Unleaded petrol mixed with Diesel in a Chrysler 2.5CRD

[Snipped Text]

As far as the Focus goes I can't disagree.

Reply to
Andy Hewitt
Loading thread data ...
[Snipped Text]

There is, but what's that to do with it?

[Snipped Text]

I'm afraid it is.

Agreed.

Can't argue with that.

Mind you, in our case there isn't enough warranty volume for it to be an issue.

No, most manufacturers work on a two day stock delivery, you only get penalised if you want it next day. In our case we can order stock for next day up to 3pm.

We only get penalised if we order too much after the cut off.

Not here, they've almost eliminated the need for it.

[Snipped Text]

Do you now. What would you use then?

[Snipped Text]

Absolutely. Can you blame us though?

Obviously not dealing with retail in the same way then?

Reply to
Andy Hewitt
[Snipped Text]

Indeed. However, our experience of damage to the CTDI engine is somewhat limited so far, so I'll pass on opinion there. The AA reckon *any* petrol can cause damage.

Fit for purpose cannot allow for negligence, and that's basically what it is.

FWIW, I don't think Honda would be too unhappy if diesel cars were never sold again, they didn't really want to enter the market in the first place.

Indeed, the old diesel systems, with a little bit of extra development, could perhaps be almost as efficient as the direct injections are.

Reply to
Andy Hewitt

Go and check the links I posted elsewhere, there are meetings about this happening as we argue.

Reply to
Andy Hewitt

I am not going to argue with that as AFAIK there is no definitive amount although there might be a figure that gives an absolute guarantee that no damage will be done. It is easy to state this figure as zero petrol to be safe. I won't put a figure on it myself. Adding oil to the mix is certain to mitigate the effect and also to use the car intensively so that the mix does not remain in static contact with the pump innards for too long. The ultimate of course would be to empty the tank and to remove and replace all parts in contact with the mix and this is the rather ridiculous overkill advocated by some for all incidents it seems. Carry on if that makes you happy and allows sounder sleep.

Huw

Reply to
Huw

You could make them out of enviromentally friendly fibre....

Reply to
Duncanwood

The message from Zog The Undeniable contains these words:

Don't they? I've not seen anything but Green for UL, Red for LRP and Black for diesel. Those annoying adverts can be distracting though.

Reply to
Guy King

The message from Duncanwood contains these words:

Indian hemp?

Reply to
Guy King

I don't think the customer considers the volume, but I accept that you have few serious warranty claims.

In my case I can order up to 6pm for next day 8am for most of the year but with a 5pm order deadline at other times. Service orders are similar to what you describe but stock orders are collated once a week for delivery within one week but if they are out of manufacturers stock these will take a lower priority while they have the highest discount rate.

Since you are asking for hypothetical times for hypothetical jobs then I could well slant the figures in any way I liked but I won't.

Given that you probably don't know your customers then no.

Oh yes. Retail but with a rather superior service.

Huw

Reply to
Huw

It was disaster alley for Ford. The Sierra was a dubious looker, the Scorpio and Escort were complete disasters. After that trio they really had to get their act sorted.

Reply to
Steve Firth

My use of the words 'within reason' was intended to stop people from coming up with examples of gross misuse.

It would seem that something more than just standard colour-coding of nozzles is needed to deal with the problem of mis-fuelling.

Reply to
Peter

Essex Straw

Reply to
Duncanwood

Yes it needs humans who are not in a trance or on mind bending drugs. It needs humans who are alert and can tell the difference between green guns and black ones and knowing how to read the big 'DIESEL' sign on their car filler cap/flap. Given all that, as in all walks in life, accidents happen. Not to me though :-) because my whole fleet is diesel and they seldom get filled at filling stations. Aren't I a smug git.

Huw

Reply to
Huw

"Huw" wrote

Yes they do, and they should be legislated out of the equation as far as is possible.

There is no reason why fuel tank filler holes and the relevant fuel dispensing nozzles should not be made mechanically compatible so that the vehicle cannot receive the wrong fuel. Further, this could eliminate fuel spillage, which is dangerous especially to motorcyclists, and speed up the dispensing of fuel as it could be an enclosed system. Just think "Formula 1 fuel rig"

Reply to
Knight Of The Road

Rules and regulations are the bane of most peoples lives and I am against it on principle.

Backward compatibility is one reason. When unleaded came in it was a new type of fuel and a new size nozzle could be adapted without cost to owners of existing cars. This is obviously different with diesels where there is a large legacy fleet.

Further, this could eliminate fuel

I don't think adding cost to fuelling cars is really on unless absolutely needed. In any case a large number of cars and all kinds of other equipment fill diesel using gravity from above ground tanks with no complications.

Huw

Reply to
Huw

Do you really think someone stupid enough to put the wrong fuel in a car could operate anything that resembled an F1 rig?

Ahh, good point. Do it.

Reply to
SteveH

16800 miles! And you're telling me she had no other expenses on the car?
Reply to
Johannes

Every working day, so lose weekends. Servicing like oil changes don't count, IMO. I think it was more like 11,000 miles it racked up.

And she left the lights on one day, so bought a new battery (but, the old one charged and worked fine and went back in it when we got rid of it).

When she got rid (I bought her a newer and vastly more expensive Metro, IIRC), one CV boot had split and needed replacement.

When she got it it had one window held shut with sealant. This was never changed.

The little car also proved to be capable of keeping up with my XM Turbo on the bypass; despite being a 4-speed super-basic one, it'd sit at 95 and get there quick enough.

IIRC the car survived a two-wheel trip after hitting a verge to avoid an oncoming Transit, amongst other indignities, and frequently got stuck in traffic on the A71 yet never overheated.

Richard

Reply to
RichardK

I would expect any such business to protect its back in this way but, in reality, the example I gave of a few drops of petrol in a full tank of diesel surely cannot cause damage.

There are degrees of negligence and I would suggest that the original poster's story indicates a relatively low degree was involved, allied with an earnest attempt by this responsible-sounding person to rectify matters.

Given that the manufacturers are well aware that mis-fuelling is far from uncommon, it could be held that they should take steps to ensure that the outcome is not dangerous* or unduly costly. Any failure to do so could well be classed as negligence and, with the Courts' present tendency to protect consumers, manufacturers could find themselves in a losing position.

  • I used the word 'dangerous' because someone (it might have been you) said that mis-fuelling can cause fuel pump seizure. Imagine the consequences of that happening in the outside lane of a motorway on a dark, wet, rush-hour. Would it be held to be the fault of the driver for mis-fuelling his/her vehicle, and what if, unknown to him/her, his/her spouse had mis-fuelled it earlier in the day, or the previous owner had done so months before? I think it is clear that the manufacturers have got to get to grips with the problem.
[Snip]
Reply to
Peter

What did you say that car was...A Nissan...Hmmmm. Just shame about the shape of the new models. Cut out from a piece of cheese.

Reply to
Johannes

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.