Economy - Longevity - Performance
The #1 Source of TDI Information on the Web!
Forums Articles Links Meets
Orders TDI Club Cards TDIFest 2016 Gone, but not forgotten VAG-Com List Unit Conversions TDIClub Chat Thank You

Order your TDIClub merchandise and help support TDIClub

Go Back   TDIClub Forums > VW TDI Discussion Areas > Fuels & Lubricants

Fuels & Lubricants Discussion all about Fuels & Lubricants. synthetic oil, conventional oil, brands, change intervals, diesel grades, gelling and such debated items like that. Non TDI related postings will be moved or removed. This forum is NOT for the discussion of biodiesel and other alternative fuels.

Thread Tools
Old May 14th, 2019, 07:10   #61
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Southeast Texas
Fuel Economy: 37 MPG (~ 45% city)

Originally Posted by belome View Post
Well, now it is time to switch back to regular for a few thousand miles and see if it goes down!

Certainly that's a fair option to consider.

There is also the cost/benefit factor. If someone has base-lined their vehicle's MPG with fuel a and b sufficiently to move to fuel c, which is trending and averaging more than 2% gain in MPG vs fuels a/b, then there might not be a need to go back to those previous less efficient fuels.

I am curious, is there any other D2 fuel brands that have in writing a specific fuel economy gain statement?
tikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th, 2019, 08:15   #62
showdown 42
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: naples,FL

Prices are the same in SWFL. I haven't been keeping good records,but I think I will start.
showdown 42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th, 2019, 15:36   #63
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Long Island
TDI(s): 2015 A6 TDI

Same price here in the NYC metro area.
KevinGary is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2019, 04:45   #64
Veteran Member
AndyBees's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Southeast Kentucky

I'll take a 2% increase any day. But, as suggested, it will hardly be noticed, especially on a small scale.

Below is a graph of fuel consumption of my formerly owned 2000 Jetta TDI from March 2002 to July 2011. Yes, this is one of numerous graphs I did, it is Ounces Per Mile. But, the graph looks exactly the same in MPGs or any other unit. (My son now owns the car and still gets over 50 mpg tank after tank at over 370k miles.)

Keep in mind, 99.99% of the time, I did a "complete" fill-up (vented) ...

EDIT: Notice, that the tank after tank fill-ups are fairly tight through March 2008... I retired, March 31, 2008. After that date, my driving habits and style changed.... (2.5 ounces per mile equals approximately 51.2 MPG)

This is the TDI Club, a place to share experiences & ideas, ask for help, etc. Welcome Newbies! Sarcastic and condescending posts shouldn't be welcome.

Last edited by AndyBees; May 17th, 2019 at 04:50. Reason: Add comment
AndyBees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2019, 06:36   #65
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Long Island
TDI(s): 2015 A6 TDI

Originally Posted by KevinGary View Post
I wanted to report back on my experience with Exxon Synergy Diesel. At the outset, let me say that I know that this is not a scientific analysis and that it is one person's experience.

I have 89K miles on my 3.0 A6 TDI. Almost all of my miles are commuting miles in the NYC metro area. I have hand calculated the mileage of every tank since new and have input it into an excel spread sheet. (yes I have OCD!). After 89k miles my overall MPG is 28.6563. During those 89K miles I used BP and Shell fuel exclusively. So I have a pretty good baseline for comparison.

In recent months I noticed a decline in my MPG and decided to give Exxon Synergy a try. I have now driven 1,136 miles on it and have averaged 29.2783 MPG, i.e. an improvement of .622 mpg, or an improvement of slightly better than 2% when compared to my lifetime MPG. This is about the same as Exxon claims. These last 1,136 miles were typical commuting miles for me. No extended highway trips.

Of course that it is comparing it to my lifetime mileage. However, remember that I told you that I had observed a drop off on MPG and that is why I tried Exxon Synergy. In fact, for the 6,619 miles before the switch my MPG had dropped to 27.272. The drop off started last August and when it happened I tried various fuel additives to no avail. By late September I stopped with the fuel additives and decided that the car was just getting older. So by the time I tried Exxon Synergy I had driven over 5,000 miles since adding any of the additives. Comparing the Exxon Synergy to the entire "dropped period" the mileage was 2.006 MPG better, ie 7.3% better.

Of course part of the entire "drop period" included the warmer months and the impact of the fuel additives. So I also looked at my MPG for the 1,150 miles before the switch. This roughly lined up with the same number of miles that I had driven with Exxon Synergy (1,136) and all of the miles were winter miles (January-March). During this period I averaged just 25.727 MPG on BP and Shell. When comparing that MPG to the 29.2783 MPG I got with Exxon Synergy, there was an improvement of 3.551 MPG, or 13.798%.

Based on my experience it seems that Exxon Synergy does a better job of cleaning the fuel system than the additives I tried (Stanadyne, Power Service, Liqui Molly and XPD) or the fuel offered by Shel and BP. It also seems to improve the MPG by .6 MPG in my car, or about 2% when compared to the lifetime MPG.

I know that this is not a scientific analysis, but I thought I would report my observations.
I have now used the new Exxon fuel exclusively for the last 4,276 miles and have averaged a hand calculated 30.16 mpg.

I have refined my "baseline comparison number" because I could not believe the improvement. My baseline number no longer includes the car's first 14,965 miles, which I removed because it was the car's break-in period where it averaged 26.28 mpg. I also removed the mpg that I experienced from 77,891 to 87,473 because this was the period where my mpg dropped to 27.38 that caused me to try the Exxon fuel to correct whatever was going on. After removing these two periods, I am left with the 62,925 miles between 14,965 and 77,890, when the car averaged 29.49 mpg. I think this provides a fairer "baseline".

Against this revised "baseline" the Exxon fuel provided a 2.3% improvement, which is more in line with Exxon's claims. But what remains amazing to me is that the Exxon fuel seems to have cleaned out whatever caused my mpg to drop to 27.28 mpg for the 9,546 miles between 77,891 and 87,437. During that period I tried Stanadyne, Power Service, Liqui Molly and XPD trying to clean out whatever caused my mpg drop, and none of them helped.

So, while still not a scientific analysis, the fuel does seem to deliver the claimed mpg improvements and provide an effective "detergent".

Last edited by KevinGary; May 25th, 2019 at 03:11.
KevinGary is online now   Reply With Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Exxon Diesel (Junk?) Kier Fuels & Lubricants 3 January 23rd, 2008 08:10
Exxon premium diesel ufoguy Fuels & Lubricants 2 April 11th, 2004 07:45
sunoco premium or mobil/exxon diesel? todd turner VW MKIV-A4 TDIs (VE and PD) 1 April 20th, 2003 17:39
Exxon/Mobil Consumer Diesel FAQ TDITim Fuels & Lubricants 10 April 26th, 2001 11:08
Ugly Exxon and Love's Diesel Luis Fuels & Lubricants 3 April 18th, 2001 07:40

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:32.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright - TDIClub Online LTD - 2017
Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Forum Rules | Disclaimer
TDIClub Online Ltd (TDIClub.com) is not affiliated with the VWoA or VWAG and is supported by contributions from viewers like you.
1996 - 2017, All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.13537 seconds with 11 queries
[Output: 75.70 Kb. compressed to 67.47 Kb. by saving 8.22 Kb. (10.86%)]