ULSD v Red marine diesel

[RIN]

Just read the "so just what are ARE people going to do" discussion - well most of it - and the comments on Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel reminded me of something in my Volvo manual

"Fuel specification
Fuel must meet national and international standards at least. For example:
EN 590 (with national environmental and cold standards)
ASTM D 975 No 1-D and 2-D
JIS KK 2204
Sulfur content: According to statutory requirements.
Fuels with extremely low sulfur contents (“urban diesel” in Sweden and “city diesel” in Finland) can cause a drop in output of 5% and an increase in fuel consumption of 2–3%."

If I understand this correctly, roadside diesel(ULSD) will not be as good as marine diesel. So when we lose derrogation AND have to pay an extra 7p if not using ULSD, the extra 7p tax buys 5% increase in Output (at least in Volvo engines) over ULSD.

Anyone know if this is right?

 

[markdj]

5% decrease in output don't u mean? Meaning an automatic 5% surge in demand leading to even higher prices. I still can't see how they are just going to convert everyone to white, red will stay, just at a higher duty rate.

 

[RIN]

I always thought the diesel you get at the roadside was better than the red diesel we get at marine pumps. The volvo statement seems to indicate it is the other way round i.e. current red marine diesel better than ULSD

 

[pissativlypossed]

Whilst not directly conected to your post (probably not connected at all).
When I use super diesel in my Range Rover I get a corresponding increase in mpg of nearly 2mpg at an extra cost of 5p/lt. At 30 mpg that equates to 15% extra mileage for (if maths is correct) a 7% increase in cost.
If that is carried through to your boat consumption, it is a worthwhile advantage.

 

[gandy]

30mpg from a Range-Rover? That's good going. But an increase of 2mpg is only a 7% improvement.

 

[ms1]

crikey I must try that stuff.
I already get cruising 75mpg from my Astra ECO4 diesel, I wonder what super diesel will do for me.