Some facts about E10 fuel.

[Gomez]

I heard recently that regular 91 octane unleaded was to be completely phased out midyear, to be replaced with E10 (91 octane with 10% ethanol).

I contacted BP Tech Support and asked them a few questions.

Firstly, they told me that what I'd heard was wrong. They then went on to explain a bit about the E10 rollout.

The NSW Government is apparently very active in pushing the E10 agenda. As such, BP recently changed a number of NSW 91 octane pumps to E10 (and placarded them accordingly). According to BP, there is NO requirement for fuel companies to state the existence of ethanol in their fuels if the level is 10% or less, but BP did so anyway. (This flies in the face of what I've read on E10 labeling elsewhere).

They have since removed the E10 pump labeling as there is a shortage of the fuel and supplies to those pumps aren't guaranteed.

As E10 contains ethanol (rich in oxygen), you car needs to use more fuel (around 3% more) for efficient cylinder combustion. There is a trade off, cheaper E10...but more consumption.

According to BP, Federal Legislation will require them to supply 10% of their total petrol output as E10. BP have made the decision to use this ethanol only in their 91 octane fuel.

At the moment, little/none of this is sold in Melbourne.

The long term aim for BP is to sell 91 octane fuel with an ethanol level of under 5%. As a proportion of their output is of 95 and 98 octane, the 10% E10 production target can be reached solely by mixing a small amount of ethanol in their 91 octane product.

[2011G6E]

The biggest "fact" about ethanol is that it's an energy-negative fuel...it uses far more energy to grow, produce, transport, and distrubute, than is contained in the end product.

This is the reason for the heavy government subsidies on E10 fuel. One day those subsidies will go, and we'll be stuck with a fuel that makes most vehicles get worse fuel economy, at a much higher price than normal unleaded.

I'm still to see a valid explanation as to how making your car deliberately get worse fuel economy is "good for the environment"...

[Gomez]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

....I'm still to see a valid explanation as to how making your car deliberately get worse fuel economy is "good for the environment"...

From the RAA website: http://www.raa.com.au/page.aspx?TerID=1158

Results of studies conducted around the world on emissions outcomes and performance of ethanol blends are often contradictory. Emissions from ethanol blended fuels vary markedly between different ethanol blends and different vehicle technologies.

Within the Australian context, the use of ethanol blends of 10% (E10) has been found to result in:

• Decreased emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) (32%) and hydrocarbons (HC) (12%);
• Increases in non-regulated toxics: acetaldehyde (180%) and formaldehyde (25%);
• A slight (1%) increase in nitrogen oxides; and Decreases in non-regulated toxics: 1-3 butadiene (19%), benzene (27%).

Recent Australian life-cycle analysis work has revealed that E10 blends are considered greenhouse neutral.

I agree, greenhouse "neutral" isn't good enough.

[2011G6E]

There's also the small matter of the simply vast areas being turned over to growing crops for ethanol production, instead of feeding people. This is becomign a real problem in Mexico and several otehr areas of the world, where food prices are skyrocketing because instead of corn being used for food, it's going off to the USA and other big countries for ethanol so they can try and keep driving thier 8mpg SUV's.

I'm not really surprised that green groups have no problem starving people just to try and produce a fatally flawed, heavily subsidised, "green" fuel like ethanol.

[XDV800]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

The biggest "fact" about ethanol is that it's an energy-negative fuel...it uses far more energy to grow, produce, transport, and distrubute, than is contained in the end product.

That is what opponents of CORN derived ethanol would tell you. But in reality it can be considered to be on average, neutral. "Propaganda" perhaps, certainly not "fact"
SUGARCANE derived ethanol is legitimately "energy positive".

I'm still to see a valid explanation as to how making your car deliberately get worse fuel economy is "good for the environment"...

In "fact" ethanol is a much more efficient fuel on it's own than fossil fuel.
This business of mixing it is due to the fact that technology to efficiently power motor vehicles with it and all the infrastructure needed is not yet available.
The government promotes it because it is considered carbon neutral, and sustainable energy,which is questionable too at this point in time.

[malazn mafia]

Have Safeway/Caltex run E10 in their normal unleaded for the last 10 years? Always noticed power loss and reduced range whenever I filled up at Safeways, more so in an EL falcon.

[StrokedXT]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

The biggest "fact" about ethanol is that it's an energy-negative fuel...it uses far more energy to grow, produce, transport, and distrubute, than is contained in the end product.

That fact is from 1980 when the industry was in its infancy.

I dont believe this represents what govts etc are trying to achieve with ethanol, you need to compare how much energy is used in the production and transport of the fuel to the end user vs petrol and ethanol comes out on top.

Even at its most inneficient it has an energy ratio of approx 1.38:1 and is predicted to end up around 2.51:1. through driviong efficencies in all areas of production.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by yzfr101

That is what opponents of CORN derived ethanol would tell you. But in reality it can be considered to be on average, neutral. "Propaganda" perhaps, certainly not "fact"
SUGARCANE derived ethanol is legitimately "energy positive".


In "fact" ethanol is a much more efficient fuel on it's own than fossil fuel.
This business of mixing it is due to the fact that technology to efficiently power motor vehicles with it and all the infrastructure needed is not yet available.
The government promotes it because it is considered carbon neutral, and sustainable energy,which is questionable too at this point in time.

Yeh as all that cane is irrigated with pumps run by eletricity from solar cells, harvested by kanaka slaves, transported by email and crushed by fairies and pixies then distilled using unicorn tears.......

Haven't you seen all the solar power stations in QLD, no coal gets burned here....

[GreenR]

I got a bit of a shock when the Shell on the Hume Highway I drive past no longer has 95 unleaded but now replaced with E10 unleaded (94) .

So I'm assuming they too plan to bring in E10 and phase out the others

[XDV800]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yeh as all that cane is irrigated with pumps run by eletricity from solar cells, harvested by kanaka slaves, transported by email and crushed by fairies and pixies then distilled using unicorn tears.......

Haven't you seen all the solar power stations in QLD, no coal gets burned here....

Hey Flappy, i'm no petrochemist or environmental scientist, i'm just trying to inform the misinformed about what they penned incorrectly by researching and garnering a bit more info.
Not trying to convey that any type of fuel is the way to go. I'm a believe it when i see kinda guy.

Don't shoot me, shoot the messenger

[ray38l]

Ethanol is crap. I borrowed a mates hilux a few weeks ago and the first thing he said was don't put e10 because it will hardly even move on it, so the first time i put fuel in i wasn't thinking and put e10 in it. The car had probably 10% of the power it normally has. Luckily i didn't fill it and with a 110 litre tank i was able to add another 50 litres of normal fuel to fix it a bit. Ever since i run it on normal unleaded and no problems.

[Ben73]

Well E10 is better then S10 you get at some BP's

[Paxton]

I've only used E10 once in my EF. It wasn't great in terms of fuel economy. I went from ~580 Ks/Tank, to 195/half. I topped it up with BP Ultimate, and forgot all about it.

Not that I have to worry about fuel in a Falcon again.

[vztrt]

The only thing I say to people about E10 is to do your own testing and make your own mind up.

I've tracked my fuel economy for two years and things I have found in my situation is:

95ron E1 and 91ron non E10 yield the same economy but the performance is a tad better on the E10.

Ultimate yields about 30km more in economy, the car is smoother. But not worth the 12c/l really.

But in an FG 95ron E10 didn't have as good economy as the 91ron fuel (up to 70k more). But the car felt less powerful on 91 then 95ron E10.

But the 98 wasn't all that more beneficial then the regular 91.

Different peoples situations will yield different results.

[KuRT12]

I agree with vztrt.

Whilst economy may be slightly worse than 91 octane, i find the performance much similar to that of 98 octane on e10...

Plus its usually 12-15cpl cheaper.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by KuRT12

Whilst economy may be slightly worse than 91 octane, i find the performance much similar to that of 98 octane on e10...

odd given that e10 has a lower calorific content to 98

[gtfpv]

my FG XR6 runs on E10 all the time and consistantly gets 650kms for 62-64 litres .
i have put a few tanks of ultimate 98 in it . the 98 has more power definately , but zero difference in fuel economy .

[2011G6E]

Yep...clean and green...


Or to put it in a slightly satirical (but accurate) way...

[landau460]

Originally Posted by vztrt

The only thing I say to people about E10 is to do your own testing and make your own mind up.

I've tracked my fuel economy for two years and things I have found in my situation is:

95ron E1 and 91ron non E10 yield the same economy but the performance is a tad better on the E10.

Ultimate yields about 30km more in economy, the car is smoother. But not worth the 12c/l really.

But in an FG 95ron E10 didn't have as good economy as the 91ron fuel (up to 70k more). But the car felt less powerful on 91 then 95ron E10.

But the 98 wasn't all that more beneficial then the regular 91.

Different peoples situations will yield different results.

I did all my testing not with every fuel but did try a few out on a clevo and a boss motor with the clevo changed the timing to get the best effect with the boss it does its own working out.
I found by far 98 did the best on the clevo. The Shell 100 optimax racing was a little better but they got rid of it and i didnt get a chance to tune to it.

With the boss found and there were only 2 in nsw stations with the united chain that ran 100 octane. This was after shell got rid of the 100. But found the boss loved it till my mechanic told me how bad ethenol fuel is to the longevity of the car. (loves plastic to bits) everything these days has got plastic in it tanks, pumps etc so i stopped it emmediatly. went back to the 98 octane and it still loves it.

[2011G6E]

Still an awful lot of people around too who confuse the situation in, say, Brazil with here in Australia.

They say "What are you worried about, in Brazil they run cars on 100% ethanol".
Yes they do...but the cars are made at the factory to run on it. Here in Oz, they weren't until recently.

Take a look at the list of cars that either aren't "recommended" to use it, or which flat out can't use it...you will be surprised at how new some of the cars are that simply cannot use fuel with any ethanol in it at all. Cars like my mothers 1996 Mazda 121 and a lot of even newer cars than that will be damaged by using E10. Why should they be forced to use premium? It mightn't be an issue in other countries where what we call "Premium" is just "normal" unleaded, and thier premium is far above what we get here.

[gz1]

Originally Posted by vztrt

The only thing I say to people about E10 is to do your own testing and make your own mind up.

I've tracked my fuel economy for two years and things I have found in my situation is:

95ron E1 and 91ron non E10 yield the same economy but the performance is a tad better on the E10.

Ultimate yields about 30km more in economy, the car is smoother. But not worth the 12c/l really.

But in an FG 95ron E10 didn't have as good economy as the 91ron fuel (up to 70k more). But the car felt less powerful on 91 then 95ron E10.

But the 98 wasn't all that more beneficial then the regular 91.

Different peoples situations will yield different results.

I have to agree on this.
I did my own tests on a SY Territory and got no difference at all between standard ULP and E10. There was some slight difference when using the premium but not enough to justify the huge cost.
The test was as follows:
fill tank with E10 and run to as close to dry as possible.
Fill with E10 for the next three tanks running as close to dry as possible and note KMs and liters on each fill. Take average of these three readings and save as E10 l/100km
fill tank with ULP and run as close to dry as possible.
fill tank with ULP and note KMs and liters on each fill for the next three tanks. take average and call it ULP l/100km
repeat for premium.
the idea of running a tank of each grade through before you start measuring ensures that the old grade of fuel is flushed through and more importantly the engine ECU has had time to adapt to the new fuel grade.
.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Still an awful lot of people around too who confuse the situation in, say, Brazil with here in Australia.

They say "What are you worried about, in Brazil they run cars on 100% ethanol".
Yes they do...but the cars are made at the factory to run on it. Here in Oz, they weren't until recently.

Take a look at the list of cars that either aren't "recommended" to use it, or which flat out can't use it...you will be surprised at how new some of the cars are that simply cannot use fuel with any ethanol in it at all. Cars like my mothers 1996 Mazda 121 and a lot of even newer cars than that will be damaged by using E10. Why should they be forced to use premium? It mightn't be an issue in other countries where what we call "Premium" is just "normal" unleaded, and thier premium is far above what we get here.

theirs a fuel shortage in brazil as the distillers get a higher price on the export market than they do selling it local..
and its actually cheaper to buy petrol than ethanol now, than it was in the early years.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by burnz

theirs a fuel shortage in brazil as the distillers get a higher price on the export market than they do selling it local..
and its actually cheaper to buy petrol than ethanol now, than it was in the early years.

yes, but it saved their sugar industry (for now). i wonder why the australian sugar farmers were so slow to embrace ethanol?

[ebxr8240]

Turbo cars love the stuff..
Race cars are changing from Methanol to E85 as they don't have to change oil as often...
The cylinders etc run much cleaner also...

Why send our $$$ to sheiks ..
We are sending enough $$$ overseas !!!

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

Turbo cars love the stuff..
Race cars are changing from Methanol to E85 as they don't have to change oil as often...
The cylinders etc run much cleaner also...

Why send our $$$ to sheiks ..
We are sending enough $$$ overseas !!!

We're also spending enough in subsidies to keep ethanol fuel artificially low. Without the subsidies, if the trues cost of the stuff was shown it would be wa more expensive than normal unleaded. Some politicians have already sounded rumblings about the amount of taxpayers dollars spent doing this.
Australia also produces our own oil by the way. It's just that we send it overseas, get it processed, and buy it back at prices set in Singapore.

[StrokedXT]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

We're also spending enough in subsidies to keep ethanol fuel artificially low. Without the subsidies, if the trues cost of the stuff was shown it would be wa more expensive than normal unleaded. Some politicians have already sounded rumblings about the amount of taxpayers dollars spent doing this.
Australia also produces our own oil by the way. It's just that we send it overseas, get it processed, and buy it back at prices set in Singapore.

From someone in the industry you are wrong.

As for your pretty picture remember oil gets refined, transported, stored etc that use energy as well, ethanol from dirt to your tank gives more bang for buck than petrol, this is a fact as I posted the exact figure earlier in the thread.

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by StrokedXT

From someone in the industry you are wrong.

As for your pretty picture remember oil gets refined, transported, stored etc that use energy as well, ethanol from dirt to your tank gives more bang for buck than petrol, this is a fact as I posted the exact figure earlier in the thread.

But can the world replace oil for ethanol and still eat.
As someone said " tell 'im he's dreamin'."

Australia could not produce enough ethanol to replace petrol for our own use. Fact.

[StrokedXT]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

But can the world replace oil for ethanol and still eat.
As someone said " tell 'im he's dreamin'."

Australia could not produce enough ethanol to replace petrol for our own use. Fact.

Theres not enough to meet the current demand, and no one is proposing to replace all petrol with pure ethanol only to use it as a means to helping those limited oil reserves last a few years longer.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by StrokedXT

Theres not enough to meet the current demand, and no one is proposing to replace all petrol with pure ethanol only to use it as a means to helping those limited oil reserves last a few years longer.

There's also no car in Oz that will run 100% ethanol.

[ebxr8240]

I don't see many farms out there with crops for food or ethanol..
This rhetoric about limiting food to produce fuel is rubbish...
How much are farmers being ripped at present in the dairy industry with milk supply ??
Yea good on em if they sell their dairy and go into sugar cane/ beet etc...
Besides most in the cities think food come from supermarkets...
Brazil must be going hungry the 20 years LOL...

Trust me if petrol run out ..
There would be plenty of cars running atleast E90...