Vortex or Ultimate or bog standard diesel??

Have used Vortex only because that's the only diesel the servo had.

The Vortex made no difference to my fuel consumption at all, the only difference was to my wallet.

The best thing I ever did is add 2 stroke oil into the diesel, motor runs smoother and idles better, it sometimes would just stop when idling down and putting the clutch in, that problem has just disappeared. I have a old mechanical rotary pump so the 2 stroke may not be any good in a common rail motor.

Have a good one

hi patrol22
i tried a couple of tanks of b p ultimate in my v w 1.9ltr golf diesel which gave me 2000km's of driving test and apart from a small bit of zip in acceleration it didn't change consumption figures and cost more so i deemed it not worth the extra
i will add i have run 2 stroke in the v w common rail system with results being a much smoother and quieter diesel but no change in consumption figures of 5.2 l/100km - hwy
use of 2st has been discussed at length on here and other sites but i just cant find threads right now for reference
imho the extra paid for the vortex/ultimate isn't worth it unless of course the this type of fuel is recommended by vehicle manufacture and would void your warranty if not used
cheers

I have tried both Caltex and BP diesel in their latest incarnation and found very little difference.

Have been using 2 stroke oil in a common rail Jeep for 12 months now and it does reduce engine noise, reduces exhaust gas temps (About 30 degees in my case)All that is discussed on the link below. I will certainly keep using it.


Here is the link to a major discussion on 2 stroke oil in diesel fuel.

On the last page of this discussion one of the contributers is about to post some photo of common rail pumps internals with and without 2 stroke oil added to the fuel.


http://www.freel2.com/forum/topic878.html

Cheers
Graeme

There is no difference in fuel consumption in my vehicle with Vortex diesel. I use it more to do with injector failure paranoia than anything else.

The main downside is not the extra cost. It is the low flow pump used for Vortex. Used to use the high flow truck pumps. Much quicker especially when I take 150 to 155 litres each fill. Also no concern about accidentally filling up with petrol when using high flow pumps.

Flynnie

Marketing, advertising and branding are remarkable things. I dont know if there ia actually any diesel manufactured in Au at either of the 2 refinerys.
Diesel is rated by cetain not RON.
There is an Au standard which is quite wide regarding cetain. Diesel cetain is nor advertised at the bowser or published as far as I know. Caltex/woolworths is 2% bio diesel acccording to NRMA. I dont know about everyware it is not labeled that way here but I have seen the bio label at some larger metro outlets.
I cant answer your question and I dont believe that anyone can. Unless they have inside the distributer knowledge.
Anything else is just plain heresay and wishful thinking.
My vehicle seems a littleless rattly on idle with a splash of 2 stroke but I dont think the range on a tank is greater.
Only an industrial chemest and oil industry insider can answer your question. Everyone else has 3 hands on their bleep .

Hi all.
Not sure about the diesel side of things, as far as mileage/power etc., however, I can absolutely assure you of an outcome on the petrol side of things. Have owned VW Beetles since 1983, (also build my own engines) and if any car engine can notice the difference in different types of petrol, it is certainly an underpowered Volkswagen Beetle engine. I have used all fuel types and there are 2 clear winners in the fuel stakes here. I have heard that all the fuel is refined by Caltex and distributed around the country under Caltex and the other company logos, but , I don't think this is correct. If it is correct, then it comes down to the additives each company puts into the refined product. Let me first start with Caltex unleaded and Premium, - the beetles, and Kombis, that use this tend to be louder, and when accelerating are noisier, giving the impression of more power, however are actually slower and climbing up hills tend to lose power much more rapidly.(why this is so I can not tell you - perhaps the additives used). The engines tend to run hotter, and if the exhaust is checked after running a tankful, it is black and has a good coating of carbon. When driving later model vehicles the same happens, although it is much less noticeable, and unless you are attuned to your vehicle and its sound and the power, then you possibly would not even notice. As far as the mileage is concerned per tank of fuel, I get much less distance per tank out of Caltex than either of the two other competitors. Many VW Owners in clubs who use their VW's as daily drivers, have tended to agree with this in discussions carried out at times. Best power rating would go BP closely followed by Shell. By this I mean least loss of power travelling uphills. Kilometres travelled per tank of fuel, this best economy would have to go to BP, again with Shell not far behind. The difference on a long flat run with no head or tail winds between a 55lt tank of BP and the same tank filled with Caltex at times vary as much as 60-70klms extra distance travelled with the BP Fuel. Shell affords approx. an extra 50klms more distance than the tank of Caltex. To carry this trial out yourself you will need to limit your speed and accelerate gently and smoothly. I would be interested in what others have to say when they carry out this trial. My trial was carried out with a variety of aircooled volkswagens all with different sized engines as well as a 1999 Nissan Patrol GU ST4500, all with similar results. Fuel was purchased over a period of time from WA, SA, VIC, TAS, NSW & QLD so this could not be bad batches of fuel in any one area/state.