Tesco Fuel Again?

[geraldrobins]

What I'm surprised of is how many peeps swear blind they'd only use Genuine mb replacement parts but quite happily run there car on supermarket fuel to save a few pence. Do you think the chance of fuel contamination is more likely at a supermarket outlet Than a filling station like bp?

1. Because they don't think there is any significance difference.

2.No.

 

[ItalianTuneUp]

What I'm surprised of is how many peeps swear blind they'd only use Genuine mb replacement parts but quite happily run there car on supermarket fuel to save a few pence. Do you think the chance of fuel contamination is more likely at a supermarket outlet Than a filling station like bp?

And what surprises me is how many peeps purchase 'MB' parts, and pay MB high prices, when many of the parts are made by different companies anyway!

Example:
Air co fan blower made by some company I can't remember cost £250, but the exact same part cost £400 when sold by MB. Which did I buy? One guess

 

[markjay]

You really are failing to understand this I feel.

Its simple, the chances of contamination etc are 100% the same!!!...

I think what you are actually saying is that the chances of garage tank contamination are not related to the fuel brand, and I would agree with that.

However, to the inquisitive mind, there would also be the question of whether some type of garages are more prone to contamination than others.

Presumably tank contamination is not a random occurrence, but the result of poor maintenance procedures.

I hypothesised earlier that motorway services owned by the energy companies are less likely to suffer from tank contamination compared to smaller, independent garages, because of the higher turnover, and because of the (presumably) more robust maintenance procedures, but I obviously don't know if this is actually the case.

Also it is possible that (some) supermarket chains achieve lower prices by performing only the minimum maintenance procedures using less staff and cutting operating costs, but again there is no way to know this unless an insider spills the beans.

The other issue is how a garage deals with a tank contamination issue once occurred. If certain brands of fuel companies or supermarkets are consistently providing poor customer services to affected motorists, then this would be a good reason to avoid them.

Personally, in recent years I have only ever used Shell V-Power (which, I am led to believe, is in fact manufactured separately to other UK fuels), purchased at local garage or motorway services, and never had an issue. This is obviously not scientific proof of anything, just an observation and a satisfactory result.

But, again, overall there is a lot of guesswork involved due to very little independent test data, so naturally motorists tend to rely on their own experience, visit placed where they had good results, and avoid places that sold them bad fuel or provided poor service.

 

[markjay]

And what surprises me is how many peeps purchase 'MB' parts, and pay MB high prices, when many of the parts are made by different companies anyway!

Example:
Air co fan blower made by some company I can't remember cost £250, but the exact same part cost £400 when sold by MB. Which did I buy? One guess

I think the issue is that when the MB part has no manufacturer's part number - but only MB part number - it is very difficult to be 100% sure that it is the same part when you buy it directly from the manufacturer.

Keeping in mind that the official line from MB will always be that the part was developed 'to MB's specification'.

This means that the manufacturer might very well make other parts of similar general description but different quality when these are manufactured and sold under the manufacturer's own brand.

One such example is the Toshiba 40gb HDD fitted in the COMAND NTG2.5 unit. A Toshiba 40gb SATA 2.5" 5400rpm HDD purchased from an online retailer will cost a fraction of the price of the MB-branded unit.... but as Richard said the HDD fitted in the COMAND is actually a toughened version made to Automotive standards - designed to work in harsher environment i.e. higher temperature and absorb shocks.

I do agree that this might be an isolated example, and also when a part has both the manufacturer's P/N (e.g. Bosch, Valeo, Delphi etc) and the MB P/N then it is reasonably safe buying this part directly from the manufacturer using only the manufacturer's P/N (i.e. without the MB P/N and the MB logo) because it is unlikely that the manufacturer will have two parts with same P/N but different spec.

But my point is that when purchasing non-MB parts one should always exercise caution and common sense, rather than just assume that all MB parts can be bought from other brands with the same spec and quality.

 

[Peter103]

All fuel sold in UK garages carries the British standard number and kite mark, is it the case then, that diesel bought in a supermarket , could be any different from that bought from Joe Bloggs garage in the high street? Except maybe from contamination?

 

[merc85]

You really are failing to understand this I feel.

I understand it perfectly well, but asking questions is what helps other people on the forum.

It also gives me a indication on how other people think with regard to the upkeep of there vehicles.

You seem to be reading to much into why i've asked questions

 

[ItalianTuneUp]

I think the issue is that when the MB part has no manufacturer's part number - but only MB part number - it is very difficult to be 100% sure that it is the same part when you buy it directly from the manufacturer.

Keeping in mind that the official line from MB will always be that the part was developed 'to MB's specification'.

This means that the manufacturer might very well make other parts of similar general description but different quality when these are manufactured and sold under the manufacturer's own brand.

One such example is the Toshiba 40gb HDD fitted in the COMAND NTG2.5 unit. A Toshiba 40gb SATA 2.5" 5400rpm HDD purchased from an online retailer will cost a fraction of the price of the MB-branded unit.... but as Richard said the HDD fitted in the COMAND is actually a toughened version made to Automotive standards - designed to work in harsher environment i.e. higher temperature and absorb shocks.

I do agree that this might be an isolated example, and also when a part has both the manufacturer's P/N (e.g. Bosch, Valeo, Delphi etc) and the MB P/N then it is reasonably safe buying this part directly from the manufacturer using only the manufacturer's P/N (i.e. without the MB P/N and the MB logo) because it is unlikely that the manufacturer will have two parts with same P/N but different spec.

But my point is that when purchasing non-MB parts one should always exercise caution and common sense, rather than just assume that all MB parts can be bought from other brands with the same spec and quality.

Yes, you're right, which is why research before purchasing will help anyone in doubt before making a 'bargain saving'

 

[markjay]

All fuel sold in UK garages carries the British standard number and kite mark, is it the case then, that diesel bought in a supermarket , could be any different from that bought from Joe Bloggs garage in the high street? Except maybe from contamination?

1. BS or ISO set a minimum spec that the product must comply with. A manufacturer could choose to exceed the BS or ISO spec and still be compliant. This is known as 'meets or exceedes'. Different manufacturers could exceed the BS/ISO to different degrees thus one product can be 'better' than the other even though both carry the same BS/ISO compliance certification.

An example is that some diesel engine manufacturers chose to fit DPF to Euro IV engines even though this was only required for Euro V certification. So two Euro IV engines can have very different particulate emissions, one being 'better' than the other (i.e. produce lower emissions)

2. Also, standards in general deal with certain aspects of the product that are considered crucial for consumers or safety etc. But they do not necessarily cover ALL aspects of a product.

As an example Shell's FuelSave petrol claims to deliver better MPG, but MPG performance is not part of the BS for fuels. So (if Shell's claims are to be believed) drivers get a 'better' product that still carries the same BS as the 'lesser' product.

 

[gadget1960]

Having a Mercedes which lasts for years with enduring value and reliability is one of the best bargains for the economy minded , especially when other makes need to be Fixed Or Repaired Daily , or give Lots Of Trouble , Usually Serious

You forgot Fix It Again Tomorrow and Break My Window

 

[a111r]

You forgot Fix It Again Tomorrow and Break My Window

Much Evidence of Rust 'n' Corrosion is what we encounter!

 

[c63chris]

Fascinating thread! To answer the OPs question on contamination yes chances are the same whichever you go to. Whatever people think about the fuel being sold it is basically the same type of people selling it. As a teenager I worked at a shell station. We had to dip the tanks to check levels and help the tanker driver make his delivery. Most of the work was done by the driver TBH but in terms of contaminating fuel it will be no difference where you go. I have always used supermarket fuel and never had a problem for what it's worth.

 

[219]

Id imagine this never really happens, and tanks are ran to lowest safe level possible, then specialist tankers are brought in to recover remaining amounts which are then recycled or disposed of.

What independant would honestly take fuel from an unknown source to potentially spoil their high cost fuel tanks?




Sent from my iPhone

Maybe someone desperate with a failing business , high costs , low turnover and cash flow problems

It was just a bit of supposition though .

 

[kjb1]

because they are two a penny!! nonsense


Sent from my iPhone

 

[219]

I must have been really lucky. I've always had ford vans for work. (Mostly from new) and never had one break down on me.

Had a few belting Ford cars too including an ST24 & ST220 and again never missed a beat. As I said. Must have been lucky or just the fact I looked after them.

Ant.

It was said in jest and not meant to be taken too seriously - hence the 'smilie' in my original post .

I know Fords are decent cars , I've owned a couple myself and driven more than a few .

There aren't many really bad cars these days .

 

[kjb1]

my bad!! glad you are on the side of sense [emoji106][emoji3][emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone

 

[Deleted member 113659]

It was said in jest and not meant to be taken too seriously - hence the 'smilie' in my original post .

I know Fords are decent cars , I've owned a couple myself and driven more than a few .

There aren't many really bad cars these days .

lol. I know Derek. I didn't take your comment to heart.

I agree, unless you're a car boffin then most cars are great nowadays. Crikey, when I think back to being a kid. My dads cars were terrible. Always breaking down. My 10 year old daughter has never suffered the embarrassment of being made to get out and push the car through traffic. Hell,,, the memories!!!

Ant.

 

[brucemillar]

Hmmm. An interesting update in this case. I wonder if it will indeed get as far as the courts?

Doctor set to take on supermarket giant Tesco over contaminated petrol sold at garage in Faversham

Doctor set to take on supermarket giant Tesco over contaminated petrol sold at garage in Faversham

20 January 2016
by Bess Browning

• [email protected]
• 
• 

A scientist says he will take Tesco to court if the company does not admit it was at fault in causing damage to his vehicle with contaminated petrol.
In December, Tesco admitted a water leak in one of its fuel tanks in Faversham led to a handful of customers suffering faults.
At the time, Tesco spokesman Joe Chapman confirmed there was a water leak in one of the fuel tanks in the filling station.


Dr Richard Newell. Picture: Chris Davey


We reported how both Daniel Peters, 33, and Janet Fever, 59, said that hundreds of pounds of damage were caused to their cars after they filled up at the station in Crescent Road with the premium unleaded Momentum.

"I am seeking an apology, a full explanation about where the water came from, why the water detection equipment was not working and an assurance that this will not happen again"​

But Tesco said their claims were unfounded. This week, Dr Richard Newell, from Conyer, says he suffered similar problems to Mr Peters and Mrs Fever, with a garage finding a large amount of water in his fuel tank, causing the car to break down.
Dr Newell went back to Tesco straight afterwards and warned the staff there about the problem.
He says the management there were more than helpful and you “could not fault” their response. But in writing to head office, Dr Newell said he was incredibly disappointed with their denial that they were to blame for the problems.
In response to Dr Newell’s case, Mr Chapman said: “We were sorry to hear of the inconvenience Dr Newell experienced.
“However, having investigated his claim, we remain very confident that our fuel was not at fault.
"We had the tank in question independently tested for water leakage and reported no problems.
"We are in touch with the few customers known to be affected by the issue which did occur at our filling station on December 6, and will continue to work hard for them.”


The affected customers have received compensation. Picture: Chris Davey


Dr Newell, 77, said: “I am not looking for compensation in this matter.
"I am seeking an apology, a full explanation about where the water came from, why the water detection equipment was not working and an assurance that this will not happen again – why would I fill up here if I don’t know whether this will happen again?
“Fortunately I can afford to pay for the damage. But for many people, paying out £600 or more just before Christmas is a very serious matter.
“I am a very experienced scientist and it is very clear that my fuel was contaminated with water and it is easy to have some idea of when the water got into the fuel.
"It is wholly irresponsible for a huge corporate company like themselves to not hold their hands up and admit it was them.We all know that mistakes can occur.”


Dr Newell wants Tesco to apologise. Picture: Chris Davey


In a letter to Tesco, Dr Newell says: “If you conveniently choose to deny any liability for water contamination in the petrol I obtained from your Momentum supply, it basically assumes that sometime in the hour between the time I filled the car up at your store and the time the vehicle broke down I must have poured water into the fuel tank of my car!
“I am sure you would agree that this would be ludicrous defence for you to adopt should this matter come before a small claims court. I am considering what action I should take regarding possible legal action.”

 

[dddooommm]

Stick to shell!

 

[flango]

^ As some on this forum are aware I am currently awaiting a response from a supermarket chain (who I won't name yet as have been advised not to). Regarding contamination of their 99 RON fuel. They have initially admitted liability as I was smart enough to pick up on it fairly quickly go back and buy some more in a petrol can whilst being videod. This fuel was then sent away for analysis at two independent laboratories and both confirmed the fuel was contaminated.

I never buy supermarket fuel but this was convenient and you would have though high octane fuel to be a relatively safe bet. So £980 later in replaced components and I've learnt my lesson.

I will update you but from the tone of their first communication I'm awaiting a cheque

 

[GLK]

99 RON Supermarket fuel ... hmmm, that's a tricky one!