CHOICE membership

Petrol prices


is not nearly as much fun, especially the pre-electric kind :slight_smile:


I prefer to keep both hands on the grips when my petrol consumption on the bike is approaching 20 l/100km … :wink:


… if they say so …


We are so lucky the ACCC is tasked to provide such value added advice.

For many consumers, price is the most important factor when determining where to buy petrol. The ACCC’s recent report on average petrol prices by major retailer in 2017 showed that petrol prices vary considerably by retailer. As such, price-sensitive consumers can make significant savings over time by choosing to buy petrol at lower priced retailers.

Who would ever have known that consumers can make significant savings over time by choosing to buy petrol at lower priced retailers on their own, without the valued ACCC reporting?

All the companies are united in the price cycle game, but it must be coincidental they just happen to make the same calls within minutes or hours of each other with the straggler being rare and the odd one out. ‘prices vary considerably by retailer’ must be the samples taken while they are busy updating their signage during the cycles.

Apologies to the regions and bush where it is just high and higher, no cycles to worry about, for the metro view.


Prior to the opening of the first United servo in Cairns in July 2017, the local cartel operated in collusion with standardised pricing, which was generally the highest on the Qld seaboard.

The arrival of United really put a cat amongst the pigeons with petrol prices now often lower than in Brisbane.

As of yesterday, a Caltex servo was 159.9 c/l, Coles Express was 156.9c/l a Puma was 153.9c/l and our nearest United was 149.5c/l.

Since they opened, I only go to United as if they were to close, I have no doubt that the cartel would be back to their old tricks.


The ACCC seems to totally ignore anything outside the capital cities, and in this case the fact that the apps and websites don’t seem to have (much?) price coverage away from the capital cities where the prices are highest.
But heck, we can choose which of the high price outlets we buy our petrol from can’t we?


The ACCC must follow the 80-20 rule. Or an approximation.

Per the ABS in 2016 census 7 out of 10 of us live int the capital Cities. Throw in the near by urban sprawls of the adjoins areas, such as Wollongong or the Gold Coast etc and it is nearer to 80%.

Similar stats if you look at the states. NSW, Vic and Qld with 8 out of 10 living in just these three, and the ACT of course. It’s a little less of you only count SE Qld.


Is that for 91 or 95? and do you have unsniffable fuel there?

Here, 8 out of 10 people live somewhere else …


You know that, I know that.
I’ve worked and lived somewhere else. It can be the best place to live.

But it seems that whether it’s the NBN, or access to medical services, or the cost of flying, or just plain old fuel charges, the same 10%-20% always get a lesser deal. It’s also what Bob Katter must put in his tea every morning, 20% of something else to keep him pepped up and out there all day.


The main trouble with petrol pricing is that no State or our Federal Governments will move against this cash cow setting. The States all enjoy the benefits of the GST and when petrol prices are high the GST take is greater. The Federal Government collect the GST prior to disbursement to the States and so benefit from the liquidity, they also gain the benefit of the fuel excise, pricing parity with the Singapore price, and other taxes that affect the fuel industry.

I do not see them biting the hand that feeds them and so expect the pricing to continue. One possible benefit of higher pricing is that it makes alternatives much more cost comparative and so research into them much more an economic reality.


It was for Unleaded 91.


Certainly every little bit helps encourage change.

Fresh from avoiding the national cynicism survey:
I suspect that as any alternative takes off there will be a short window of benefit to the user. It will be swiftly closed by both levels of interested government what ever it takes to replace the lost revenue streams. Be it a tax on sunshine, or GPS vehicle tracking and higher sales taxes on alternate fuel vehicles or something else?

Would it be too much to ask that the consumer is consulted first? Perhaps an increase in general taxation to spread the impact more widely and support the transition would be wiser ( eg increases to company taxes, etc). Oh sorry, we are supposed to be cutting those.


That’s higher than I’d have thought, you are fairly well north but also eastern sea board with a lot more population than some places. Here u91 is pushing 1.70/l but due to being low aromatic (unsniffable) it seems to be only tourists who buy it. I won’t put it in anything unless I have to - too many stories of damaged engines - its not the same u91 the rest of the country has, and the oil companies tell us it is completely safe, but for me u95 is the go, at around 1.82/l … prices don’t change much, no discount wars, so we just pay pay pay …


Brisbane yesterday had prices ranging from 158.9 c/l for unleaded 91 and 159.9 c/l. The e10 unleaded (which I think gets a 95 octane rating) was 156.9 almost unilaterally. This was from an area from Springfield to Sth Brisbane (a distance traveled of about 40 km).


Blind Freddy (the ACCC) hath spoken and provided yet more sage advice. There are 3 issues and we consumers can only control the last. Who would have known?


Two things come to mind.
Firstly shopping around and chasing the price cycle. So an upgrade to a 200l long range tank for the Ute is a good idea Mr Simms? What does the extra 120kg fuel weight do to consumption?

Secondly, should have got the dual fuel conversion. It would be great to suggest that if we all converted to LNG, which Aust has plenty of, the first concern of Mr Simms - the oil cartel in the Middle East would disappear. Oh - there is a gas cartel in eastern Australia. Who would have guessed. We must look pretty silly to the rest of the world exporting massive amounts of natural gas at bargain prices several times lower than we sell it for domestically, and then we import all that petrol to run cars that could all be gas powered?

That 20hp Stanley is looking like really great value. There is zero tax if I use my wood for fuel, or iron bark at 20c per kg. Might add that to the alternate vehicle fuel thread.


If you are referring to the Stanley Steamer cars, they were not wood fired but were petrol fired.

At least they were rarely, if ever, stolen due to the time that it took to get the boiler up to pressure.

I hear there might be a prequel to the modern cult movie “Gone In 60 Seconds”.

It will be titled “Gone In 60 Minutes”.


Thanks Fred. Wondered why it had not caught on.


For the steam crowd Ted Pritchard built a modern (1960-70s) steamer that worked. Sounded like a thermoblock instead of a boiler. From another thread…


One observation on many of these alternatives is that they nearly all use accepted engineering and scientific principles. There are the occasional oddball ideas they deserve less interest.

In the press and quasi scientific publications we tend to see the science simplified. The Engineering is often at concept or prototype although typically the designer can point to something similar that works.

This enables the promotion of the solution as more than a vague concept by using terms and ideas most of us sort of understand or pretend to understand. Any facts and figures are often simplified data grabs. They are rarely complete in their analysis or qualification. For 99.9% of us that would be the turn off point. We tend to rely on others to interpret these and provide easily understood assessments.

On the scientific side it is very unlikely that any altenative will achieve sustained genuine interest if in theory the performance is not possible. IE claims of 1,000km on 1kg of walnut shells in a special engine might quickly be debunked, short of a new nuclear process we are yet to discover.

The gap any scientifically supportable alternative needs to close is typically in the areas of cost and efficiency. The proponents of any new or improved solution are offering to have solutions to one or both of these. This assumes that the final product is environmentally acceptable, resource efficient, and economically viable. There is a fine line between a solution showing promising results and a promise to provide a solution.

We rarely get to see what’s behind these promises as the developers carefully manage their research and reveals. There is much to protect including the next round of funding. It is great to be able to share what others can find and interpret and support optimism for necessary change in the topic for Electric and Alternate Vehicle Fuels.