Motor Vehicle fuels - are the brands all the same?

[syncretic]

@TGouldie

Doing any testing of fuels locally or nationwide is way too expensive or complicated for Choice to do,

I do not claim to speak for the community but above is my main concern.

For reference this is the section on Fuel quality compliance section of Legal Metrology Compliance in 2021–22 Legal Metrology Branch December 2022

Following Machinery of Government changes in early 2020, Department of Industry, Science and Resources became responsible for administering compliance with the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000. During the 2021–22
financial year NMI undertook sampling and testing to help maintain the integrity of liquid fuel composition throughout Australia.
During the 2021–22 financial year NMI conducted 384 fuel quality audits and non-compliance was found at 20 sites.
Of the 384 businesses audited;
• 364 (94.8 per cent) were found to be compliant
• 20 (5.2 per cent) were found to be non-compliant.
Of the 20 businesses found to be non-compliant, 19 fuel samples failed to conform to the fuel quality standards and 2 did not comply with the correct ethanol labelling requirements.
596 fuel samples were collected and analysed during the 2021–22 financial year. 19 (3.1 per cent) of the 596 samples were found to be non-compliant for reasons including:
• 4 unleaded petrol samples had olefin volumes over the maximum limit of 18 per cent
• 3 unleaded petrol samples olefin volumes over the maximum limit of 18 per cent and had sulphur levels higher
than the maximum 150 ppm
• 1 unleaded petrol sample had a research octane number result lower than the minimum 91.0
• 1 premium 98 petrol sample had a motor octane number result lower than the minimum 85.0
• 1 premium 98 petrol sample had sulphur levels higher than the maximum 50 ppm.
• 8 diesel samples had a flash point lower than the minimum 61.5°C
• 1 diesel sample had a water and sediment volume content higher than the 0.05 per cent maximum limit.
The NMI wrote to the non-compliant sites to advise them of the outcome of the fuel sample analysis recommending that they undertake measures to ensure that they comply with the fuel quality standards and the fuel quality information standard.

This is their compliance audit, I haven’t found results (if any) from complaints. This survey is more than 10% of the service stations in Oz. I can’t find the proportion of pumps tested but more than one were taken per station. I can’t find any breakdown by brand.

The results could be better but don’t look that bad to me, of 596 samples 3 had low octane and one was polluted above standard. I know what “olefin” means but I don’t understand the reference in this case, any takers?

My conclusion is the authorities are on the case and doing a fair job.

[mark_m]

The community has responded with a broad range of observations and suggestions.

Fuel is far more complex than butter.
Choice chose to taste test butter, but did not look any further.
https://www.sfgate.com/recipes/article/When-Put-to-the-Test-Here-s-How-Butter-Brands-3236719.php

Worth the read?
The butter that I might prefer on my toast may not be the same as my partners preference. The butter most want to use on toast may be a poor choice for cooking. Different types of cooking might suit different brands of butter. Butter fat content does not necessarily assure a good tasting butter. It’s complicated for a simple thing like churned cows milk.

The scope of the testing covered in the previous post @syncretic, is substantial. It’s evident we do know when a fuel is non-compliant with the standards.

@TGouldie

The Community appears to think that as long as the government is checking for minimum standards, Choice does not need to extend that scope to “good, better, best” because …

It’s not evident what makes one brand of fuel of the same type and grade “good, better, best”. Other than to suggest if it meets regulated standards it is the fuel most convenient to one’s location available at the lowest price. Is it possible the community sees differentiation of fuel brands as a marketing exercise?
Those I worked with in the industry would suggest candidly (although bound to publicly support the brand they were employed by) the best choice was any servo backed by a well known brand with high turnover. I still follow that wisdom. Fuel does age to its detriment. Every site will offer a differing experience irrespective of brand.

If one understands or accepts there are many variables, it’s one more consideration where,

@TGouldie

Doing any testing of fuels locally or nationwide is way too expensive or complicated for Choice to do, ……

After 220,000 km on many different brands of fuel all RON91 I’ve no need to doubt the power or fuel economy of the Toyota. If that is the experience of most in the community, one conclusion available,

@TGouldie

Fuel brand usage should be left to individuals to work out what works best for their vehicles.

If I was asked for my brand preference and what to test, it would be to test what was coming out of the exhaust pipe of my vehicle, over many kilometres and tanks of fuel. Every car differs in many ways and we all have different driving needs/styles. There’s likely to be very different results irrespective of the brand of fuel used because other factors vary. The dots are all there in the discussion so far.

Our fuels are dirtier than EU standards and vehicle engines less efficient, (weak regulation and industry influences). I can taste that difference, it is measurable on a personal level, but at great cost. No brand is likely to be a winner, although the more expensive options may offer a slight improvement in total emissions.

[TGouldie]

Thanks to all, I have learned a lot during this discussion.

[grahroll]

@TGouldie

Doing any testing of fuels locally or nationwide is way too expensive or complicated for Choice to do, although we know of no protocol for the extent or complexity or cost of consumer testing being in place

In response to this I went looking for some stated cost of having fuel testing done. One lab I could find who disclosed the cost states that the cost of the test on a 1 gallon sample was US$1,062 (AU$1 537,18) this is for certified results, which to declare better best etc would be required, to ensure CHOICE could stand up in Court to defend against legal actions.

That would amount on 500 tests (an extremely small subset considering 3 types of RON rated of petrol (91, 95, 98) plus Diesel) to US$531,000 (AU$768,197). That’s a lot of extra money to find and then spend in an Organisation that in 2022 achieved a surplus on current costs of AU$389,534 (that extra fuel testing cost is a shortfall of AU$378,663 on CHOICE’s yearly surplus)…the surplus for 2021 was even less at AU$170,000, this makes the equation even worse for CHOICE. Thankfully the Government carry out this costly exercise for us all and spreads that cost over all Australia’s population. The Government may achieve some cost saving by using their own certified labs but CHOICE do not have this ability (which just to test fuel would also increase capital and ongoing costs to build, staff and maintain such a facility).

As members of the public, if we suspect the quality of a fuel supply, we can report the suspected poor fuel. The following web page has information about fuel quality and a specific link to email a complaint to.

Regulating Australian fuel quality - DCCEEW

The email complaint link is LF.Compliance@industry.gov.au

[draughtrider]

@syncretic

Of the 384 businesses audited;
• 364 (94.8 per cent) were found to be compliant

It would be interesting to see the comparison of 91RON everywhere else, and how the 91RON LAF stacks up in the ‘standard test’, whatever that is. Especially given LAF is a political instrument and not one the Government would like to see discredited …

[mark_m]

@draughtrider

the ‘standard test’, whatever that is.

Yes,

Fuel Quality Standards (Petrol) Determination 2019

Low aromatic fuel (BP Opal) does not rate a special mention. Which may or may not be helpful.