Dont use E10 fuel!

[cheap]

The issue I have with E10, my car gets worse fuel economy using E10, approx 10% worse than using straight petrol. This worse fuel economy is not compensated by 4 cents per litre less in price. Now if E10 were 10% cheaper it would make it worth using.

[Supercharged]

Originally Posted by CoolBFWagon

No way of knowing, AT ALL. I dont think it actually does any damage to the engine internally its just all the fuel pump and fuel lines that it effects.

And apparently the Ethanol seperates from the petrol in the tank when the car sits for a while so you end up running on ethanol only.

Spot on there. Boats have trouble with fuel blends if any water is in the tank which causes separation and then blocked injector filter baskets.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by cheap

The issue I have with E10, my car gets worse fuel economy using E10, approx 10% worse than using straight petrol. This worse fuel economy is not compensated by 4 cents per litre less in price. Now if E10 were 10% cheaper it would make it worth using.

Some cars will respond well to it while other cars will suffer from it. Its up to the individual to work this out. People throw 98 in regular engines which is essentially throwing money out the door.

[mik]

Originally Posted by noflac52

A lot of servo's around our way are now asking if you want a receipt rather than automatically issuing one. A couple of times I have said no but now I make it a policy to ask for one because bad fuel can cost you a lot of money. Its good to have the proof of purchase just in case!

i ask for a receipt too as a rule and always use the same servo when i`m local , have a pretty good rapport with the guys behind the counter, probably still wouldn't make a difference, ..... but we live in hope .

[yearby]

Originally Posted by cheap

The issue I have with E10, my car gets worse fuel economy using E10, approx 10% worse than using straight petrol. This worse fuel economy is not compensated by 4 cents per litre less in price. Now if E10 were 10% cheaper it would make it worth using.

Your vehicle should only be getting about 2.8-3% worse fuel economy, there must be some thing you have missed.

If your vehicle was designed to run on regular unleaded, the octane rating of the E10 would be too high for it and create a reduction in power and economy greater than that attributed to just the E10 alone.
Peter

[sbutler]

This has been going on since the start of the internal combustion engine was invented. You just go a bad batch of fuel. Out of hundreds of thousands of people that fill up everyday & have no trouble you are the odd one out. The sad thing is, there's not much you can do about it.. Chalk it up to experience & move on. Its happened to all of us at one stage or another...

[GASWAGON]

Originally Posted by sbutler

This has been going on since the start of the internal combustion engine was invented. You just go a bad batch of fuel. Out of hundreds of thousands of people that fill up everyday & have no trouble you are the odd one out. The sad thing is, there's not much you can do about it.. Chalk it up to experience & move on. Its happened to all of us at one stage or another...

Ye you are right. I'm actually a diesel mechanic by trade and this no start problem had me thinking it was coils or plugs.....Then my car mechanic suggested it was the fuel pump.

I NEVER even thought about it being a bad batch of fuel.

But now I know what it was and if it ever happens again i will putting in some fresh fuel before paying $300 for a bloody tow truck!!!!

[2242100]

Originally Posted by yearby

Your vehicle should only be getting about 2.8-3% worse fuel economy, there must be some thing you have missed.

If your vehicle was designed to run on regular unleaded, the octane rating of the E10 would be too high for it and create a reduction in power and economy greater than that attributed to just the E10 alone.
Peter

I can agree with you about the 3% worse economy because as I understand it, Ethanol gives about 30% less economy, so with 10% ethanol a 3% economy loss makes sense.
However I find the point about E 10 causing a reduction in power (to an engine that's tuned for regular 91) harder to agree with.

I've spoken to a number of experts on this subject and from what I've been told, I believe 95 E10 is pretty close to the regular 91 unleaded fuel when it comes to real world anti knock ability. That's because it has a MOTOR OCTANE NUMBER that's about the same, or close to the 91 unleaded fuel (which should be around 81 MON) whereas Premium 95 is likely to have a MON of around 85 and Premium 98 should be around 86 MON.
It's generally not understood that the Research Octane Number test is an easier test than the Motor Octane Number test, and from what I've been told the MON test numbers are the important ones to take notice of.

Apparently in the US these two numbers are averaged which is why their advertised Octane numbers are lower. I think fuel companies should advertise the Motor Octane Numbers of their fuels.

[fps_grandma]

I use mostly 95PULP and the occasional 98PULP/E10 in my XR6T.
91ULP is the stuff to avoid in performance cars unless your car is just the plain jane runabout.

A tuning shop's take on E10:

http://www.mrtperformance.com.au/res...-blended-fuels

Originally Posted by 2242100

I can agree with you about the 3% worse economy because as I understand it Ethanol gives about 30% less economy, so with 10% ethanol a 3% economy loss makes sense.
However I find the point about E 10 causing a reduction in power harder to agree with.

I've spoken to a number of experts on this subject and from what I've been told, I believe 95 E10 is pretty close to normal 91 unleaded fuel when it comes to real world anti knock ability. That's because it has a MOTOR OCTANE NUMBER that's about the same, or close to the normal 91 unleaded fuel (which should be around 81) whereas Premium 95 is likely to have a MON of around 85 and Premium 98 should be around 86 MON.
It's generally not understood that the Research Octane Number test is an easier test than the Motor Octane Number test and from what I've been told the MON test is the one that matters.
Apparently in the US these two numbers are averaged which is why their advertised Octane numbers are lower. I think fuel companies should advertise the Motor Octane Number.

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/02/ns...he-wrong-fuel/

Reading this article, there appears to be a commenter who claims to have worked for FPV and apparently it was not exactly E10 that ruined the FPV GT owned by the boys in blue:

The police don't have the man power needed to make the modifications, You will find that the car was modified by FPV for the police and all the police cars do pass the emissions test.

The problem was a air bubble in the block casting.

It has been standard practice for both ford and holden to supply high HP prototype engines in cars to police departments around Australia for over 50 years, Eg 200 AU fairlanes supplied to the AFP and the federal government with 4L turbo tickford, no other 4L tickfords were ever made, but the BF falcon came out with the XR6 turbo, this how holden and ford do on road testing. The AU fairlanes were marked "police interceptor" on the rear 1/4 window, most of the turbos were removed for sale to the public
Been working for FPV for 16 years

[2242100]

Originally Posted by fps_grandma

I use mostly 95PULP and the occasional 98PULP/E10 in my XR6T.
91ULP is the stuff to avoid in performance cars unless your car is just the plain jane runabout.

A tuning shop's take on E10:

http://www.mrtperformance.com.au/res...-blended-fuels



http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/02/ns...he-wrong-fuel/

Reading this article, there appears to be a commenter who claims to have worked for FPV and apparently it was not exactly E10 that ruined the FPV GT owned by the boys in blue:

I guess there's no doubt that an ethanol blend can make a lot of power, just look at E85. But the point I'd like to get across is that some people may incorrectly think that 95 RON E 10 should give them the same antiknock protection and performance that Premium 95 RON will.
Apparently adding ethanol is a good way to get the Research Octane Number up but it doesn't raise the important Motor Octane Number up as much.

Actually I ran a couple of tanks of 91 through my stock untuned FG XR6 T recently and the car went quite well, only 1 single ping sound (on one occasion)as I kicked it down and it was just as responsive (ie. initial throttle response) as it was on 98, but when I measured rolling acceleration with my GPS based acceleration test gear under identical conditions, it was 10% slower than on 98. So I think it was probably losing about 30 kW.

I'd expect the electronics to make sure that 95 E10 doesn't hurt your engine, but I suspect you might losing more power than you realise because the initial throttle response will probably be similar. Whether on 91, 95 E10, 95 Premium or 98 Premium.

Initial throttle response has a lot of affect on our perception of how fast a car is, I think.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by yearby

Your vehicle should only be getting about 2.8-3% worse fuel economy, there must be some thing you have missed.

If your vehicle was designed to run on regular unleaded, the octane rating of the E10 would be too high for it and create a reduction in power and economy greater than that attributed to just the E10 alone.
Peter

Have done the calculations a few times, my figures what they are, E10 = 10% worse milage.

E10 (95 RON) being too high for my vehicle - that's a new one. So how would you explain PULP (98 RON) giving better milage that normal ULP (91 RON)?

[yearby]

Originally Posted by 2242100

I can agree with you about the 3% worse economy because as I understand it, Ethanol gives about 30% less economy, so with 10% ethanol a 3% economy loss makes sense.
However I find the point about E 10 causing a reduction in power (to an engine that's tuned for regular 91) harder to agree with.

If a engine is designed/built for a particular octane fuel it is different to an engine tuned to a particular octane fuel.
To redesign a engine which was built for 91 and convert it to E10, the compression ratio would need to be raised.
If you tuned the 91 engine to run E10, all that is really being done is optimising the combination that is present, it will not compensate for the loss of efficiency because it don't have the higher compression ratio.

With any N/A engine, it is best to run the highest compression ratio with the lowest possible optimised octane fuel.
Think of it like this, it's no good running 105 octane fuel in an 8:1 compression ratio engine, It looses power.
Same with running E10 in an engine designed for 91 octane.

For best performance out of E10 it would be better in an engine designed for 95 octane.

[yearby]

Originally Posted by cheap

Have done the calculations a few times, my figures what they are, E10 = 10% worse milage.

E10 (95 RON) being too high for my vehicle - that's a new one. So how would you explain PULP (98 RON) giving better milage that normal ULP (91 RON)?

Hard to answer without knowing what type of vehicle you have and it's manufacture's recommended fuel type.

Could be a case of both 91 and E10 both being too low an octane fuel for your vehicle. Hard to say.
It can be likened to comparing fuel economy of 98 in my GT to 91 in my GT.
With the 91 fuel it's gutless and uses fuel.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by yearby

If a engine is designed/built for a particular octane fuel it is different to an engine tuned to a particular octane fuel.
To redesign a engine which was built for 91 and convert it to E10, the compression ratio would need to be raised.
If you tuned the 91 engine to run E10, all that is really being done is optimising the combination that is present, it will not compensate for the loss of efficiency because it don't have the higher compression ratio.

With any N/A engine, it is best to run the highest compression ratio with the lowest possible optimised octane fuel.
Think of it like this, it's no good running 105 octane fuel in an 8:1 compression ratio engine, It looses power.
Same with running E10 in an engine designed for 91 octane.

For best performance out of E10 it would be better in an engine designed for 95 octane.

Yes I get what you're saying about 105 octane fuel in an 8:1 engine.

But what I'm getting at is the point that there is apparently little difference in antiknock ability between 95 E10 and regular 91 unleaded.
I understand that the important MOTOR OCTANE NUMBER (ie MON) of 95 E10 is apparently close to, or the same as regular 91 unleaded fuel and that's typically 81 on the MON test, whereas 95 Premium is around 85 MON and 98 Premium is around 86. It's not surprising to me that these two fuels tend to be more expensive.
The MON test is the tougher test and from what I've been told by experts, the Motor Octane Number is the important one to take notice of.
It seems a pity to me that Research Numbers are even quoted. As I said earlier, in the US they quote an average of the RON and MON figures which is why their octane numbers are lower.

[yearby]

Originally Posted by 2242100

Yes I understand what you're saying about 105 octane fuel in an 8:1 engine.

But what I'm getting at is the point that there apparently is little difference in antiknock ability between 95 E10 and regular 91 unleaded.
The important MOTOR OCTANE NUMBER (ie MON) of 95 E10 is apparently close to, or the same as regular 91 unleaded fuel and that's typically 81 on the MON test, whereas 95 Premium is around 85 MON and 98 Premium is around 86.
The MON test is the tougher test and from what I've been told by experts, the Motor Octane Number is the important one to take notice of.
It seems a pity to me that Research Numbers are quoted. As I said earlier, in the US they quote an average of the RON and MON figures.

I am not familiar with where you got your figures for the MON verses RON so in this case I will have to take your word for it. Nor do I know under what testing conditions these tests are made.

What I do know is the ethanol based fuels burn cooler, this changes so many variables in the engine, that higher than anticipated compression ratios are possible and gains in power and fuel economy can be achieved.
I am not saying that they will equal petrol, but they can come close.

[yearby]

[

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by cheap

Have done the calculations a few times, my figures what they are, E10 = 10% worse milage.

E10 (95 RON) being too high for my vehicle - that's a new one. So how would you explain PULP (98 RON) giving better milage that normal ULP (91 RON)?

In my old XF (4.1 with 5 speed) I burned E10 a lot quicker than regular 91 where it was cheaper for me to pay more for 91.

Apparently E10 has cleaning agents, so it's good to use as a flush fuel. I used to run E10 1 in every 4 tank refills.

[You Yangs]

Hmm never seen it happen on a scale as big as this!!!!
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1227413865790

[2011G6E]

I'm sure all those people stuck out on the M4 near Sydney are happy to be doing thier bit for the environment by using E10...

I notice some very new vehicles there getting loaded onto tilt trays. Poor sods.

And they want to mandate that all our unleaded be filled with stuff that attracts water...well done. E10 fuel attracts about 50 times more water than normal unleaded fuel, so if you don't have a completely sealed fuel system (like, for instance, old cars...) it WILL be attracting water to the system. Nice.

There should be two classes of unleaded fuel...pure unleaded, and something like E85 which only specially designed vehicles can use.

Forcing people with new and old cars which were never designed to use any ethanol blend is simply wrong. But I have no doubt misguided and lied-to politicians will go ahead an mandate it eventually.

It's been quite a big talking point among the classic car brigade for many years now.
An interesting tech article about owning an older car...
http://www.mossmotors.com/SiteGraphi...s/ethanol.html

An interesting point in that article for owners of occasional-use old cars...

Reduced fuel longevity: A gasoline/ethanol blend absorbs water until it triggers phase separation. The blend has a 90-day product life in a closed tank, but lasts just 30 to 45 days in a vented tank often found in classic cars. With 10 percent ethanol blends, owners are supposed to replace the fuel in vented tanks about once a month by driving or draining, taking into consideration the humidity in the atmosphere and temperatures.

[sprintman1]

Use 98PULP in everything since it was released. Having worked as a mechanic I won't use or recommend any fuel containing ethanol.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by sprintman1

Use 98PULP in everything since it was released. Having worked as a mechanic I won't use or recommend any fuel containing ethanol.

I always use premium in my GSX1400...but then it's only got a 21 liter tank. I'd be a bit annoyed filling up fifty liters or so at 10 to 20 cents extra a liter every time...over a year that would really add up. And these days when things are tight and people are looking to save every penny they can. not many people are going to spend that much extra on fuel to avoid a problem that shouldn't even exist in the first place.

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by yearby

For best performance out of E10 it would be better in an engine designed for 95 octane.

ie every European engine from the last thirty years.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by simon varley

ie every European engine from the last thirty years.

Which is fine for the rest of us with other vehicles not made in Europe...my 2008 GSX1400 motorcycle says it can use up to 5% ethanol, but it's not really recommended, and even then for "limited use only". My mothers 1996 Mazda 121 says absolutely not to use it (so what does she do if the idiots mandate it?). Our '82 Celica can't use it, our '82 253 WB ute can't use it.

There is no suggestion...apart from "just use expensive premium fuel"...for what those of us environmental vandals who dare to want to, you know, use the fuel our vehicles were designed for...are to do if they mandate the rubbish and you no longer have a choice.

Oh...and if you think they're not going to demand to mandate ethanol content in premium as well, you're very naive. Look at the example of LPG...
LPG was dirt cheap, a quarter the price of petrol or less...until the government had a big program and encouraged so many people to use it, then (presumably with a Mr Burns "Excellent" while they were doing so...) they whacked on the taxes and made it virtually uneconomical to use any more.

[GasoLane]

MB Australia's take on Ethanol............


"Use of unleaded petrol containing ethanol in Mercedes-Benz passenger cars and 4WD’s

The Federal government believes that the inclusion of ethanol in petrol, up to a maximum of 10%, will be a positive step toward the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the sustainability of present fossil fuels.

As ethanol is already being supplied through some petrol outlets it is important that Mercedes-Benz owners are aware of our official company position in this matter.

Daimler AG. recommends that your vehicle be operated on fuel containing no more than 10% ethanol. Use of fuel with an ethanol content higher than 10% may result in engine malfunction, starting and operating difficulties and materials degradation. These adverse effects could result in permanent damage to your vehicle. Purchasing your fuel from a reputable supplier may reduce the risk of exceeding this 10% limit or of receiving fuel with abnormal properties. It should also be noted that when using ethanol blended fuels an increase in fuel consumption can be expected due to the lower energy content of ethanol.

We can assure owners that all Mercedes-Benz passenger cars and 4WD’s manufactured after January 1st 1986 to Australian specification are able to be operated on unleaded petrol containing ethanol, providing the maximum limit of 10% is not exceeded."

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

MB Australia's take on Ethanol............


"Use of unleaded petrol containing ethanol in Mercedes-Benz passenger cars and 4WD’s

The Federal government believes that the inclusion of ethanol in petrol, up to a maximum of 10%, will be a positive step toward the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the sustainability of present fossil fuels.

As ethanol is already being supplied through some petrol outlets it is important that Mercedes-Benz owners are aware of our official company position in this matter.

Daimler AG. recommends that your vehicle be operated on fuel containing no more than 10% ethanol. Use of fuel with an ethanol content higher than 10% may result in engine malfunction, starting and operating difficulties and materials degradation. These adverse effects could result in permanent damage to your vehicle. Purchasing your fuel from a reputable supplier may reduce the risk of exceeding this 10% limit or of receiving fuel with abnormal properties. It should also be noted that when using ethanol blended fuels an increase in fuel consumption can be expected due to the lower energy content of ethanol.

We can assure owners that all Mercedes-Benz passenger cars and 4WD’s manufactured after January 1st 1986 to Australian specification are able to be operated on unleaded petrol containing ethanol, providing the maximum limit of 10% is not exceeded."

Interesting. Lot of wiggle words in there..."providing"..."maximum limit"...up to you to make sure you use a "reputable supplier"...10% "not to be exceeded"...etc. In other words, MB knows damn well the crap is risky to use in their cars, they don't like the fact we're probably going to be forced to use it, but they assess "ten percent" as a sort-of safety limit. Maybe. So how much is too much? How much before the deny a warrantee claim because you haven't been careful? 10.5%? 11%? If your car has been sitting for a while and the fuel has started to separate? Is that your fault?

Of course...what guarantee do people have that the fuel we're using actually is only ten percent ethanol...? I mean it's not like there haven't already been issues with dodgy servos (bit and small) fiddling with the amount of this crap in our fuel supply.

Sew even the tiniest seed of distrust, and people will speak up, especially when it comes to something you have little control over, ie: the fuel your car absolutely needs to run.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Interesting. Lot of wiggle words in there..."providing"..."maximum limit"...up to you to make sure you use a "reputable supplier"...10% "not to be exceeded"...etc. In other words, MB knows damn well the crap is risky to use in their cars, they don't like the fact we're probably going to be forced to use it, but they assess "ten percent" as a sort-of safety limit. Maybe. So how much is too much? How much before the deny a warrantee claim because you haven't been careful? 10.5%? 11%? If your car has been sitting for a while and the fuel has started to separate? Is that your fault?

Of course...what guarantee do people have that the fuel we're using actually is only ten percent ethanol...? I mean it's not like there haven't already been issues with dodgy servos (bit and small) fiddling with the amount of this crap in our fuel supply.

Sew even the tiniest seed of distrust, and people will speak up, especially when it comes to something you have little control over, ie: the fuel your car absolutely needs to run.

Yep. Lots of "you can use it but..........."

[Stefan]

Funny coincidence, 6 or more cars broke down in Sydney from a batch of contaminated E10 bought at the M4 Caltex

[ratter]

tuning for higher levels of ethanol needs to be changed, so could be some of the reason for manufacturers limitations on certain vehicles

[kaniSS]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/twenty-car...0150625-ghx2fo

You should be compensated.

[sprintman1]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I always use premium in my GSX1400...but then it's only got a 21 liter tank. I'd be a bit annoyed filling up fifty liters or so at 10 to 20 cents extra a liter every time...over a year that would really add up. And these days when things are tight and people are looking to save every penny they can. not many people are going to spend that much extra on fuel to avoid a problem that shouldn't even exist in the first place.

False economy. Most engines adjust for the better fuel and give better SFC particularly turbo or supercharged. Anything with ethanol gives worse SFC than non ethanol fuel of same octane. old 626 turbo Mazda I had got 20% more per tank than std ULP making it cheaper not to mention better performance. Shell 100 RON wasn't around long but it was even better