus a marginal power increase, but filling the car on this petrol for 12,000 miles would cost £115 more than using Shell's standard petrol.

The magazine's findings suggested that Tesco's Super Unleaded decreased the power of the Ford Focus.

Which? also tested a diesel super fuel and said that BP Ultimate diesel made the fuel economy and performance of a Renault Megane 1.5 slightly worse.

The magazine added that motorists would do better to drive less frequently and more economically if they wanted to protect the environment, as it said the super fuels tested only had a marginal effect on emissions and pollutants.

The fuel providers dispute the findings and methodology of the report.


Related Posts
Mild Winter Could Ease Fuel Costs
Oil up 16% in Monday's Trading
Food & Energy Prices Push Index to 16 Year High
Turnip Sales Grow as Crunch Bites
Pictures: Run on Bank of East Asia