On 22/08/2015 11:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
NY wrote:
Mind you, the elastic (sorry, Hydrolastic) suspension might have limited
its road-holding on a race track :-)

The Allegro - in good condition - handled very well. Much better than many
of the conventionally sprung cars of the day.

I've heard others say the same about the Maestro.

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 13:38:40 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

Mind you, the elastic (sorry, Hydrolastic) suspension might have
limited its road-holding on a race track :-)

The Allegro - in good condition - handled very well. Much better than
many of the conventionally sprung cars of the day.

I've heard others say the same about the Maestro.

The Maestro was conventionally sprung.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 13:38:40 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

Mind you, the elastic (sorry, Hydrolastic) suspension might have
limited its road-holding on a race track :-)

The Allegro - in good condition - handled very well. Much better than
many of the conventionally sprung cars of the day.

I've heard others say the same about the Maestro.

The Maestro was conventionally sprung.

And also handled pretty well.

What you have to remember is many base their views on these cars when
bought as bangers.

--
*Organized Crime Is Alive And Well; It's Called Auto Insurance. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 22/08/2015 09:45, Charles Hope wrote:

In the 1950 we holidayed a remote village in Scotland where the petrol
arrived on the "steamer" in 50 gal drums. The deposit on the drums was
less taht the cost of sending them back - so they ended up in the sea. The
cost of the petrol had to allow for this. There was a road, but it was
narrow and 3ply. The tanker drivers refused to use it, which is why petrol
(and presumably TVO) had to come by sea.

3ply?

"Charles Hope" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
On 22/08/2015 08:04, Chris J Dixon wrote:
News wrote:

In message ,
writes

One of mantras that used to do the rounds that was just about dying
off in the mid sixties concerned the JET brand of petrol.

Yes! Jet. That was the name I was trying to remember earlier, and
yes,
Jet was the subject of many a story, probably all untrue.

There was also ICI petrol back then which for them was a refinery waste
stream. Only problem with it was their petrol was much smellier than
other brands but it was certainly cheaper!

Back then, fuel prices seemed much less volatile, and it seemed
much easier to predict whether it would be a cheap or expensive
station by simply seeing the brand. Nowadays there really doesn't
seem to be any predictability at all.

I dunno about that - proximity to an airport, motorway services or on a
dual carriageway pretty much guarantees spot price + 5p.

Nearer 10p.

It is also a lot more expensive in the hills and dales where just
getting the stuff delivered in bulk adds significant extra costs.

In the 1950 we holidayed a remote village in Scotland where the petrol
arrived on the "steamer" in 50 gal drums. The deposit on the drums was
less taht the cost of sending them back - so they ended up in the sea.
The
cost of the petrol had to allow for this. There was a road, but it was
narrow and 3ply. The tanker drivers refused to use it, which is why petrol
(and presumably TVO) had to come by sea.

what's a 3ply road?

tim

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
An expert that I trust says that supermarket fuel isn't as good as other
fuel. He says it's all down to the additives.

Comments?

Bill

well it buggered up my '98 merc fual senders over the last ten years.......

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:25:28 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 21/08/2015 09:13, charles wrote:
In article , Andrew Mawson
wrote:
"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 20/08/2015 22:19, Bill Wright wrote:
An expert that I trust says that supermarket fuel isn't as good as
other fuel. He says it's all down to the additives.

Comments?

Bill

Ask the expert what the others put in that the supermarkets don't
and you will have your answer.

Has anyone (eg a motoring organisation) done any comparisons on mpg
and general smoothness of engine (difficult to quantify the latter!)
for various brands of supermarket fuel versus various brands from
named fuel chains (Jet, Esso, Shell, Texaco etc)?

The only time I've noticed a slightly smoother engine (though no
significant improvement in mpg) was when I accidently filled up with
premium diesel instead of standard diesel - and a lot of that may
have been wishful thinking to compensate for paying through the nose
for the "gold plated" fuel :-) I wouldn't have minded quite so much
but I'd driven past loads of garages on my journey, holding out for
the cheapest garage that I happened to pass, and then when I found a
cheap garage I went and used the premium holster instead of the
standard one. Shame they aren't different colours (eg black versus
black with yellow stripes, or something like that).

Many years back, the father of my then current girl friend was adamant
that he would only use Shell, and never BP as his Rover 110 went so
much better on it. I wasn't popular when I pointed out that (at the
time) they shared a delivery fleet and the same tanker delivered both
so they were the same.

Point of the story - it's very subjective and the judgement is
coloured by preconceptions.

Like the Austin/Morris arguement

The Morris / Austin argument was also fuelled by having differing ranges
of accessories.

The most amusing car I saw from BMC was the Vanden Plas - 1100! The
owners of course swore it was faster, more economical, built better,
etc...

but it has nice leather seats, wooden dash and a fancy grille .......

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
Anyway, the VdP ADO16 was never anywhere NEAR as amusing as the VdP
1500... The posh Allegro.

The Allegro was amusing just by being an Allegro. Which bozo thought of
having a square ("quartic") steering wheel, given that the whole point of
a steering wheel is that it is circular and rotates about its centre so it
feeds easily through your hands as you turn it. Any "lumps" in the circle
make this very difficult.
I bough a post square wheel in 1976 and it was a disaster...worst car I ever
had ....

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:11:47 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
Anyway, the VdP ADO16 was never anywhere NEAR as amusing as the VdP
1500... The posh Allegro.

The Allegro was amusing just by being an Allegro. Which bozo thought of
having a square ("quartic") steering wheel, given that the whole point of a
steering wheel is that it is circular
The designers for Plymouth in the USA who did it years before.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...d088f989bb.jpg


G,Harman

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:11:47 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
Anyway, the VdP ADO16 was never anywhere NEAR as amusing as the VdP
1500... The posh Allegro.

The Allegro was amusing just by being an Allegro. Which bozo thought of
having a square ("quartic") steering wheel, given that the whole point of
a
steering wheel is that it is circular
The designers for Plymouth in the USA who did it years before.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...d088f989bb.jpg


G,Harman

....and they did it with style

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 15:08:34 +0100, Jimbo /p wrote:

well it buggered up my '98 merc fual senders over the last ten
years.......

Did you have a test sample of identical cars, some run on supermarket,
some run on branded, large enough to rule out an individual component
failure?

No, thought not.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 15:08:34 +0100, Jimbo /p wrote:

well it buggered up my '98 merc fual senders over the last ten
years.......

Did you have a test sample of identical cars, some run on supermarket,
some run on branded, large enough to rule out an individual component
failure?

No, thought not.

Ok how come it started working again with expensive 99 shell/bp ? ...

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:44:57 +0100, Jimbo /p wrote:

well it buggered up my '98 merc fual senders over the last ten
years.......

Did you have a test sample of identical cars, some run on supermarket,
some run on branded, large enough to rule out an individual component
failure?

No, thought not.

Ok how come it started working again with expensive 99 shell/bp ? ...

chuckle I'd love to hear the logic of how this could possibly be...

You do know how a fuel sender works, yes? It's a simple float attached to
a variable resistor.

On 22/08/2015 16:44, Jimbo /p wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 15:08:34 +0100, Jimbo /p wrote:

well it buggered up my '98 merc fual senders over the last ten
years.......

Did you have a test sample of identical cars, some run on supermarket,
some run on branded, large enough to rule out an individual component
failure?

No, thought not.

Ok how come it started working again with expensive 99 shell/bp ? ...

Coincidence?

Perhaps you drove faster over some sleeping policemen at around the same
time and freed up the sender?

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:44:57 +0100, Jimbo /p wrote:

well it buggered up my '98 merc fual senders over the last ten
years.......

Did you have a test sample of identical cars, some run on supermarket,
some run on branded, large enough to rule out an individual component
failure?

No, thought not.

Ok how come it started working again with expensive 99 shell/bp ? ...

chuckle I'd love to hear the logic of how this could possibly be...

You do know how a fuel sender works, yes? It's a simple float attached to
a variable resistor.

gosh never knew that...you mean the track can get gunged up then? ....well
two in my case.....

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 22/08/2015 16:44, Jimbo /p wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 15:08:34 +0100, Jimbo /p wrote:

well it buggered up my '98 merc fual senders over the last ten
years.......

Did you have a test sample of identical cars, some run on supermarket,
some run on branded, large enough to rule out an individual component
failure?

No, thought not.

Ok how come it started working again with expensive 99 shell/bp ? ...

Coincidence?

Perhaps you drove faster over some sleeping policemen at around the same
time and freed up the sender?

have to admit I pulled some left and right Gs to force fuel from one side of
the tank that straddles the prop shaft to the other....as you say that was
probably wot dun it ....

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/08/15 23:22, Tim+ wrote:

Earlier you wrote:

However a car adjusted to run on low grade fuel either by fixed design or
automatically will still run better on better fuel.

Now you're saying:

All cars will run best on a particular grade and better or worse on others.

Just make up your ****ing mind will you you patronising ******.

Tim

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 19:47:36 +0100, Jimbo /p wrote:

well it buggered up my '98 merc fual senders over the last ten
years.......

Did you have a test sample of identical cars, some run on
supermarket,
some run on branded, large enough to rule out an individual component
failure?

No, thought not.

Ok how come it started working again with expensive 99 shell/bp ? ...

chuckle I'd love to hear the logic of how this could possibly be...

You do know how a fuel sender works, yes? It's a simple float attached
to a variable resistor.

gosh never knew that...you mean the track can get gunged up then?

I've never ever known one do that.

Even the fuel gauge in my ol' Landy - 35yo, with 15 of the last 18yrs off
the road - works just fine without any "gunging up" of the track. Which,
fwiw, isn't exposed to fuel.

But, then, I've never worked on a Merc, so it's entirely possible they
have some half-arsed shonky cheap junk of a sender.

On 22/08/2015 10:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip

The final point being the engine is designed and mapped for one
particular grade of fuel. And tested to ensure that others don't cause
problems, but it is not optimised for them. All cars will run best on a
particular grade and better or worse on others.

So "However a car adjusted to run on low grade fuel either by fixed
design or automatically will still run better on better fuel" is
complete nonsense. Better fuel inferred to be higher octane.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 19:47:36 +0100, Jimbo /p wrote:

well it buggered up my '98 merc fual senders over the last ten
years.......

Did you have a test sample of identical cars, some run on
supermarket,
some run on branded, large enough to rule out an individual component
failure?

No, thought not.

Ok how come it started working again with expensive 99 shell/bp ? ...

chuckle I'd love to hear the logic of how this could possibly be...

You do know how a fuel sender works, yes? It's a simple float attached
to a variable resistor.

gosh never knew that...you mean the track can get gunged up then?

I've never ever known one do that.

Even the fuel gauge in my ol' Landy - 35yo, with 15 of the last 18yrs off
the road - works just fine without any "gunging up" of the track. Which,
fwiw, isn't exposed to fuel.

But, then, I've never worked on a Merc, so it's entirely possible they
have some half-arsed shonky cheap junk of a sender.

probably...I blame them going in with Chrysler...big mistake........

On 22/08/15 23:33, Tim+ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/08/15 23:22, Tim+ wrote:

Earlier you wrote:

However a car adjusted to run on low grade fuel either by fixed design or
automatically will still run better on better fuel.

Now you're saying:

All cars will run best on a particular grade and better or worse on others.

Just make up your ****ing mind will you you patronising ******.


The two statements are consistent.

I don't see the problem. Unless its with your brain.



Tim



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 23/08/15 00:40, Fredxxx wrote:
On 22/08/2015 10:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip

The final point being the engine is designed and mapped for one
particular grade of fuel. And tested to ensure that others don't cause
problems, but it is not optimised for them. All cars will run best on a
particular grade and better or worse on others.

So "However a car adjusted to run on low grade fuel either by fixed
design or automatically will still run better on better fuel" is
complete nonsense. Better fuel inferred to be higher octane.

Its not complere nonsense and I deliberately didn't say higher octane
because there is a lot more to fuel than that,.

Sigh.

Once more, with feeliong.

You have a car, and you have tow grades of fuel. You adjust it to run at
its best on one grade. It pinks like **** on the other, so you do your
best with the other fuel to get it at least to run without damage. You
achieve this. But now although its not as good as it was, on the high
grade fuel, its still better on that than on the low grade fuel.

Does that now make sense?

If not you are brain dead and goodbye



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

In article ,
Jimbo /p wrote:

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
An expert that I trust says that supermarket fuel isn't as good as
other fuel. He says it's all down to the additives.

Comments?

Bill

well it buggered up my '98 merc fual senders over the last ten
years.......

What's a fuel sender?

--
*Just remember...if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You have a car, and you have tow grades of fuel. You adjust it to run at
its best on one grade. It pinks like **** on the other, so you do your
best with the other fuel to get it at least to run without damage. You
achieve this. But now although its not as good as it was, on the high
grade fuel, its still better on that than on the low grade fuel.

You don't 'adjust' an engine to make the best use of a high octane fuel.
It needs/allows things like a higher compression ratio.

You design the engine for a target octane rating. Knock sensors then alter
the mapping if a lower octane rating fuel is used. There is no point using
a higher octane rating than the engine is designed for.

--
*(over a sketch of the titanic) "The boat sank - get over it

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/08/15 23:33, Tim+ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/08/15 23:22, Tim+ wrote:

Earlier you wrote:

However a car adjusted to run on low grade fuel either by fixed design or
automatically will still run better on better fuel.

Now you're saying:

All cars will run best on a particular grade and better or worse on others.

Just make up your ****ing mind will you you patronising ******.


The two statements are consistent.

I don't see the problem. Unless its with your brain.

Consistent with someone back-pedalling furiously.

Tim

On 23/08/15 11:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You have a car, and you have tow grades of fuel. You adjust it to run at
its best on one grade. It pinks like **** on the other, so you do your
best with the other fuel to get it at least to run without damage. You
achieve this. But now although its not as good as it was, on the high
grade fuel, its still better on that than on the low grade fuel.

You don't 'adjust' an engine to make the best use of a high octane fuel.
You do if you are tuning for performance

It needs/allows things like a higher compression ratio.

And a more advanced spark.

You design the engine for a target octane rating. Knock sensors then alter
the mapping if a lower octane rating fuel is used. There is no point using
a higher octane rating than the engine is designed for.

You contradict yourself.

You design it for a target octane rating. Yes. You lower the mapping for
lower octane. Yes. so its NOW designed for the lower octane fuel!

I(f it has auto mapping it will definitely be better on the higher
octane. If not, its pretty LIKELY but not certain that it will be


What does of course happen is that if its running rich because the fuel
has more carbon in it - typically with aromatics, it will be leaned out
by the ECU so it will do better mpg on higher carbon content fuel.

As I said, its not that simple.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 23/08/15 11:53, Tim+ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/08/15 23:33, Tim+ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/08/15 23:22, Tim+ wrote:

Earlier you wrote:

However a car adjusted to run on low grade fuel either by fixed design or
automatically will still run better on better fuel.

Now you're saying:

All cars will run best on a particular grade and better or worse on others.

Just make up your ****ing mind will you you patronising ******.


The two statements are consistent.

I don't see the problem. Unless its with your brain.

Consistent with someone back-pedalling furiously.

It ain't me babe. I stand by both of those statements.


Tim



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:11:47 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
Anyway, the VdP ADO16 was never anywhere NEAR as amusing as the VdP
1500... The posh Allegro.

The Allegro was amusing just by being an Allegro. Which bozo thought of
having a square ("quartic") steering wheel, given that the whole point of a
steering wheel is that it is circular and rotates about its centre so it
feeds easily through your hands as you turn it. Any "lumps" in the circle
make this very difficult.


Tell that to Lewis Hamilton!

--
AnthonyL

On 23/08/15 12:52, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:11:47 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
Anyway, the VdP ADO16 was never anywhere NEAR as amusing as the VdP
1500... The posh Allegro.

The Allegro was amusing just by being an Allegro. Which bozo thought of
having a square ("quartic") steering wheel, given that the whole point of a
steering wheel is that it is circular and rotates about its centre so it
feeds easily through your hands as you turn it. Any "lumps" in the circle
make this very difficult.


Tell that to Lewis Hamilton!

Only drivers who follow learner instruction slavishly, or who have
steering with no power assistance on a low ratio rack or box, 'feed the
wheel through their hands' . Its a technique designed so that stupid
noobs never let go of the wheel.


Racing drivers cross their arms over on tight corners.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/15 11:53, Tim+ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/08/15 23:33, Tim+ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/08/15 23:22, Tim+ wrote:

Earlier you wrote:

However a car adjusted to run on low grade fuel either by fixed design or
automatically will still run better on better fuel.

Now you're saying:

All cars will run best on a particular grade and better or worse on others.

Just make up your ****ing mind will you you patronising ******.


The two statements are consistent.

I don't see the problem. Unless its with your brain.

Consistent with someone back-pedalling furiously.

It ain't me babe. I stand by both of those statements.


http://youtu.be/gQghB4asSnI

Tim

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 11:11:31 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

Chris J Dixon wrote:

Back in the days of mechanical pumps there used to be a mechanical
number display on the side, which was the actual total gallons
dispensed

There still are, you can gauge the relative volumes of unleaded, diesel,
and "super" variations sold while you fill-up.


In one tropical country I go to the locals insist on filling up at the
garage first thing in the morning to ensure that they get maximum mass
for the delivered volume. The reasoning is that as the day warms up
the density decreases. Any truth in that?

--
AnthonyL

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:17:00 +0000, AnthonyL wrote:

In one tropical country I go to the locals insist on filling up at the
garage first thing in the morning to ensure that they get maximum mass
for the delivered volume. The reasoning is that as the day warms up the
density decreases. Any truth in that?

shrug Just about any solid or liquid changes in volume as the
temperature changes.

But fuel is stored underground before sale, so the storage temperature is
going to be fairly consistent.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You don't 'adjust' an engine to make the best use of a high octane fuel.
You do if you are tuning for performance

It needs/allows things like a higher compression ratio.

And a more advanced spark.

That comes under adjusting. Since it can be done in software. Changing the
CR not.

You design the engine for a target octane rating. Knock sensors then
alter the mapping if a lower octane rating fuel is used. There is no
point using a higher octane rating than the engine is designed for.

You contradict yourself.

You design it for a target octane rating. Yes. You lower the mapping for
lower octane. Yes. so its NOW designed for the lower octane fuel!

Not so. It may run, but retarding the ignition for a poorer quality fuel
than it was designed for is at best a cludge.

I(f it has auto mapping it will definitely be better on the higher
octane. If not, its pretty LIKELY but not certain that it will be


What does of course happen is that if its running rich because the fuel
has more carbon in it - typically with aromatics, it will be leaned out
by the ECU so it will do better mpg on higher carbon content fuel.

The AFR on a modern engine is largely determined by the presence of a
catalytic convertor - not for maximum power or best economy.

As I said, its not that simple.

You've certainly proved that.

--
*Bigamy is having one wife too many - monogamy is the same

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Only drivers who follow learner instruction slavishly, or who have
steering with no power assistance on a low ratio rack or box, 'feed the
wheel through their hands' . Its a technique designed so that stupid
noobs never let go of the wheel.


Racing drivers cross their arms over on tight corners.

Racing cars have much higher geared steering than road cars. You couldn't
'feed the wheel through your hands' even if you wanted to.

--
*Gaffer tape - The Force, light and dark sides - holds the universe together*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
AnthonyL wrote:
In one tropical country I go to the locals insist on filling up at the
garage first thing in the morning to ensure that they get maximum mass
for the delivered volume. The reasoning is that as the day warms up
the density decreases. Any truth in that?


In the UK the tanks are buried underground for safety reasons so will keep
a pretty constant temperature.

--
*Why does the sun lighten our hair, but darken our skin?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 21/08/2015 15:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
That is assuming the engine is set up to use that power, or had a knock
sensor to advance the engine for higher octane fuels.

Generally speaking, a knock sensor only retards the ignition from the
mapped setting. And the vast majority of UK cars are mapped to run on 95
octane.

Some high performance models are mapped for 98 octane - but not many.

IIRC mine is mapped for 99...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:09:22 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

Some high performance models are mapped for 98 octane - but not many.

IIRC mine is mapped for 99...

Japanese-spec import?

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:35:20 +0000 (UTC), Adrian wrote:

But fuel is stored underground before sale, so the storage temperature
is going to be fairly consistent.

Unless it's just been delivered from above ground storage tanks via a
tanker in full sun...

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article , tim.....
wrote:

"Charles Hope" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin Brown
wrote:
On 22/08/2015 08:04, Chris J Dixon wrote:
News wrote:

In message ,
writes

One of mantras that used to do the rounds that was just about
dying off in the mid sixties concerned the JET brand of petrol.

Yes! Jet. That was the name I was trying to remember earlier, and
yes, Jet was the subject of many a story, probably all untrue.

There was also ICI petrol back then which for them was a refinery
waste stream. Only problem with it was their petrol was much smellier
than other brands but it was certainly cheaper!

Back then, fuel prices seemed much less volatile, and it seemed much
easier to predict whether it would be a cheap or expensive station
by simply seeing the brand. Nowadays there really doesn't seem to be
any predictability at all.

I dunno about that - proximity to an airport, motorway services or on
a dual carriageway pretty much guarantees spot price + 5p.

Nearer 10p.

It is also a lot more expensive in the hills and dales where just
getting the stuff delivered in bulk adds significant extra costs.

In the 1950 we holidayed a remote village in Scotland where the petrol
arrived on the "steamer" in 50 gal drums. The deposit on the drums was
less taht the cost of sending them back - so they ended up in the sea.
The cost of the petrol had to allow for this. There was a road, but it
was narrow and 3ply. The tanker drivers refused to use it, which is why
petrol (and presumably TVO) had to come by sea.

what's a 3ply road?

a narrow road, not used much where weeds are growing well in the middle
where no tyre ever goes. The "ply" is tarmac/weeds/tarmac. Where the
countryide is wet, the middle is often reeds which help to clean the
underside of the car.

The most amusing car I saw from BMC was the Vanden Plas - 1100! The
owners of course swore it was faster, more economical, built better,
etc...


Same thing in the TV field there was a Dynatron just a standard BRC
chassis like their lowly brethren but it had a nice "cabinet"

Apparently they had or once had the Royal Warrant to the Queen who
supposedly had one at Buck palace....

According to the Which? survey on tv at the time, the HMV version was far
less reliable that the Fergusson. Only difference was the cabinet.


Migh have offered better ventilation?...
--
Tony Sayer