Dont use E10 fuel!

[yearby]

Originally Posted by trublu

I dispute this comment as I remember clearly why leaded fuel was phased out, leaded fuel was removed for pollution reasons, also removed for health concerns.

Yes you are correct on the catalytic convertor quote where leaded fuel will contaminate it & render it useless.

I would have to agree with Dr Terry on this one.

Lead contamination was first discovered back in the late 1940's.
Clair Cameron Patterson, a geochemist was trying to work out the age of the earth using lead isotopic data, but his experiments where continually contaminated with lead due to tetraethyl lead from vehicle exhaust emissions.
He released a paper on the subject in 1965 which upset all the oil company's which in turn smeared his name to the point that he was rejected from scientific institutes even though he was the best in his field.

He showed that lead had contaminated the polar cap, lakes, oceans, soil, etc etc but was only a recent phenomenon. It was not until after the catalytic converter and unleaded fuel reduced the lead in the air was he acknowledged or his work taken seriously.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by sprintman1

From Ford Wiki

The inline six-cylinder engine received a power upgrade of 5 kilowatts (6.7 hp) and 8 newton metres (5.9 lb·ft) to 195 kilowatts (261 hp) at 6000 rpm/391 newton metres (288 lb·ft) at 3250 rpm. The engine can also use 95 RON fuel, adding 6 kilowatts (8.0 hp) and 18 newton metres (13 lb·ft), a figure higher again on 98 RON fuel where certain sources would claim 420Nm of torque and 208 kW on RON98 petrol. 0–100 km/h tests show 6.2s times with RON98 fuel versus 6.8s with RON91.

On my stock untuned FG XR6 Turbo Auto, I Normally use 98 fuel but recently I put 2 loads of 91 through the tank and checked the performance with my GPS based test gear (the same as used by Motor Magazine).

On 2 runs the car took 4.38 sec and 4.32 seconds to accelerate from 20 to 100 km'h with 91 in the tank and with 98 fuel the time was 3.95 seconds, no wheelspin on any of the runs and weather/load conditions were virtually dead equal.

So the car was around 10% slower on 91 although it felt quite good because the initial throttle response was similar on both fuels.

[sprintman1]

Originally Posted by 2242100

On my stock untuned FG XR6 Turbo Auto, I Normally use 98 fuel but recently I put 2 loads of 91 through the tank and checked the performance with my GPS based test gear (the same as used by Motor Magazine).

On 2 runs the car took 4.38 sec and 4.32 seconds to accelerate from 20 to 100 km'h with 91 in the tank and with 98 fuel the time was 3.95 seconds, no wheelspin on any of the runs and weather/load conditions were virtually dead equal.

So the car was around 10% slower on 91 although it felt quite good because the initial throttle response was similar on both fuels.

When the original Optimax was released my Mazda 626 turbo which averaged 400kms per tank jumped to 500kms per tank. The better fuel was actually cheaper. We never use less than 98 in anything and did use the V-Power Racing 100 when it was available, sadly gone.

[Blue Shadow]

Yep nothing wrong with E10. You can get a bad batch of any fuel, just bad luck.

[FGX335]

Originally Posted by Revolver

No, Ive worked for a couple of independents. Its the same thing. Fuel gets ordered. Sub contracting tanker company delivers it. Nothing in between. It usually comes from one or 2 depots.

No, you're right, this is 99.999% of the case. There have been a handful of cases where an independent was found to be using additives to dilute the fuel and save on costs, but this is so rare it is virtually nonexistent. I have heard of only 2 instances in Australia myself, and was in the game for 8 years.

I only use 98 in my cars, I have always found that the extra cost justifies the additional mileage and drivability.

[FGX335]

Originally Posted by sprintman1

When the original Optimax was released my Mazda 626 turbo which averaged 400kms per tank jumped to 500kms per tank. The better fuel was actually cheaper. We never use less than 98 in anything and did use the V-Power Racing 100 when it was available, sadly gone.

Unfortunately, the original Optimax was also eating the rubber hoses in the pumps, which were having to be swapped over on a regular basis. Good fuel, just wasn't great with rubber.

Tried Optimax 100 a few times, that stuff is GOLD!