Using E10 is false economy?

[GASWAGON]

For the last few years i have been running United E10 in my BF I6 but i've noticed lately that 91 is only 2cents dearer.

Considering that you use more E10 to go the same distance as 91 i've decided to start running 91 from now on.

The whole Ethanol based fuels idea is false economy i believe?

[Fingers]

Note down your fuel usage (actual km and actual litres)
Compare the fuels, it's the only way to know for sure.
My bet is you will find 95 the best value, but the difference isn't huge.

[GASWAGON]

My BF is due for its 200'000 k service so the plugs will be getting replaced next week.

With my driving style I have at times gotten 700k's out of a tank of E10.

But lately i've been getting about 650k's.

Cant wait for the new plugs to be fitted next week.

[Windsor220]

Same as 98. Yes you do get more kms out of it but its not worth it.

[Itsme]

Using e10 fuel will give you less economy than regular 91 but it does give you that extra octane for power if you have a heavy foot.....lol

[danzvtil]

Originally Posted by trublu

Using e10 fuel will give you less economy than regular 91 but it does give you that extra octane for power if you have a heavy foot.....lol

Higher octane doesn't give you more power, it simply changes how the fuel detonates in the cylinder. E10 has less kilojoule value per litre than straight petrol.

[ratter]

If the cars ecu is pulling spark advance while operating on 91 octane, there would be a power gain by using ethanol based fuel with higher octane, but the difference in the stoich value of the fuel means more will be consumed when in closed loop fuel control

[aussie muscle]

since regulations allow up to 10% ethanol without notice, they are probably both E10 anyway.

[Mechan1k]

After testing it in a bog standard FG I6 with ZF ... I found negligible difference between fuels ... and that's even E10 compared to 95/98 ... the only difference being 91/95/98 empy my wallet quick for no real difference in range.

It's a daily ... doesn't get drive hard at all. So i run E10 pretty much all the time.

For a performance car ... yes i can see the advantages of using a higher octane fuel ... but for a daily commuter/family hack ... E10 has the better economic gains.

When you are looking at 25C/L difference over say 60L (I don't let it drain to empty that often) ... it's a $16.25 difference per fill cost for E10 to PULP. That's just around 13.65L of E10 difference. Going on what I can get ... that's around 170km in range difference.

There is no wayi can get 170 or more km in range using PULP of E10 ... it may be 20km more .... but that's it ... no .. E10 isn't a false economy for me at all.

[northiam]

Watch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfEc...WtXIx&index=49

[Cav]

Petrol is petrol. The only difference is the octane rating. Does using a higher octane rating than the manufacturer recommends makes ya car run better?

The answer is NO!

I bet if you get a mate to fill your tank with either E10 or 91, and not tell you; you would not be able to tell which fuel he put in your tank because the differences in performance and economy will vary more using the same fuel each week than changing from 91 to E10. BTW E10 has an octane rating of 94

The same goes for the other fuels, 95 and 98.

If the manufacturer says to run on 91, there is no point in running 95 or 98. There is no measurable difference to the performance/economy of your engine that can be measured accurately and repeatable.

If you don't believe me, get a mate to select the fuel, take it for a spin and tell him what fuel is in your car.

The higher octane means that the motor can use more compression to make more power.

The fuel does not increase your compression so it cannot produce more power.

Our petrol comes from Singapore in big ships - it's all the same basic brew. So don't be hoodwinked by the marketing rot that one brand is better than another.

If a brand of petrol reckons it cleans ya engine and gets more economy, where is the evidence from their scientific studies?

Maybe the coloured lights surrounding the bowser has you convinced that, for example, BP is better than any other brand.



"More performance, less pollution"

Show us the studies!





What does low aromatic mean? Is this safer to sniff?



AHA! Is V power in Shell the same as Vortex in Caltex?

Before the keyboard warriors respond I will repeat the facts - the differences you get in economy from E10, 91, 95 and 98, if your car can run OK on 91, is no more or less than the normal variances you get from tank to tank using 91.

E10 is nothing more than a feel good gesture that shows you care about the planet. Soon 91 will disappear. If it does will you use E10 or 95?

That is the question.

I'll be using E10 in my Fairlane Sportsman. My other car is a diesel.

Comments?

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by danzvtil

Higher octane doesn't give you more power, it simply changes how the fuel detonates in the cylinder. E10 has less kilojoule value per litre than straight petrol.

Correct if your engine tune is preset to a fixed tune but if your vehicle has an ECU that can change the tune due to different fuel used then it will benefit in power to what octane rating fuel it will use.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Cav

What does low aromatic mean? Is this safer to sniff?

Opal fuel is safer to sniff

[ratter]

Fuel octane number will change the amount of spark that an engine can tolerate without detonation, in most cases the more spark, the more power, maybe only 5 rwkw or so depending on the engine, but in some cars there is a benefit from using higher octane fuel.

Ethanol has a different stoich value, so fueling will change while in closed loop operation.

[Maka]

I run 95 in my i6 vct AU because its the fuel that gives the best power & economy over the other octanes ive tested.

Ive done the numbers on all fuels that can run in my Falcon & without a doubt 95 is the clear cut winner around town & on the hwy.

E10 for me does not give the mileage on both cycles (urban or hwy) unfortunately.

cheers, Maka

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

since regulations allow up to 10% ethanol without notice, they are probably both E10 anyway.

Any fuel that has ethanol in it MUST be stickered as such.

[Cav]

Originally Posted by Maka

I run 95 in my i6 vct AU because its the fuel that gives the best power & economy over the other octanes ive tested.

Ive done the numbers on all fuels that can run in my Falcon & without a doubt 95 is the clear cut winner around town & on the hwy.

E10 for me does not give the mileage on both cycles (urban or hwy) unfortunately.

cheers, Maka

I'd be very interested in how you conducted the tests Maka and what sort of results you obtained.

[Cav]

Originally Posted by ratter

Fuel octane number will change the amount of spark that an engine can tolerate without detonation, in most cases the more spark, the more power, maybe only 5 rwkw or so depending on the engine, but in some cars there is a benefit from using higher octane fuel.

Ethanol has a different stoich value, so fueling will change while in closed loop operation.

I'd be interested to know the basis for this Ratter.

Was it measured on a dyno?

[Maka]

Hi Cav, i found in order 98, 95, 91 then e10 gave the best economy overall. 98 gave the best economy by around 50km iirc a tank but for me 95 was the best bang for buck.

Nothing scientific about my tests sorry Cav lol, just noted how much went in & crunched the numbers by the litres used by distance travelled. Around town, hwy & combined were all tallied separately over about a year, my driving style was the constant ie stick to the speed limits, no thrashing lol!

Set my trip meter then noted what i got out of the same amount of juice that went in. Towards the end of my fuel trialling, i started using the Motormouth calculator fuel app to calculate everything for me because of the convenience.

Yes probably a bit of bush testing but I got a good idea what to use & not to use.

Compression ratio plays a role here (Au i6 = 9.5-1) & though in Au i6's the knock sensor is non adjustable, there is a gain to be had in running higher octane fuels in power & economy.

I just found e10 lacking in range, though power was better than 91 octane. If e10 was reformulated for more range, i would consider useing it a more.

cheers, Maka

[ratter]

Originally Posted by Cav

I'd be interested to know the basis for this Ratter.

Was it measured on a dyno?

it is how the engine ecu works, how engines work and the chemical properties of the fuel.
It has been proven time after time after time by many shops

[Cav]

Originally Posted by ratter

it is how the engine ecu works, how engines work and the chemical properties of the fuel.
It has been proven time after time after time by many shops

Thanks Ratter, do you have a link at all?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

[Burnout]

I have four tunes for my Ute, a stock (91), And a 91, 95,98 tune whilst supercharged.
On 95 for example I get about 530km range, with 98 I get 650km.
In my veiw, if running a tune on any motor you'll get better economy. Whether its worth tuning would depend upon the time/kms you intend to keep the vehicle.

[cro142]

The biggest downside to E10 has not been mentioned here yet.

Ethanol as an additive to petrol has been claimed to be more environmentally friendly, as ethanol is a renewable resource.

However, this comes at a cost. Ethanol is made from sugar cane, and the production of sugar cane requires large-scale agriculture to produce a fuel additive rather than food.

This large scale agriculture requires huge inputs in the way of diesel fuel and fertilisers. The fertiliser residues leach from the soil and into our waterways - and in the case of Queensland grown sugar cane, the fertiliser residues will be carried into the ocean, and affect the Great Barrier Reef with higher algae growth, upsetting the ecological balance.

As well, increased areas of cultivated land will increase the rate of soil erosion and ultimately the sediment content of waters in the Great Barrier Reef region.
This soil erosion has been measured at up to 100 tonnes of soil lost per hectare per year. Not good.

Surely we should be tolerating these downsides ONLY for food production - not for a fuel additive which has very little benefit in saving oil reserves.

E10 is politically driven, it is not a logical approach to saving oil reserves.

If a car on E10 uses 10% more fuel, doesn't this mean the E10 is doing absolutely nothing??

Why bother?

Politics!

[ratter]

E10 is not consumed 10% quicker

[cro142]

But it seems fuel consumption on E10 is slightly higher.

[ratter]

Yes it will be higher, but not 10%

[arronm]

Originally Posted by Cav

Petrol is petrol. The only difference is the octane rating. Does using a higher octane rating than the manufacturer recommends makes ya car run better?

The answer is NO!

I bet if you get a mate to fill your tank with either E10 or 91, and not tell you; you would not be able to tell which fuel he put in your tank because the differences in performance and economy will vary more using the same fuel each week than changing from 91 to E10. BTW E10 has an octane rating of 94

The same goes for the other fuels, 95 and 98.

If the manufacturer says to run on 91, there is no point in running 95 or 98. There is no measurable difference to the performance/economy of your engine that can be measured accurately and repeatable.

If you don't believe me, get a mate to select the fuel, take it for a spin and tell him what fuel is in your car.

The higher octane means that the motor can use more compression to make more power.

The fuel does not increase your compression so it cannot produce more power.

Our petrol comes from Singapore in big ships - it's all the same basic brew. So don't be hoodwinked by the marketing rot that one brand is better than another.

If a brand of petrol reckons it cleans ya engine and gets more economy, where is the evidence from their scientific studies?

Maybe the coloured lights surrounding the bowser has you convinced that, for example, BP is better than any other brand.

image

"More performance, less pollution"

Show us the studies!

image

image

What does low aromatic mean? Is this safer to sniff?

image

AHA! Is V power in Shell the same as Vortex in Caltex?

Before the keyboard warriors respond I will repeat the facts - the differences you get in economy from E10, 91, 95 and 98, if your car can run OK on 91, is no more or less than the normal variances you get from tank to tank using 91.

E10 is nothing more than a feel good gesture that shows you care about the planet. Soon 91 will disappear. If it does will you use E10 or 95?

That is the question.

I'll be using E10 in my Fairlane Sportsman. My other car is a diesel.

Comments?

Rubbish. My 98 comes from BP down the road. We refine our own fuel in WA

[yearby]

[QUOTE=cro142;5921330]

Ethanol as an additive to petrol has been claimed to be more environmentally friendly, as ethanol is a renewable resource.

Ethanol is not claimed to be environmentally friendly, it is scientifically proven to lower Hydrocarbon, Carbon Monoxide and Nitrogen Oxides exhaust emissions even in a 10% mix.

However, this comes at a cost. Ethanol is made from sugar cane, and the production of sugar cane requires large-scale agriculture to produce a fuel additive rather than food.

True, but sugar cane is not the only way to produce ethanol.

This large scale agriculture requires huge inputs in the way of diesel fuel

True, but so does shipping it in oil tankers from the Middle East.

and fertilisers. The fertiliser residues leach from the soil and into our waterways - and in the case of Queensland grown sugar cane, the fertiliser residues will be carried into the ocean,

True again, but fertiliser leaching is more the result of poor farming practices and yes it should be addressed.

and affect the Great Barrier Reef with higher algae growth, upsetting the ecological balance.

I will agree again, but unfortunately the Great Barrier Reef is doomed due to high CO2 concentrations in the water and the predicted sea level rise. It's more a case of it being on death row with the hang man knocking at the door.

As well, increased areas of cultivated land will increase the rate of soil erosion and ultimately the sediment content of waters in the Great Barrier Reef region.
This soil erosion has been measured at up to 100 tonnes of soil lost per hectare per year. Not good.

Again, better technics and education within the farming community are needed. Any farmer worth his salt has a lot pride and soul in their lot and are not willing to lose the better part of their soil and fertiliser down the drain.

I am not mocking you input, just merely addressing your concerns.
Also I endorse your environmental concerns for so do I.

Regards Peter

[yearby]

In Perth E10 is rated at 95 octane and my BF GT has a minimum requirement of 95 octane, so I use it in my GT and my XR6 ute.

Have no idea if it is good for fuel economy.

But my exhaust chrome tips stay all nice a shiny and don't get covered in black soot.

[cro142]

Yearby: Sensible comments, thanks.