10ppm worth the extra cents?

VAG Fan
Cadet
Posts: 919
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:54 pm
Location: Pretoria

Re: 10ppm worth the extra cents?

Post by VAG Fan » Fri May 17, 2019 4:19 pm

I wonder whether the reason could be the regeneration of the particle filter. With 50 ppm, it would be filled sooner than with 10 ppm. But I'm not sure how much extra fuel the technology actually uses.
Mark R.
- - - - - - - - - -
1992 Audi 500 SE, type C4, AAR, 335k (2001-current)
1990 VW Fox, type 16, HM, 245k (2005-current)
2004 VW Golf, type 1J, AHF, 231k (2016-current)
Previous:
1978 Audi 100 GLS 5E, type 43, WC (1991-92)
1983 VW Golf GTS, type 17, FR (1992-2005 but still in the family)
- - - - - - - - - -
User avatar
Stefan0909
Cadet
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:55 am
Car Make: VW
Car Model: Tiguan 2.0TDI
Location: Vaal

Re: 10ppm worth the extra cents?

Post by Stefan0909 » Sat May 18, 2019 9:50 am

10PPM or 50PPM, diesel is diesel at the end of the day. I only use 10PPM as it is the cheapest in Vanderbijl at R15.40 P/L.

I haven't seen any difference between 10PPM or 50PPM regarding mileage or consumption. It is the same with a Normal Aspirated Vehicle with 93 Oct and 95 Oct, there is no noticeable difference.

Like VW Golf Velocity Owners, fitted a Cone Filter and the car all of a sudden is 10 - 20 km/h faster, or driving a BMW 320 i with a M Sport Pack and it turns into a M3.

That is my honest opinion
Ex Rides:
1.4i Velocity Stock
1.4i Kia Rio Stock
1.8i VTEC Honda FRV Stock
Citroen DS3 Techno Pack Stock
Peugeot 208 1.6 Allure Stock DECAT

Current Ride:
VW Tiguan 2.0TDI Stage 1 + DPF, DECAT and EGR done
VAG Fan
Cadet
Posts: 919
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:54 pm
Location: Pretoria

Re: 10ppm worth the extra cents?

Post by VAG Fan » Mon May 20, 2019 8:59 am

The comparison between sulphur content and octane number is not a good one.

93 and 95 are not all the same to a normally aspirated vehicle - especially not at the coast. Advanced ignition systems operate as close as possible to the detonation point and monitor the combustion with at least one knock sensor. (Even the KE Jetronic, which has been around for more than 30 years, operates this way.) You may therefore get better power delivery or better economy from higher octane fuel, because the spark timing can be advanced further without causing detonation. This is also why some manufacturers only allow the highest octane rating in their cars.

And even an old jalopy like my 1990 Fox with good old-fashioned mechanically adjusted timing: If you take a relatively high-compression engine from the Reef to the coast, and you still have 93 in the tank, you may well find that the engine pings excessively. I found that the problem was much smaller when I filled up with 95. So there was a difference - in my case not so much in performance, but in engine protection.
Mark R.
- - - - - - - - - -
1992 Audi 500 SE, type C4, AAR, 335k (2001-current)
1990 VW Fox, type 16, HM, 245k (2005-current)
2004 VW Golf, type 1J, AHF, 231k (2016-current)
Previous:
1978 Audi 100 GLS 5E, type 43, WC (1991-92)
1983 VW Golf GTS, type 17, FR (1992-2005 but still in the family)
- - - - - - - - - -
PeterTech
Enlisted
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:16 pm
Car Make: VW
Car Model: Polo 1.6 TDI
Location: Witbank

Re: 10ppm worth the extra cents?

Post by PeterTech » Mon May 20, 2019 1:01 pm

VAG Fan wrote:The comparison between sulphur content and octane number is not a good one.

93 and 95 are not all the same to a normally aspirated vehicle - especially not at the coast. Advanced ignition systems operate as close as possible to the detonation point and monitor the combustion with at least one knock sensor. (Even the KE Jetronic, which has been around for more than 30 years, operates this way.) You may therefore get better power delivery or better economy from higher octane fuel, because the spark timing can be advanced further without causing detonation. This is also why some manufacturers only allow the highest octane rating in their cars.

And even an old jalopy like my 1990 Fox with good old-fashioned mechanically adjusted timing: If you take a relatively high-compression engine from the Reef to the coast, and you still have 93 in the tank, you may well find that the engine pings excessively. I found that the problem was much smaller when I filled up with 95. So there was a difference - in my case not so much in performance, but in engine protection.
A friend of mine has a 2.7 vvti Hilux and if you fill that thing with unleaded 93 it will finish so quick you will swear there is a leakage somewhere on the vehicle whereas if you fill it up with unleaded 95 it will still drink it like a fish but it will take a little longer to do so. I think the same argument can be made for 50pp and 10pp diesel.

Sent from my G3312 using Tapatalk



User avatar
VGTI
Major
Posts: 3542
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:21 pm
Car Make: Cheap Ass Porsche
Car Model: 9N Sooter
Membership No: 807
Location: Diep innie bos...

Re: 10ppm worth the extra cents?

Post by VGTI » Mon May 20, 2019 1:11 pm

PeterTech wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 1:01 pm
VAG Fan wrote:The comparison between sulphur content and octane number is not a good one.

93 and 95 are not all the same to a normally aspirated vehicle - especially not at the coast. Advanced ignition systems operate as close as possible to the detonation point and monitor the combustion with at least one knock sensor. (Even the KE Jetronic, which has been around for more than 30 years, operates this way.) You may therefore get better power delivery or better economy from higher octane fuel, because the spark timing can be advanced further without causing detonation. This is also why some manufacturers only allow the highest octane rating in their cars.

And even an old jalopy like my 1990 Fox with good old-fashioned mechanically adjusted timing: If you take a relatively high-compression engine from the Reef to the coast, and you still have 93 in the tank, you may well find that the engine pings excessively. I found that the problem was much smaller when I filled up with 95. So there was a difference - in my case not so much in performance, but in engine protection.
A friend of mine has a 2.7 vvti Hilux and if you fill that this with unleaded 93 it will finish so quick you will swear there is a leakage somewhere on the vehicle whereas if you fill it up with unleaded 95 it will still drink it like a fish but it will take a little longer to do so........i think the same argument can be made for 50pp and 10pp diesel.

Sent from my G3312 using Tapatalk
I don't think you read everything he said... I have bolded it for you.

The difference is 40 parts per million and remember it is about compliance, i.e. it should not contain more than 50ppm. Doesn't mean it contains 50ppm, could be 11ppm for all you know.

It is about sulpher content, the rest are exactly the same.

We are talking 0,004% difference at most.
'04 Polo TDI 1661.9 km on 58.05l
'13 Hyundai Santa Fe 2.2 Elite
VAG Fan
Cadet
Posts: 919
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:54 pm
Location: Pretoria

Re: 10ppm worth the extra cents?

Post by VAG Fan » Mon May 20, 2019 1:18 pm

To be clear: Petrol octane number and diesel sulphur content are conceptually completely different things.

Octane number of petrol has, by design, a direct influence on combustion. But to my knowledge, diesel sulphur content has no bearing on ignitability or other combustion parameters - only on the composition of the exhaust gas (soot, SOx, acids, etc).
Mark R.
- - - - - - - - - -
1992 Audi 500 SE, type C4, AAR, 335k (2001-current)
1990 VW Fox, type 16, HM, 245k (2005-current)
2004 VW Golf, type 1J, AHF, 231k (2016-current)
Previous:
1978 Audi 100 GLS 5E, type 43, WC (1991-92)
1983 VW Golf GTS, type 17, FR (1992-2005 but still in the family)
- - - - - - - - - -
User avatar
panic-mechanic
Panic's Place
Posts: 26311
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 9:08 am
Membership No: 79
Location: Benoni, putfontein.

Re: 10ppm worth the extra cents?

Post by panic-mechanic » Mon May 20, 2019 1:31 pm

There is NO comparison between what Octane does for petrol and what sulphur does in diesel. The thing that is remotely similar in diesel is cetane but it works basically the other way around. The higher the cetane number in diesel the faster is will combust and in petrol the higher the octane the slower is will combust. So a high cetane fuel will make for an easier starting diesel and better performance but only to a point where it will then do what a petrol engine on low octane does - ie detonate as the timing will be too advanced. We don't even really know the cetane number of fuel that we put in as it is not ever displayed to you. Really only the refinery will know.
Sulphur is naturally present in diesel and acts as a lubricant in old style injector pumps and injectors but the end result was that what escaped past the rings would mix with the water in your oil from condensation and create sulphuric acid in the crank case which is bad for the engine and require shorter service intervals. It is also one of the biggest causers of diesel particulates (soot).
Lower PPM used in diesel engines make for cleaner oil and less harmfull stuff in the crank case and atmosphere. It basically does nothing to or for performance in a modern day diesel engine. Lubricity enhancers are used to replace the suplhur to still be safe for pumps and injectors.
People understand very little about what stuff does in a fuel but yet will convince themselves and others that it has a major benefit or not on performance.
Octane in a petrol engine can have a an effect on performance and yes consumption if the management system is equipped to react to changes in timing. If it is an old basically mechanical timing system it will make no difference to performance. Modern day knock sensor systems will allow more timing advance and yes could return better consumption becuase more power is available so you use smaller throttle opening.
Stephan van Tonder - Jhb - Putfontein Benoni
'07 Audi S6 V10 - beast !!!!!
'05 Audi A6 3.0L TDI Avant
'09 Audi Q5 3l tdi
'95 Audi 90 coupe quattro
'13 VW CC 2l tdi (repair project)
'05 Touareg v10

Perfect Power dealer. I do dyno tuning.
User avatar
Tman21
Cadet
Posts: 483
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 7:16 am
Car Make: VW
Car Model: BosPolo
Membership No: 3247
Location: Roodepoort
Contact:

Re: 10ppm worth the extra cents?

Post by Tman21 » Fri May 24, 2019 11:55 am

My 2C,

Drove my 3.0 BT50 Auto for 40K km's. Used 500ppm from shell for 80% of its life and got between 630-660km on 72-75l of diesel respectively, then FNB decided that you only get Ebucks at Engen who only sells 50ppm. This obviously took me a while but without any changes to the vehicle I could not get 600km on a tank anymore unless I really test the reserve and even empty it out to fill about 77-78L.

Now on my 2019 2.0 Amarok, I tracked it with 10-50ppm whatever I could find and got an average of 9.8kmpl over almost 11K km. I have in the last 3500km only filled with 500ppm and im getting 10.8-11.5kmkpl. The Amarok is Euro3 compliant if im not mistaken so it can swollow a 500pm no problem but it wont be my continuous practice.

The Engen close to my house charges R16,68 for a liter of diesel so FNB can rather keep their 75c worth of ebucks and I use shell or total where their 50ppm is often mor than R1.15 cheaper.

My car is was bought new and I have maintenance plan so im just looking for the most economic way forward.
Success: When hard work meets opportunity :-)
#TMAN21
User avatar
panic-mechanic
Panic's Place
Posts: 26311
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 9:08 am
Membership No: 79
Location: Benoni, putfontein.

Re: 10ppm worth the extra cents?

Post by panic-mechanic » Fri May 24, 2019 12:03 pm

all of this is moot anyway as within this year 500ppm will be gone.
Stephan van Tonder - Jhb - Putfontein Benoni
'07 Audi S6 V10 - beast !!!!!
'05 Audi A6 3.0L TDI Avant
'09 Audi Q5 3l tdi
'95 Audi 90 coupe quattro
'13 VW CC 2l tdi (repair project)
'05 Touareg v10

Perfect Power dealer. I do dyno tuning.
PeterTech
Enlisted
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:16 pm
Car Make: VW
Car Model: Polo 1.6 TDI
Location: Witbank

Re: 10ppm worth the extra cents?

Post by PeterTech » Fri May 24, 2019 12:45 pm

panic-mechanic wrote:most people say they get worse consumption on 10 ppm than on 50 ppm. I can't help you. I don't track consumption at all. None of my cars are particularly light on fuel and I drive - when it needs fuel i put in.
Well i also fall under the same group of "most people" who get worse consumption on 10pp. I think it mostly has to do with the kind of car you drive.

Sent from my G3312 using Tapatalk

User avatar
panic-mechanic
Panic's Place
Posts: 26311
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 9:08 am
Membership No: 79
Location: Benoni, putfontein.

Re: 10ppm worth the extra cents?

Post by panic-mechanic » Fri May 24, 2019 1:36 pm

Yeah on something that does 16l/100 at times i really don't notice 0.1 of a km more.
Stephan van Tonder - Jhb - Putfontein Benoni
'07 Audi S6 V10 - beast !!!!!
'05 Audi A6 3.0L TDI Avant
'09 Audi Q5 3l tdi
'95 Audi 90 coupe quattro
'13 VW CC 2l tdi (repair project)
'05 Touareg v10

Perfect Power dealer. I do dyno tuning.
User avatar
ED van Greunen
Enlisted
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 2:06 pm
Car Make: vw
Car Model: 2003 mk 4 jetta 1.9 tdi

Re: 10ppm worth the extra cents?

Post by ED van Greunen » Fri May 24, 2019 1:43 pm

can i throw a spanner in the works here. Cheapest HP gain ever :geek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezjknhwcQXU

would like to know what the other diesel was they used...
'Racecar' is 'racecar' spelled backwards
User avatar
Jetta2
Field Marshal
Posts: 14162
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:32 am
Car Make: VW, VW, Aprilia
Car Model: VR6, Caddy, RSV4
Membership No: 1087
Location: Menlo Park, Pretoria

Re: 10ppm worth the extra cents?

Post by Jetta2 » Fri May 24, 2019 2:40 pm

ED van Greunen wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 1:43 pm
can i throw a spanner in the works here. Cheapest HP gain ever :geek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezjknhwcQXU

would like to know what the other diesel was they used...
Just remember that was done 10 years ago in the UK where their fuel quality is much better than what we get here.... SA fuel quality is not on par with other countries, despite what anyone else has to say.

And you can do 20 runs back to back on a dyno with the same car and you will get 20 different results. That video means nothing in reality and proves zilch.
Ryan Demoser

1996 Mk3 Golf VR6
2017 Caddy Maxi 2.0 TDI
2013 Aprilia RSV4 track toy
User avatar
Tman21
Cadet
Posts: 483
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 7:16 am
Car Make: VW
Car Model: BosPolo
Membership No: 3247
Location: Roodepoort
Contact:

Re: 10ppm worth the extra cents?

Post by Tman21 » Fri May 24, 2019 2:58 pm

Our fuel is world class, what you get served at the pump is a whole different ball game. . .
Success: When hard work meets opportunity :-)
#TMAN21
User avatar
Jueshen
Lieutenant
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:46 pm
Location: GP

Re: 10ppm worth the extra cents?

Post by Jueshen » Mon May 27, 2019 10:04 am

i track consumption of both my wifes d4d with dpf and my 1.9tdi that does not have one.

each to their own but this was my findings

d4d best consumption with 10ppm, ( 1 year of use of 10ppm and then 3 months use on caltex 50ppm consumption went up by 0.5l, im sure its due to the increased regen, so back to 10ppm and consumption is back to normal)

my 1.9tdi sounded horrible with 10ppm, im using caltex 50 ppm, according to data sheets it has the highest lubricity and i get ucount rewards.
consumption difference was minimal,

now the 10ppm is 50c cheaper and wife does not drive as much as i do, so ucount rewards were minimal, i dont want to screw with the dpf so i will stay with 10ppm with the d4d

now on the other hand, on the 1.9tdi if i was brave enough to extend my 50ppm 15k service interval to 20k if using 10ppm i would then make the switch to 10ppm on the tdi also, essentially even 30k drain interval or more should be safe with 10ppm but my head wont allow me... :crazy:
Ex:
2007 Polo GTI
Eurodyne! 230WHP & 390NM @ KAR 2016 - without OB
2013 Honda Ballade Elegance
1996 Honda Ballade 150i
1994 Honda Ballade 150 Luxline
1991 Citi Golf 1.3
2009 Citi Rox 1.4i
2007 Polo 1.6 Comfortline
1989 Citi Sport 1.8
PeterTech
Enlisted
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:16 pm
Car Make: VW
Car Model: Polo 1.6 TDI
Location: Witbank

Re: 10ppm worth the extra cents?

Post by PeterTech » Mon May 27, 2019 10:30 am

Jueshen wrote:i track consumption of both my wifes d4d with dpf and my 1.9tdi that does not have one.

each to their own but this was my findings

d4d best consumption with 10ppm, ( 1 year of use of 10ppm and then 3 months use on caltex 50ppm consumption went up by 0.5l, im sure its due to the increased regen, so back to 10ppm and consumption is back to normal)

my 1.9tdi sounded horrible with 10ppm, im using caltex 50 ppm, according to data sheets it has the highest lubricity and i get ucount rewards.
consumption difference was minimal,

now the 10ppm is 50c cheaper and wife does not drive as much as i do, so ucount rewards were minimal, i dont want to screw with the dpf so i will stay with 10ppm with the d4d

now on the other hand, on the 1.9tdi if i was brave enough to extend my 50ppm 15k service interval to 20k if using 10ppm i would then make the switch to 10ppm on the tdi also, essentially even 30k drain interval or more should be safe with 10ppm but my head wont allow me... :crazy:
You mentioned the sound, my tdi also sounds a little funny with 10pp, it also feels slightly sluggish.....i guess it all comes back to the type of car you drive........

Sent from my G3312 using Tapatalk

BigBear
Cadet
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:58 pm
Car Make: FORD
Car Model: ST
Membership No: 1598
Location: PRETORIA

Re: 10ppm worth the extra cents?

Post by BigBear » Mon May 27, 2019 8:18 pm

PeterTech wrote:
Jueshen wrote:i track consumption of both my wifes d4d with dpf and my 1.9tdi that does not have one.

each to their own but this was my findings

d4d best consumption with 10ppm, ( 1 year of use of 10ppm and then 3 months use on caltex 50ppm consumption went up by 0.5l, im sure its due to the increased regen, so back to 10ppm and consumption is back to normal)

my 1.9tdi sounded horrible with 10ppm, im using caltex 50 ppm, according to data sheets it has the highest lubricity and i get ucount rewards.
consumption difference was minimal,

now the 10ppm is 50c cheaper and wife does not drive as much as i do, so ucount rewards were minimal, i dont want to screw with the dpf so i will stay with 10ppm with the d4d

now on the other hand, on the 1.9tdi if i was brave enough to extend my 50ppm 15k service interval to 20k if using 10ppm i would then make the switch to 10ppm on the tdi also, essentially even 30k drain interval or more should be safe with 10ppm but my head wont allow me... :crazy:
You mentioned the sound, my tdi also sounds a little funny with 10pp, it also feels slightly sluggish.....i guess it all comes back to the type of car you drive........

Sent from my G3312 using Tapatalk
Also noticed something strange with idle on Polo 1.9 TDi 74kw using sasol 10ppm since service.. Consumption is good and only sluggish when cold when i take it easy anyway..

Sent from my VIE-L29 using Tapatalk

Image
My Rides:
2009 Ford Focus ST 225 Frozen White 5 Door Leather + Sunroof
Image
2005 Ford Ranger 4000V6 4x4 Oyster Silver Super Cab XLT
1978 Beetle 1600S

Family V Dubs:
2005 Polo 1.9 TDI Highline 5 Door ( 9n3 74kW PD100 )
2007 Polo 1.6 Comfortline 4 Door 9n3 (Write Off)
Non V Dubs:
1997 Ford Explorer 4.0 V6 AT 4x4 Maroon SUV XLT
2013 Chevrolet Cruze 1.8 LS
Post Reply