F&I Management & Training

Super fuels are a "waste of money" and fail to improve performance, according to a report by consumer group Which?. However, fuel providers dispute the findings and methodology of the report. Which? tested three of the premium fuels against standard petrol and said that they were not better for a car in the long run. It comes as the price of oil continues to fluctuate, with motoring groups saying fuel prices at the pumps should be lower. Evidence disputed "For many cars it is a waste of money paying over the odds for so-called 'super fuels'," said Richard Headland, editor of Which? Car magazine. "The standard fuels we tested were all up to the job, whether from a major fuel brand or a supermarket. "There is no conclusive evidence to show that super fuels are better for your car in the long run. So in a time of high oil prices, why would you choose to pay more?" The report said that Shell V-Power gave a 1.6-litre Ford Focus a marginal power increase, but filling the car on this petrol for 12,000 miles would cost £115 more than using Shell's standard petrol. But a spokesman for Shell said: "Shell V-Power can help keep new cars performing like new for longer, and in some cases can help rejuvenate older cars." The magazine's findings suggested that Tesco's Super Unleaded decreased the power of the Ford Focus. But the retailer said it had some "major reservations" about the report's methodology. "Independent testing by leading car performance experts has been done on multiple cars over tens of thousands of miles and shows that Tesco Super Unleaded 99 Octane gives better fuel economy and better performance than other unleaded fuels," a spokesman said.

DATED: 26.09.08

FEED: AW