A new fuel is often met with scepticism – and this is also the case with HVO100. The ADAC is therefore investigating: Is diesel made from used cooking oil and grease residues an alternative?
When E10 petrol was introduced, there was already huge skepticism – some people still don’t fill up with the usually cheaper fuel, even though the manufacturer of the vehicle in question may have given the green light years ago. The reaction to the new diesel HVO100 is similarly reserved. The abbreviation stands for “Hydrotreated Vegetable Oils”. The automobile club “” describes the fuel with the words: “HVO100 is a climate-friendly, non-fossil diesel fuel made from biological residues and waste materials.”
But promises or not, at the end of the day, hard facts count. How well does the engine cope with the new diesel? How much does it consume? And is what comes out of the exhaust really more environmentally friendly? These are questions that the test now provides answers to.
Is HVO100 really cleaner?
HVO100, a so-called paraffinic diesel fuel, has been available at some petrol stations in Germany since the end of May. The fuel companies state that the “balance CO2 emissions” can be reduced “by up to 90 percent” with HVO100. The ADAC put several cars into the laboratory for a test. According to this, “a BMW 520d Touring, a Mercedes E 220 d T-model, a Škoda Superb Combi 2.0 TDI and a VW Caddy 2.0 TDI” were available – each in a current new car configuration. The models mentioned had corresponding HVO100 approvals from the respective manufacturers – because only then should the new fuel even be considered.
The test should then show what differences there are in pollutant emissions, how the running smoothness of the engines changes and what influence HVO100 has on consumption.
The club writes regarding pollutants: “In older vehicles, pollutant emissions tend to decrease in HVO100 operation. In current diesel vehicles, which have complex exhaust gas aftertreatment, pollutant emissions are already so low that the respective operating state of the catalytic converters makes the (small) difference rather than the fuel used.”
Nevertheless, a reduction in emissions of two to five percent was observed across the board with HVO100. There is one catch, however: the increase in fuel consumption was similar, which could of course be noticeable in long-distance vehicles. Compared to mineral diesel, this was between one and five percent. The ADAC attributes this to the lower density of HVO100. At least: There were no differences in terms of running smoothness in newer vehicles, and older vehicles even showed marginal improvements in terms of smoothness and responsiveness, they say.
ADAC sees need to catch up
The ADAC’s conclusion is not surprising: “If approval is available for a model, the fuel can be used without any concerns. Older models could also be operated without any emissions disadvantage if the manufacturer has the appropriate approval for HVO.”
But there is a problem: According to ADAC, “some manufacturers are still very reluctant to approve their diesel models for paraffinic diesel fuels such as HVO,” although it is technically not a problem to run a large number of current and older engines on them. The “Deutsche Automobil Treuhand” offers one, for example – although HVO100 is called XTL in this table. This is a collective term for synthetic fuels.
Source: Stern
I’m a recent graduate of the University of Missouri with a degree in journalism. I started working as a news reporter for 24 Hours World about two years ago, and I’ve been writing articles ever since. My main focus is automotive news, but I’ve also written about politics, lifestyle, and entertainment.
