United's Boost 98 - poor economy

Submitted: Saturday, Jun 10, 2006 at 20:19
ThreadID: 34803 Views:3337 Replies:4 FollowUps:4
This Thread has been Archived
Just ran through my third tank of United's Boost 98 - their E10 premium fuel.

Won't be using it again.

Vehicle is a 3.5L V6 Pajero. Around town economy jumped from about 15.5L to 18.9L/100km - that's about a 22% increase in fuel consumption compared to using Shell's Optimax, which is also 98 octane. The whole idea of using E10 is to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, because you're burning some ethanol instead - well in my Pajero, I end up using MORE fossil fuel, as well as the ethanol! Just the fossil fuel component alone works out to be 17L/100km (90% of 18.9L) - that's a 10% increase in fossil fuel consumption. That makes it WORSE for the environment in my particular vehicle.

Not worth it from either an environmental or cost perspective - United has got some work to do on that fuel before I will touch it again. This is the second time I've tried out their "greener" fuels - both experiences have had the same result. Dramatic increase in consumption. Something's wrong with it.
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Brew69(SA) - Saturday, Jun 10, 2006 at 20:21

Saturday, Jun 10, 2006 at 20:21
Thats an interesting find. TT did a test a while ago and found the exact opposite. I have been keen to try it myself. Will be good to hear other replies.
AnswerID: 177867

Follow Up By: Scubaroo - Saturday, Jun 10, 2006 at 20:24

Saturday, Jun 10, 2006 at 20:24
Hmmm, would that be the same Today Tonight that also did a test that found premium fuels were a waste of money (I get much better economy out of Optimax), and was recently in bed with United with their 10c and 14c/L discounts?
FollowupID: 434001

Follow Up By: Scubaroo - Saturday, Jun 10, 2006 at 20:26

Saturday, Jun 10, 2006 at 20:26
Must add that I'm quite disappointed - I was looking forward to being able to use an ethanol blend fuel from an environmental perspective (even though there's arguments for and against the "green" rating of the fuel).
FollowupID: 434002

Reply By: MartyB - Saturday, Jun 10, 2006 at 20:43

Saturday, Jun 10, 2006 at 20:43
I have been using United's Plus Ethanol in my 2 cars. This is the 94 octane ethanol.
Cars are a 2003 V6 Commodore & a 1994 V8 Disco.
Both cars run fine on this fuel, economy is comparable to standard unleaded.
At one stage there was an 8 cpl difference which really made it worthwhile. Now in Maryborough the difference is only 2 cpl.
I will probably keep using it.

from Marty.
AnswerID: 177870

Follow Up By: Scubaroo - Sunday, Jun 11, 2006 at 00:53

Sunday, Jun 11, 2006 at 00:53
Not Marty from Coiltek?
FollowupID: 434032

Follow Up By: MartyB - Monday, Jun 12, 2006 at 13:38

Monday, Jun 12, 2006 at 13:38
No, not Marty from Coiltek.
FollowupID: 434252

Reply By: David from David and Justine Olsen's 4WD Tag-Along - Saturday, Jun 10, 2006 at 21:23

Saturday, Jun 10, 2006 at 21:23
That is an interesting find,. Normally E10 would give you a slight increase in consumption bu overall a reduction in fossil fuel usage. I run E10 in my Commodore and have been getting 8.8 to 9.5L/100k. It is a 2006 Aclaim. I certainly don't notice any difference in consumption when using undoctored fuel.

Of course I don't run premium, so not sure if I would see a difference if I did.
AnswerID: 177873

Reply By: Sand Man (SA) - Sunday, Jun 11, 2006 at 11:03

Sunday, Jun 11, 2006 at 11:03
I tested E10 from SAFF Fuel Outlets. Three tank fills in succession.

The price was the same as ULP, the fuel consumption no different that I could detect and I had to go slightly out of the way to get to the Petrol Station.

The nail in the coffin was they were only open from 7am-6:30pm which didn't always suit my work shift, so I have given them a miss.

I'm diagonally parked in a parallel Universe!

My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 177929

Sponsored Links