"It's a provable scientific fact, not a marketing ploy that E10 contains 3% less energy per litre than U91. Similarly, it's also a fact that U91 contains less energy per litre than P95 and P98. But you are a science denier and only rarely accept facts of physics, so not surprising we can't even agree on this point."
That there is a scientific difference doesn't mean it isn't a marketing ploy.
It is a marketing ploy because, while perhaps scientifically different, the difference in user experience is barely discernable.
The world of business is replete with such examples of what the advertising professionals call "consumer choice premium pricing".
The hypothetical person paying $6k a year for petrol was me. I didn't say the hypothetical person was the average Australian at any point. It should have been clear from the context of my previous comment just before that, that I was talking about myself.
When people share personal anecdotes, it is inordinately more common to say something lie, "In my personal experience ..." or "I spend..." , or "My vehicle...", as opposed to "A hypothetical person...". You were clearly seeking to pass it off as a generalisation, as opposed to your specific case. So, to try to claim otherwise is somewhat churlish.
"Perhaps you'll share with the forum what "far higher" means in numerical terms. I suspect from my own calculations the difference in tyre costs will be less than $5 a week over the comparative replacement periods."
$5/week equals $250/year ($1,250 over your chosen 5-year review period).
That might be peanuts for you, but for the majority of people, avoiding $250/year is a cost they'd prefer to avoid, if given the choice.
.
Expand
