E10 petrol

[James Clarke]

Ok, not road related but it is driving related.

WA has only just brought in E10 fuel (as well as 100RON) at "selected" outlets. My question is, is it any good? Is is as economical as 91RON ULP? If there any cost saving?

We have a 2013 Corolla and a 2010 Camry and they are both able to take it, but is it worth it? 

Thoughts...

[Musa Hodzic]

Ouch, that's a controversial one. Everyone will tell you a different story. I'll tell you what I experienced.

I ran premium 95 and 98 in my 5.7L but the best value I got was with E10. Maybe because it's a V8, and it used the same amount of fuel on all fuels. Although I have a tuner where I reprogram the ECU according to each fuel type, maybe that's the reason I see no difference. Never tried without re-tuning, so I'd say it could play a difference. I have a feeling, but didn't try yet, that if I program the E10 tune and run premium, I might get better economy and vice-versa (running E10 on premium fuel tune), as there's different timings for spark plug advance, knock regards is different, etc.

I did a big study on E10 before I switched to using it. Contrary to popular belief, E10 is quite good quality here in Oz and in fact, even cleaner than 95RON according to info I found. So far I did 30K with it and hasn't missed a beat.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Aussie Highways" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to aussie-highwa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to aussie-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/aussie-highways?hl=en-US.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Paul Rands]

I run E10 94 octane in my VT Commodore.

When I use 91 regular unleaded or 91 octane E10 the engine pings under load.

If E10 94 octane is not available I run 95, 98 or 100 octane fuel. It seems to burn cleaner, provides more power and slightly better fuel economy.

I have used ethanol blended fuel since the 90s, and got excellent results in my 1986 Volvo 240, and subsequent Volvo's, Corolla and BA Futura.

--
Paul Rands
paul...@gmail.com

[mubd1234]

My rule is that if it's 4 cents cheaper then use it. From what I read the octane rating of E10 is 94 to 95 because the octane is boosted by the ethanol.

A person I know says that they'd never use E10 and only buys the 98 octane stuff (into their car tuned for regular petrol and listed as safe for E10) instead because they believe the advertising bullshit and the placebo effect has taken over - because they think their car will explode if they put regular petrol in or something, they can't compare how the car runs. They even refuse to buy 98 octane fuel from a petrol station known to be a lot cheaper than other ones around the area purely because he thinks the fuel quality isn't very good, because the place looks a bit dirtier than the Shell down the road. 

Another person I know has tested all the different fuel octanes available with their 1986 unleaded 6 cylinder car, and found that 91 and E10 causes pinging, while 95 has a lower amount of pinging and 98 has negligible pinging.

I really hate it when people waste their money by putting premium petrol that's often 20 cents per litre more expensive when the car runs fine on E10 or 91 octane fuel.

My 1994 Daihatsu Applause sedan (definitely not designed for E10) has been running for 40000km without a service ($ reasons) purely on E10 and it's still running quite well. It idles a bit rough on all fuel types, however.

[Vincent Muller]

Interestingly enough, I switched to 98 because I had a Volvo 240 series.

Mine was a 1982 244, and I got told by my mechanic at the time to switch from 94 octane E10 to premium 98. His advice was that "the water in the E10 petrol will eat your hoses", which could have been gospel truth or complete crap.

When I bought my VX Commodore (which is the car I'm currently driving), I went back to E10, but have switched again to premium 98 in the meantime. I would have put ~30 000km on the car using E10 with periodic service and it ran fine, and then decided to fill up with 98 one day for shits and giggles. On average, I save around 0.5 litres/100km using 98, and I can appreciate the difference in the drive, having previously done regular trips between Wollongong and Armidale, and then Wollongong and Melbourne. Additionally, I haven't heard a ping in ages, so I'm happy I made the switch.

To get back to your original question James, my advice would be to try them all out and pick whichever fuel you're most comfortable with. Considering the age of your cars, you shouldn't have a problem testing different fuels, but maybe try a couple of tanks and city/country driving to make a value choice. I mean, that's terribly miscellaneous advice to give, but overwhelmingly I've found this whole topic to boil down to 'different strokes'.

Vincent

--

[Sam Laybutt]

n00b question - what is this 'pinging' you speak of?

[Paul Rands]

A rattling / ticking sound when the engine is under load, can also be characterised by loss of power whilst it's happening.

--
Paul Rands
paul...@gmail.com

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Sam Laybutt <crazykn...@hotmail.com> wrote:

n00b question - what is this 'pinging' you speak of?

[Phillip McCallum]

 

My Commodore is rated to run on E90 fuel if you wish – 90% ethanol and 10% unleaded.  I thought this was a printing error when I first read about it, but the dealer assured me it wouldn’t hurt the car to give it a try.  The local petrol station was selling some E85 at around 20 cents a litre cheaper than unleaded, so I used it exclusively for 2,000 km of my normal running.  I then changed back to unleaded and measured consumption for 2,000 km.  The result was pretty dramatic – my fuel consumption was around 30% worse on the E85, and therefore it actually was costing quite a bit more to do the same distance.  Plus the inconvenience of more stops to refuel, even if E85 was widely available (which it is not).  So, I stopped using it.  Within a few months, the E85 pump was taken away from the petrol station anyway – I suspect others might have discovered much the same outcome.

 

In terms of E10 – I use it a fair bit and have not noticed any drop off in fuel economy while doing so.  I do think there is a slight reduction in performance, but unless you are the sort of driver that is eager to leap off the mark at every set of lights, it does not matter much.  I quite happily use E10 if it is a bit cheaper, but I don’t tend to use it exclusively.

 

Phillip

[Paul Rands]

Ethanol blended fuel tends to be used faster. But I haven't noticed this with my Commodore, unless I use 91 octane E10.

--
Paul Rands
paul...@gmail.com

[Musa Hodzic]

My V8 used to ping on 98, but if I install a performance tune, it was ok, probably due to knock retard. The quietest was on 95 as stock but most economical is on E10 after a ECU tune for E10 and as I mentioned earlier, I didn't try that on stock tune. It's obvious that each fuel would give different results in terms of timing and burning as each has different octane level, that's why we have the ECU tunes, but these are more used by enthusiasts to gain better power and performance. My tuner cost me $400.

[Paul Rands]

I have also found differing results from different outlets.

If I buy BP 91 octane unleaded, I get no pinging, and good economy. But if I go to Caltex or Shell my engine pings and lacks low end power on the same rated product.

Right now I am running Mobil 91 non E10 and the performance is crap and the engine pings away under load on hills or from standing start.

Out of all the fuels I used in Dubbo, United's 100 octane and BP 95 octane performed best. Here in Canberra, we are very limited for choice, so I usually go with Shell, as I have had more issues using Caltex than Shell.

--
Paul Rands
paul...@gmail.com

[96ghia]

I'm a nay-sayer on this one, but might be because of the age of the car. 

I have a 97 Falcon, that,because NSW is really intelligent, and legislated the phase out of 91 ULP, to be replaced with E10, was run on E10 exclusively for several years as there were few to no alternatives near my home, aside from 95 or 98 which would be a waste, and were 15-20c dearer at a minimum.

I was wearing out, and I thought it was just the age of the car (age, distance, etc) that was making it run rougher and rougher, and use more and more fuel.

On a hoilday up the Pacific Highway, I filled it to the brim with regular 91RON with no ethanol at Kempsey, and it ran like a new car. Ever since then, I noted that whenever I used E10, it ran rough, was hard to start, and had reduced power but when I filled it with regular non-ethanol 91 it was fine.

I also found that 3 months after discovering this, that the seals in 4 of the injectors had rotted leading to fuel leaks, (the others rotted out 6 months later) and my mechanic asked specifically if I'd be using E10. He confirmed that it was the culprit.  I'l never use it again, unless the car is DESIGNED for it, rather than just being marked as "Ok to use"

I'm not the only one either. A friend of mine with a 96 Magna had all sorts of percieved electrical (misfiring, stalling, hard starting) issues that no-one was able to effectively diagnose other than "age" until she filled with non-E10 one day, and it ran like new again.

If you are wondering why I didn't replace all 6 injector seals at the same time, I didn't have the money ;-)

[davis]

I drive a euro Ford; it's rated for E10 but by god you wouldn't use it in it. Ignition is poor and the pinging is terrible. Finding regular 91 RON is difficult in this area, but not impossible. On 91 RON ignition is OK, but there's still limited pinging that I don't get with 95 RON.

 

Irrespective of both these issues, fuel consumption is that much worse on E10 that I'm sure it can't be a cost saving (obviously though I use 95 RON given my experiences)

[nbound]

It might be different in WA, but 100RON available here is actually E10 aswell (just a higher octane mix)

Most generic E10 is roughly equivalent to 95RON, rather than 91RON as fare as octane rating goes.

This is because the E10 mixes are blends with normal fuels, and pure ethanol has a higher octane rating than standard petrol. (ie. mix 98 and pure ethanol and you'll get 100ish. Mix pure ethanol with 91 and you'll get something like 93/94 ish.)

Pure ethanol is just shy of 110RON.

As with the existing fuels, the exact benefits will depend on your vehicle, the way you drive it, tuning, etc. But in general, its a little better than 91RON (and its cheaper), sounds good to me...

On Sunday, 19 May 2013 21:02:47 UTC+10, James Clarke wrote:

[B. J. Winzer]

I've heard about this happening - not certain as to the frequency of it,
but it does happen. Apparently it's due to the sugar content of
ethanol, it can corrode components.

Commodores are made for export to Brazil where they have E100 petrol -
100% ethanol - and the tubes and pipes in the engine are all steel
rather than plastic or rubber. But then, that's 100% ethanol from sugar
cane - E10 is 10%? So it would take relatively longer for Australian
components to decay.

My 1 cent. Because it's not worth 2 :)

On 20-May-2013 15:18, 96ghia wrote:
> I also found that 3 months after discovering this, that the seals in 4
> of the injectors had rotted leading to fuel leaks, (the others rotted
> out 6 months later) and my mechanic asked specifically if I'd be using
> E10. He confirmed that it was the culprit. I'l never use it again,
> unless the car is DESIGNED for it, rather than just being marked as
> "Ok to use"
>

[96ghia]

Its the organic nature of the Ethanol. I don't think its because its derived from sugar, per-se, but I couldn't confirm it with the mechanic.

I now use LPG most of this time on this car anyway.