BP just made my list

[Deadman]

To add to my above post - I'm not saying all cars notice performance drops or fuel consumption increases. In fact, in some cases, it could be the opposite. I just wanted to offer actual industry research opinion to the OP, rather than just "this is what happened in my case" which can often be very misleading and often poorly determined. Esspecially when one personal opinion or experience is expressed as a general fact about a product.

[Hunter]

I used to care but I don't anymore. I've run E10 for some time in my falcon and it hasn't had any long term damage nor has it greatly affected fuel economy.

To my mind, if E10 were so harmful to every vehicle known to man I'd wager there'd be lawsuits and whatnot being thrown around...

I've seen so much stuff posted by people saying its bad but until I see a report from an bunch of engineers and scientists (and not some mechanic who works for an auto club) then I will change what fuel I use.

[The Monty]

And all those bad reports from big corporations dont have anything to do with their interests in the oil companies of course :togo:

[irish2]

The simple fact is ethanol only has 68% the yield of petrol. That is the reason we run cars on LPG and not natural gas because natural gas has about 40% the yield of LPG. Since ethanol is in such low concentrations in the fuel it has a negligable effect. The effects on certain rubbers and plastics is usually what causes car manufacturers not to reccomend the fuel for use in certain cars.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by Deadman

Yep, I guess that means your earlier statement that "E10 won't do anything except save you a few cents a litre" must be true.

If you don't notice any difference in your Clio, then no other cars will notice decreased performance and increased fuel consumption. Despite industry research, many driver reports saying otherwise, and the fact it's pretty common knowledge - it even states it (that you will increase fuel consumption) on some of the pumps depending on what service station you go to.



I'm supprised you bother running 98 RON at all then.

I might have mentioned my thoughts at the end, but my point was based on facts from industry research - not personal opinion. That is why I posted - I hate misleading information. You can tell me how your Clio takes any fuel and you don't notice a change in the slightest - but to indicate to someone else who drives a different model car, that E10 fuel won't affect their performance or economy (based on your own experience in a Clio) is misleading.

Why do I use 98 RON? I don't know... you tell me... 11:1 comp, 7250rpm... it requires it. It runs like butt with 95 RON, and according to the technical specs in the manual it strictly forbids anything but 98. So yeah, I'm pretty sure with my highly strung, near 100hp/litre engine I'd be able to notice varying fuel quality difference, don't you think?

But I'll say something a little different for you...

Every single car that I have ever tried E10 fuel in (and there are many), there has been absolutley no difference at all. Raises, lowers consumption... whatever... I don't care if all fuel becomes E10 or it doesn't, I've used it enough times and seen the difference it makes (none) myself. Like I said... petrol, like all other petrol.

My information isn't misleading. It is 100% truth based on what I have done. And as far as I'm concerned, doing something for yourself > reading what someone else says/wants you to think. Some people think E10 stuff is bad, that it made their car do whatever, and hey, if that's their experience, so be it.

[XRUTEDAVE]

Here's something to think about. The grain used to produce ethanol is the same grain that also goes to food production. So encouraging use of ethanol is only going to (eventually) increase the cost of food. I'd also suggest that any environmental benefits are overstated when you consider that to maintain the current level of food production and produce grain for ethanol will have to require an increase in land clearing for crops and an increase in water use.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by XRUTEDAVE

Here's something to think about. The grain used to produce ethanol is the same grain that also goes to food production. So encouraging use of ethanol is only going to (eventually) increase the cost of food. I'd also suggest that any environmental benefits are overstated when you consider that to maintain the current level of food production and produce grain for ethanol will have to require an increase in land clearing for crops and an increase in water use.

As well as high nitrate run off from incrased fertiliser use, resulting in algal blooms and coral death.

[SVR73]

My 94 hilux goes really hard on united 95 and its cheaper than 91 unleaded.
The XR however only gets BP ultimate,
However if I notice a drop off in performance from that any time, I'll be raiding my fathers martini and elf racing fuels.

[T-BOOST]

There's a Shell here in s/e melbourne that doesn't even sell 91
Only 95, 98 and 100. doesn't bother me though id never use 91
Iv'e always used 98, and now shell has 100 i splerge once every month

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by XRUTEDAVE

Here's something to think about. The grain used to produce ethanol is the same grain that also goes to food production. So encouraging use of ethanol is only going to (eventually) increase the cost of food. I'd also suggest that any environmental benefits are overstated when you consider that to maintain the current level of food production and produce grain for ethanol will have to require an increase in land clearing for crops and an increase in water use.

Mate ethanol in Australia and places like Brazil does not come from grain - it comes from sugar cane and sugar cane by-products. Considering that sugar isn't necessarily a staple (whereas grain is), it doesn't affect people that much and it also assists in keeping the sugar industry alive.

Brazil has been using sugar-cane based ethanol for a very long time. America has a lot of political bollocks surrounding their corn industry and corn growers over in the US are using their corn to produce ethanol (when it would usually be used to produce corn syrup, corn food etc).

Australia's ethanol addition to fuel supply was done for two reasons, 1) to lower cost of fuel (arguably it has done this) and 2) prop up the sugar industry (which was dying out due to cheap overseas sugar).

There's extensive research being done here in Australia and over in the US to develop special breeds of certain species of plants whose only goal is to maximise ethanol production. Among the benefits of ethanol production using plant matter is that the plants themselves absorb carbon dioxide. So while you can never get 100% reclaiming of the CO2 created by the combustion process, you can retrieve a fair portion of it using the plants that make the fuel in the first place. Hence them being described as 'renewable' and 'sustainable'.

Having said that, I don't think ethanol and indeed the internal combustion engine itself, are the future of personal transportation - they are simply too inefficient and too wasteful. Eventually we will go either electric or something else. Its just a matter of time, money and research into finding another method.

[XRUTEDAVE]

Originally Posted by Hunter

Mate ethanol in Australia and places like Brazil does not come from grain - it comes from sugar cane and sugar cane by-products. Considering that sugar isn't necessarily a staple (whereas grain is), it doesn't affect people that much and it also assists in keeping the sugar industry alive.

That is the case at the moment, but if what I'm hearing (from within the grain industry) it isn't going to remain that way for very long.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by XRUTEDAVE

That is the case at the moment, but if what I'm hearing (from within the grain industry) it isn't going to remain that way for very long.

I doubt that they would in Oz purely for the fact that we're already in serious drought (particularly where grain is grown) and any change to the production levels would be disastrous.

Following the AWB scandal, I hear they started a new wheat agency to sell our grain overseas (because we get good money for it, apparently).

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Hunter

Eventually we will go either electric or something else. Its just a matter of time, money and research into finding another method.

Damn, so I'll have to go back to pegging a footy card on the wheels?! I'll my my V8. :(

[GasoLane]

Go to LPG. No Ethanol in that...

[Deadman]

Originally Posted by Steffo

Every single car that I have ever tried E10 fuel in (and there are many), there has been absolutley no difference at all. Raises, lowers consumption... whatever... I don't care if all fuel becomes E10 or it doesn't, I've used it enough times and seen the difference it makes (none) myself. Like I said... petrol, like all other petrol.

Do you run it for extended periods of time by itself or simply fill up or top up with it now or then? And if petrol is like all other petrol (as you say once again) - I repeat - why use 98 RON? Petrol is just like all other petrol as you say. Oh right, you answered that - so I guess Petrol isn't like all other petrol? Which one is it?

Originally Posted by Steffo

My information isn't misleading. It is 100% truth based on what I have done. And as far as I'm concerned, doing something for yourself > reading what someone else says/wants you to think. Some people think E10 stuff is bad, that it made their car do whatever, and hey, if that's their experience, so be it.

It is - you said something as if it was fact - not as if it was your personal experience. You can't say "this is a fact" purely because of your own experience, you can say "in my experience ..." etc. There is a difference, but I'm not supprised, it is you Steffo.

I do try E10 fuel, I have tried it for extended periods on it's own ( > 1000km driven per week, and running it for 3-4 weeks on it's own as a minimum, with same driving conditions, distances and speed as when using non E10 fuel to keep). In a Turbo Territory, BA XR6 and a Suzuki Swift. In all three cars, the fuel consumption increased and performance felt worse. However, I don't say "because of this experience -it's a fact that...." - it's simply my experience. I then put this together with articles from respected motoring authorities i.e. RACQ (and un-resepected articles from Wheels etc) and come to a conclusion based on my own experience and research. Still, unlike what you wrote - I don't ever claim that I know the 'correct' answer to this question where many people have varying experience.

I'm not saying your experiences are true. You can quote as much experience as you want (you always seem to) but the second you start treating it as fact when someone is after information, it becomes misleading. It's a simple as that. Experiences are what make this forum great - but experience and fact are two different things. Experiences that can be highly variable, when portrayed as fact, are either misleading or an outright lie.