-
Read the WELCOME ALL BMWFANATICS post.
Best Diesel?
- Thread starter Mujahid
- Start date
Bugger
///Member
So in the interests of diesel engines, and that I have my little 330D, I find this thread to be VERY interesting.
I filled up with Shell when I got the car, ran two weeks on that tank, averaging around 7.4L/100kms. My last tank was Engen, and my consumption is not as good.
Found this article, ok it relates to tractors, but thought it might be useful in the context of this thread.
http://www.grainsa.co.za/sa-graan/grain-enquiry---what-to-use:-500-ppm-or-50-ppm
I filled up with Shell when I got the car, ran two weeks on that tank, averaging around 7.4L/100kms. My last tank was Engen, and my consumption is not as good.
Found this article, ok it relates to tractors, but thought it might be useful in the context of this thread.
http://www.grainsa.co.za/sa-graan/grain-enquiry---what-to-use:-500-ppm-or-50-ppm
RAArmstrong
///Member
ChefDJ said:
All I know is that Leah runs quieter and feels more powerful... :fencelook:
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
netercol
New member
all the listed benefits of 50ppm is obviously true, 10ppm even more so.
the benefit from 500ppm that always starts the arguments lies in its lubricity. because the process that removes sulfur from the diesel also affects it lubricating properties, the refineries have to put additives back into the diesel to get its lubricity back up again, since the only lubrication the high pressure pump and the injectors ect has is the diesel flowing through them.
some argue that its not enough, and so newer diesel engines gets designed with this lessened lubricity in mind. older diesels apparently do not cope so well with the newer 50ppm and 10ppm. (over time)
my advice to friends and family has always been to use 500ppm in their older diesels to prolong fuel system component life, and to use the cleaner diesels in newer diesels designed for it, and obviously to protect the cats and dpf's fitted to newer diesels.
remember that the driving force behind cleaner diesel is ultimately the environment. as such all you will hear about is the benefits, and the negatives gets downplayed, or ridiculed.
the power difference felt between different brands have nothing to do with its sulpur content, and everything to do with its cetane , and the additives package added to a spesific brand. it is also not unknown for filling station owners to dilute their diesel with paraffin, (though of course this is vehemently denied) which will definitely cause a drop in power..
the benefit from 500ppm that always starts the arguments lies in its lubricity. because the process that removes sulfur from the diesel also affects it lubricating properties, the refineries have to put additives back into the diesel to get its lubricity back up again, since the only lubrication the high pressure pump and the injectors ect has is the diesel flowing through them.
some argue that its not enough, and so newer diesel engines gets designed with this lessened lubricity in mind. older diesels apparently do not cope so well with the newer 50ppm and 10ppm. (over time)
my advice to friends and family has always been to use 500ppm in their older diesels to prolong fuel system component life, and to use the cleaner diesels in newer diesels designed for it, and obviously to protect the cats and dpf's fitted to newer diesels.
remember that the driving force behind cleaner diesel is ultimately the environment. as such all you will hear about is the benefits, and the negatives gets downplayed, or ridiculed.
the power difference felt between different brands have nothing to do with its sulpur content, and everything to do with its cetane , and the additives package added to a spesific brand. it is also not unknown for filling station owners to dilute their diesel with paraffin, (though of course this is vehemently denied) which will definitely cause a drop in power..
Andy1GP
///Member
There you have it Dyllan, From the research I've done 500ppm actually has less cetane than 50 or 10 ppm. Hence when adding a cetane booster the 500ppm makes the car come alive.
Like you said Nico, the Pros of 10ppm is all that the public sees and only the negatives of 500ppm. That's why you have to really look online to discover the answers for yourself.
Like you said Nico, the Pros of 10ppm is all that the public sees and only the negatives of 500ppm. That's why you have to really look online to discover the answers for yourself.
ChefDJ
///Member
Also not a fan of 10ppm.
But hang on...
500ppm has higher sulphur than 50ppm. That sulphur is what damages your injectors and fuel pump before the lubricity even affects the engine. With this in mind, wouldn't it still be better then to use 50ppm? I would definitely stay away from 10ppm.
Perhaps add a lubrication agent or something to 50ppm?
But hang on...
500ppm has higher sulphur than 50ppm. That sulphur is what damages your injectors and fuel pump before the lubricity even affects the engine. With this in mind, wouldn't it still be better then to use 50ppm? I would definitely stay away from 10ppm.
Perhaps add a lubrication agent or something to 50ppm?
netercol
New member
i agree.. a lubricating agent added to 50ppm would probably the best idea, but there is the rub.. how much do you add to equal 500ppm? there is no hard data available (not that i have ever been able to find anyways) that shows exactly how much lubricity is lost and replaced.. refineries wont even admit the possibility of such a issue existing.
in my absolute non expert opinion
its boils down to : do you take the risk of more damage due to higher sulphur levels, or do you take the risk of damage due to lessened lubricity ..which is why i would say keep type to type.. at least the older engines were designed with higher sulfur diesel in mind, so the materials used in the engines should cope with it.. the very newest diesels were designed with at least 10ppm in mind, so even if the oem would not admit any issues its a reasonable bet that the materials should cope with 10ppm, else they would have too many issues under motorplan..
Waseem 333i
Active member
When talk of older diesel cars, how old is the car supposed to be?
speeddemon
///Member
Very interesting thread...
I've been using 50ppm ever since i bought our 2003 Jeep Cherokee and also thought that 500ppm is dirtier....and funny enough i always thought that it's a bit heavy on fuel but thought it's probably because of the Jeep's weight...
Think i will switch to 500ppm and see....i would think that it got the older diesel engine..
Thaks again for all the info in this thread gentleman
I've been using 50ppm ever since i bought our 2003 Jeep Cherokee and also thought that 500ppm is dirtier....and funny enough i always thought that it's a bit heavy on fuel but thought it's probably because of the Jeep's weight...
Think i will switch to 500ppm and see....i would think that it got the older diesel engine..
Thaks again for all the info in this thread gentleman
Andy1GP
///Member
500ppm has a higher specific energy than the more refined 50 and 10 counterparts. If all the diesels had the same cetane value 500ppm would be the clear winner in every respect, hence additives make 500ppm my weapon of choice.
50ppm would probably get my vote if one just wants to fill up without any hassles.
50ppm would probably get my vote if one just wants to fill up without any hassles.
davelo
Member
Sasol 50ppm diesel vs Engen 50ppm
An update, since I now have more data from my logbook over a period of almost 18 months and 30 000km:
Sasol: 8.36 l/100km. Std dev 0.82 l/100km
Engen: 7.90 l/100km. Std dev 0.25 l/100km
5.5% drop in consumption with Engen.
I changed from Sasol to Engen in April 2014, after I logged a formal complaint regarding an inaccurate pump. Still awaiting feedback on that one. Very average customer service. As I mentioned previously, this may also be indicating that Engen's pumps are more accurate (hence the lower standard deviation values) as opposed to fuel quality and/or variability. Graphical plots of the data suggest this rather strongly. I'm just reporting what I'm seeing.
The above data is based on:
Sasol: 12934 km, 18 fill-ups Aug 2013 to Apr 2014, 1117.11 litres at a cost of R15 172.67
Engen: 16589 km, 21 fill-ups May 2014 to Jan 2015, 1308.667 litres, at a cost of R17 104.64
Actual consumption calculated when filling up, not based on OBC values.
Out of interest, the onboard computer values have dropped from an average of 7.9 to 7.6 l/100km. The computer consumption under-reads by around 3% on my vehicle.
Virtually identical daily vehicle usage throughout this period, mostly highway, with some city traffic. 2009 E83 2.0d MSport manual.
The vast majority of the fill-ups were at one Sasol garage and one Engen garage in PE. During this period there were only 4 sporadic fill-ups at other garages (2 x BP, 1 x Total and 1 x Caltex).
An update, since I now have more data from my logbook over a period of almost 18 months and 30 000km:
Sasol: 8.36 l/100km. Std dev 0.82 l/100km
Engen: 7.90 l/100km. Std dev 0.25 l/100km
5.5% drop in consumption with Engen.
I changed from Sasol to Engen in April 2014, after I logged a formal complaint regarding an inaccurate pump. Still awaiting feedback on that one. Very average customer service. As I mentioned previously, this may also be indicating that Engen's pumps are more accurate (hence the lower standard deviation values) as opposed to fuel quality and/or variability. Graphical plots of the data suggest this rather strongly. I'm just reporting what I'm seeing.
The above data is based on:
Sasol: 12934 km, 18 fill-ups Aug 2013 to Apr 2014, 1117.11 litres at a cost of R15 172.67
Engen: 16589 km, 21 fill-ups May 2014 to Jan 2015, 1308.667 litres, at a cost of R17 104.64
Actual consumption calculated when filling up, not based on OBC values.
Out of interest, the onboard computer values have dropped from an average of 7.9 to 7.6 l/100km. The computer consumption under-reads by around 3% on my vehicle.
Virtually identical daily vehicle usage throughout this period, mostly highway, with some city traffic. 2009 E83 2.0d MSport manual.
The vast majority of the fill-ups were at one Sasol garage and one Engen garage in PE. During this period there were only 4 sporadic fill-ups at other garages (2 x BP, 1 x Total and 1 x Caltex).
Similar threads
