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.
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.
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.
I had a Renault 19 RN from new with no problems but it was 12years old, with nine months MOT and One years tax, I bought a brand new car, and off course the dealer did not want PX, I advertised Regie the Renault but no takers Regie was too old
I could scrap Regie and get the £40 but had not the heart as I knew he was good. even the sun roof worked still
I then contacted a Kerbside Motors, who I knew would sell Regie on rather than scrap I sold for £140 (with Tax on) Regie is still going, driven by Kerbside Motors Daughter nearly two years on, (had brake pads done last year) and often passes me on a morning on the work run (If I had family I would have passed Regie on)
Problem is no one trusts people anymore or indeed they never did trust anyone when it comes to motors
Which takes me back to 1964 My apprentice pal was offered a motorcycle by one of the older Engineers, he said I do not want to buy someones rubbish and paid £60 for a second hand BSA C15 The engineer was a bit miffed and came to me and said do you want a motorcycle, (what eighteen year old wouldn't but I simply could not afford one on apprentices wages) I said off course but I can not afford it He said rubbish you can have it, I have not offered your pal s**te, so he ran me to his home in his 1958 Ford Prefect, went into his "garage" and their was this beautiful old bike covered with a sheet It was a 1953 PANTHER He connected the battery up, tickeled the carb moved the advance lever kicked it over and voo voo vum, Christ it was huge too, he showed me what advance and retard did, and off I went for free
Whilst my pals C15 Spent four-months stripped in bits with gearbox troubles I used my bike everyday for three years, until I went away to sea, when I came home after two years my bloody brother had got rid of it as it was using too much room in the shed, I miss that bike
Sorry for off topic, but yes it is possible to buy and run a car/bike for just the MOT and Tax, and yes good deals and samaritans are about, it just takes TRUST
ps When I came home from sea, I had money, I went to see my old engineer and gave him his just reward for making my teenage years such fun Magic
You own / work at one? Which brand? I am reading this from a Chrysler NG, believe it or not, but we did get copied. ( Probably because the OP has one...:-) )
DAS
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
The last four manufacturers I have worked with have used no more than 48 hour stock delivery. Most can do 24 hours now.
[Snipped Text]
I was using realistic figures myself, based on what I know a good technician can do. A one off major job like an engine is unlikely to be much better than 100% efficiency. Even if we did it at £50/hr (which is actually what we did charge the last diesel repair at), we make about £900 of labour, £700 if it's warranty. If we did a simple flush out and refill, we could do it for, say £200, and fill the rest of the time with more lucrative service work. A good tech can manage 130% on those, that makes us £1200. That doesn't allow for the higher discount we get on the parts as well.
[Snipped Text]
What's that got to do with it? We're no less liable for our actions just because we know our customers better.
Indeed, although some other sites suggest that even the old trick of using petrol to prevent waxing in cold weather is a bad thing too. I would suspect that much more than a gallon would do it.
Indeed, in this case the RAC man is at fault, he should have advised a flush IMHO - especially as it's the RAC that's bunging out adverts on the TV about this.
Why? That's like selling a gun and suing the manufacturer because they didn't put a warning on it that it could fire a bullet at someone!
Actually the fuel suppliers already are. What could the manufacturer do? They put a damned great diesel warning sign on the filler flap and cap, and you will have probably knowingly bought a diesel car. I would put the onus on the fuel suppliers to make a better standard for marking the pumps.
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.