Dont use E10 fuel!

[Windsor220]

The biggest issue with ethanol is it absorbs water. Other than that its ok. The contaminated fuel from the servo probably had a heap of water in it.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by kaniSS

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

You should be compensated.

See this is likely and more beliveable. Dozens of cars break down due to a bad batch of fuel, all lined up in breakdown lanes a few kms from the servo.

When one car breaks down a day later and the mechanic blames fuel...I don't get it, surely the must be a whole bunch of cars broken down.

[vztrt]

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/618...-m4-breakdowns

Seems to be isolated to one tank.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by vztrt

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/618...-m4-breakdowns

Seems to be isolated to one tank.

Looks like a site manager is going to get a kick in the bum, they're supposed to make regular tests for water.

[DOA4]

Over 20 motorist broke down on Sydney's M4 this morning due to a servo selling dodgy E10 sold from Caltex at Prospect.
http://www.triplem.com.au/sydney/new...or-breakdowns/

Edit: Oops just saw VZTRT's previous post (my bad)

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by DOA4

Over 20 motorist broke down on Sydney's M4 this morning due to a servo selling dodgy E10 sold from Caltex at Prospect.
http://www.triplem.com.au/sydney/new...or-breakdowns/

Edit: Oops just saw VZTRT's previous post (my bad)

And posts 78 and 89

[2242100]

Originally Posted by yearby

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.

Certainly no doubt that an engine can be tuned to deliver a heap of power with a high content of ethanol in the fuel, but on the subject of the RON and MON numbers you might want to google:-

caltex ethanol the plain facts.

In that article they say "The addition of ethanol to standard unleaded can increase Research Octane Number (RON) by up to 4 Research Octane Numbers but has a much smaller effect on Motor Octane Number (MON), typically up to 2 motor octane numbers."
In the next paragraph they speak of regular unleaded petrol having minimum octane numbers of "91 (RON) and 81 (MON)".
Then regarding Premium unleaded petrol they say it has "minimum octane numbers of 95 (RON) and 85 (MON)."

I've been told by a couple of oil company technical people in the last 5 years that 98 is around 1 MON point more.

On the subject of the MON test being tougher you might want to Google:-

enggcyclopedia octane number

[blackf6]

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.

Servo's don't touch the fuel mate. It comes straight from the terminal, into the tanker to the underground tank. And as I stated earlier in the thread the 10% is injected into the compartment in the loading gantry and computer verified. If it is out of specs we are grounded.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by DeJaVu GT

Servo's don't touch the fuel mate. It comes straight from the terminal, into the tanker to the underground tank. And as I stated earlier in the thread the 10% is injected into the compartment in the loading gantry and computer verified. If it is out of specs we are grounded.

I don't doubt it.

Doesn't explain why there are all these problems since we started watering down fuel with something that simply isn't supposed to be in there, or cases where the ethanol level is actually wrong (and only discovered once problems arise). Or not mentioned as in one case a couple of years back...I think the servo was selling unleaded with between 5 and 10% ethanol but just putting it through normal bowsers so people had no idea.

[FGX335]

Yep, they are meant to test weekly with water finding paste to detect the presence of water. Some of the tanks can be as large as 60,000L, and once 50L or more of water is detected in the tank, they need to suck out the water.

Apart from that, company owned sites don't touch the fuel, it goes straight in the tanks. Independents however could do anything they wanted to, although it is extremely rare.

[blackf6]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I don't doubt it.

Doesn't explain why there are all these problems since we started watering down fuel with something that simply isn't supposed to be in there, or cases where the ethanol level is actually wrong (and only discovered once problems arise). Or not mentioned as in one case a couple of years back...I think the servo was selling unleaded with between 5 and 10% ethanol but just putting it through normal bowsers so people had no idea.

Are you still upset that super (leaded) is gone?

There can only be problems when procedures aren't followed. Would you like to know when pumping off a tanker vessel, when products are changed, for instance. What is used to separate them? Sea water! Automotive fuel grade isn't as imperative as one would think. For instance 20lts of diesel into 10,000 litres of unleaded wouldn't even be noticed.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by DeJaVu GT

Are you still upset that super (leaded) is gone?

There can only be problems when procedures aren't followed. Would you like to know when pumping off a tanker vessel, when products are changed, for instance. What is used to separate them? Sea water! Automotive fuel grade isn't as imperative as one would think. For instance 20lts of diesel into 10,000 litres of unleaded wouldn't even be noticed.

Water...being incompressible...makes things a little different though as opposed to contamination by another fuel. Get even a little of it in your fuel supply and you could well be up for some extremely expensive repairs...

Leaded fuel? Actually yes I am. Leaded fuel wasn't the demon they claimed it was. Lead levels in children started dropping not when they banned leaded fuel in the USA and other countries, but when they banned lead based solder in food tins and lead based paint.
Lead readings taken by the roads were just that...right on the bitumen or immediately beside the tarmac. Even as a particulate, lead is heavy, and drops almost immediately to the road surface where it's washed away by rain. In Sydney some of the highest lead levels measurable are underneath the Sydney Harbour Bridge after years of painting it. Away from the bridge though, nothing.

But anyway, it's gone now.

Also, interestingly, our bowsers are about the only ones in the world which don't carry a lengthy and frightening list of warnings about unleaded fuel..."don't breath the fumes, don't get it on your skin, don't wash parts, carcinogenic additives present, don't use in ANY vehicle or power equipment without a catalytic converter fitted"...etc.

E10 brings a whole other raft of problems, but all some idiot has to do to get immediate funding and the ear of the government is attach the word "green" or "sustainable" to a proposal and it goes straight to the top of the pile.

[castellan]

Originally Posted by 2242100

Certainly no doubt that an engine can be tuned to deliver a heap of power with a high content of ethanol in the fuel, but on the subject of the RON and MON numbers you might want to google:-

caltex ethanol the plain facts.

In that article they say "The addition of ethanol to standard unleaded can increase Research Octane Number (RON) by up to 4 Research Octane Numbers but has a much smaller effect on Motor Octane Number (MON), typically up to 2 motor octane numbers."
In the next paragraph they speak of regular unleaded petrol having minimum octane numbers of "91 (RON) and 81 (MON)".
Then regarding Premium unleaded petrol they say it has "minimum octane numbers of 95 (RON) and 85 (MON)."

I've been told by a couple of oil company technical people in the last 5 years that 98 is around 1 MON point more.

On the subject of the MON test being tougher you might want to Google:-

enggcyclopedia octane number

As far as I know when using E10 and they say it's 95 RON it is more something like 93 in what one may see it truly being.

So if you have a older Honda that says use 95 RON don't use the E10 95 RON, go higher.

It's more about when you are driving it flat out higher in the rev range that the E10 95 RON may not cut it as well as unleaded 95 does.

So when one understands RON MON and PON it becomes more clearer.

[castellan]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Water...being incompressible...makes things a little different though as opposed to contamination by another fuel. Get even a little of it in your fuel supply and you could well be up for some extremely expensive repairs...

Leaded fuel? Actually yes I am. Leaded fuel wasn't the demon they claimed it was. Lead levels in children started dropping not when they banned leaded fuel in the USA and other countries, but when they banned lead based solder in food tins and lead based paint.
Lead readings taken by the roads were just that...right on the bitumen or immediately beside the tarmac. Even as a particulate, lead is heavy, and drops almost immediately to the road surface where it's washed away by rain. In Sydney some of the highest lead levels measurable are underneath the Sydney Harbour Bridge after years of painting it. Away from the bridge though, nothing.

But anyway, it's gone now.

Also, interestingly, our bowsers are about the only ones in the world which don't carry a lengthy and frightening list of warnings about unleaded fuel..."don't breath the fumes, don't get it on your skin, don't wash parts, carcinogenic additives present, don't use in ANY vehicle or power equipment without a catalytic converter fitted"...etc.

E10 brings a whole other raft of problems, but all some idiot has to do to get immediate funding and the ear of the government is attach the word "green" or "sustainable" to a proposal and it goes straight to the top of the pile.

I only mainly use 91 Shell or BP as my car hates Caltex it gets on my goat, as it looses power on small throttle and because the exhaust is so quiet their is a back fire noise going pop pop pop when I am up it.

Now I am going back to using E10 again because it performs well on it.

In Brisbane I have gone off the Shell of late as it's running just as bad as the Caltex 91 rubbish. it maybe just the winter blend ?

It's always ran well on the E10 Caltex.

When E10 first came out my car hated it and lost a lot of power under 1600 RPM but they must of worked it out with adding this and that over time.

I know that my car uses more fuel when driven harder or the air con is on, but taking it easy it's much the same on fuel.

There is no problems with modern cars on E10.

Don't use it if you have a boat or you don't drive much, keep fuel in the heat it evaporates and goes off more so.

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Looks like a site manager is going to get a kick in the bum, they're supposed to make regular tests for water.

"Paste test" are supposed to be done frequently at different depths.

All Tanks have water, no avoiding that.

[snailbate]

I filled up in Corowa VIC and By Wangaratta I blue the motor up got it back to Autotech at Granville on the back of a tow truck verdict a bad batch of fuel no way I can prove so a rebuild or new engine The fuel was not E10 UNLEADED it is just unleaded 91 I have done 40,000 on this engine with all types of fuel this is the first time I have had a engine fail I have been advised that in NSW all grades of petrol have ethernol in it you can not get away from it possible get a desiel
Terry

[FGX335]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

"Paste test" are supposed to be done frequently at different depths.

All Tanks have water, no avoiding that.

The water settles at the bottom of the tank, and therefore they put paste on the bottom of the dipping stick to test for water. You'll clearly see it change from purple to blue when water is detected, and you can guess roughly how much there is as the stick is graded.

[GASWAGON]

Not sure wether to run E10 again now......So many contradicting opinions.

Might stick with 91 for now???

Also I bought the dodgy fuel from United servo in Donvale, Melbourne.

It was not from a Caltex???

[Sabantien]

I can't imagine E10 in general is bad. I'm sure I remember hearing about bad batches of fuel before we ever had the E10 stuff.

I always found better fuel economy with the 98 over anything else. I'd try to compare with lower grades in my Falcon, but the place I go to is only 1c more for the 98 than the 91 everywhere else. Pretty sure there's a sticker on the fuel flap saying to use a minimum of 95 anyhow.

[yearby]

Originally Posted by CoolBFWagon

Not sure wether to run E10 again now......So many contradicting opinions.

Might stick with 91 for now???

Also I bought the dodgy fuel from United servo in Donvale, Melbourne.

It was not from a Caltex???

Life is always full on contradictions.

Go with what is recommended for you car by it's manufacturer.
If it says to use 91 , that is what it will run on best.

But find a different service station to get your fuel, whether you whish to blame the E10 or the 91 octane, one of those petrol stations is giving you contaminated fuel, so best if both are avoided.

Peter

[sprintman1]

Originally Posted by yearby

Life is always full on contradictions.

Go with what is recommended for you car by it's manufacturer.
If it says to use 91 , that is what it will run on best.

But find a different service station to get your fuel, whether you whish to blame the E10 or the 91 octane, one of those petrol stations is giving you contaminated fuel, so best if both are avoided.

Peter

Use 98 not 91. You'll feel the difference

[Tom Tucker]

It's already been stated, but fuel quality is always an issue because quality assurance is forgotten once it leaves the distribution centre. Ethanol has challenges mostly due to the hydroscopic nature of it. It's also got lower specific energy and it's environmental credentials mostly rely upon the type of feedstock used to produce it.

But due to the oxygen content in ethanol, it burns cleanly, has a very high octane rating and is very detonation resistant. And only rubber produced prior to the 1980s suffers damage from it. It's a great fuel and a genuine alternative to fossil fuel, as Brazil has demonstrated. But for everyone else who haven't invested so much into the industry, it's not especially cost effective.

Ultimately fuel companies don't like using any biofuel additives because it's more expensive for them to blend and quality assurance is a little more difficult. In the end, ground fuels are fairly forgiving. It generally has to be seriously contaminated for there to be issues, and ethanol isn't what you need to worry about.

[castellan]

Originally Posted by sprintman1

Use 98 not 91. You'll feel the difference

That's not always true of 98 with all engines, but it is mainly true.

Do believe that when Holden brought out the new VT 5.0L V8 179 KW and 195 KW that this type of engines were to run on 95 but then they came out saying 91 was ok. due to people spinning out on the price of 95 octane being 4c more.
Yes 91 was ok, but it was not tuned to run on 91 as all it did was set the knock sensor into action on hot days or if you got up it, as it backed the timing off, in that case and you lost the fuel economy and performance advantage.

The new 4.0L Falcons ford says you can use 91 but truly, it is tuned to run 98 for the best economy and performance.

[Dr Terry]

I've noticed that the different fuel companies rate their E10 with different RON numbers.

To my knowledge 'normal' unleaded has a RON of 91, but when 10% ethanol is added its RON becomes 95. Some bowsers are labelled 91 E10 & some label it 95 E10, very confusing for the average punter. Even moreso when the same servo sells either 95 or 98 'premium' fuels.

I've run an automotive workshop in Sydney, for over 40 years & I believe that E10 gets wrongly blamed for everything imaginable. If it was as bad as some say, it wouldn't be on the market.

It's a bit of a 'green con' really, because it's 10% less thermally efficient, yet is not 10% cheaper. You will find in back-to-back real world tests, that you will get more mpg out of standard 91 than E10, in the 'average' car. More than enough to cover the supposed 2c price 'saving'.

Its main drama, as many posters have stated, is that it's hygroscopic, it absorbs water. Another drama not often mentioned is that it evaporates more quickly, which can be a real problem in older carburettor cars & even moreso with pre-carbon canister cars, where the fuel tank is openly vented to the atmosphere. If you run E10 in a 50s or 60s classic car, which gets left parked in the garage for long periods, you gets dramas with the carburettor drying out & the tank level dropping thru its quicker rate of evaporation.

I advise my customers not to run E10 in older cars, say pre-2000 & with later cars, check which fuel suits your car best.

Most 'average' type 4-cyl & 6-cyl daily drivers are quite happy on E10, but as I said will run more economically on std 91. In that case, unless you are an avid greenie, why bother.

Also, I've found some high performance cars, with more intelligent EFI management systems, like Holden's LSx V8s, or mid-range BMWs, do like the extra RON of E10, so they perform better on E10 than std 91, without the price rip-off attached to premium 98.

Somebody earlier brought up the topic of leaded fuels. This one is a big myth, leaded fuels were not banned because of lead in the atmosphere being bad for you. The reason unleaded fuel was introduced was so that catalytic converters could be fitted to remove the genuine 'nasties' from the exhaust. Things like oxides of nitrogen & excess hydrocarbons. You can't use leaded fuel in a car with a cat converter, it will very quickly 'poison' the cat & it will become blocked.

Lead in the atmosphere & water table was far worse decades ago, when houses had lead pipes & all paint was lead based.

Dr Terry

[Revolver]

Originally Posted by 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.

Both of these points are incorrect my friend.

So what happened in the old days when you ran out of fuel, you could run the car on alcohol. Older cars can run on pretty much anything.

And you keep prattling on (as you have before) about E10 attracting water.

As said before, I work in the industry, front line. I test the tanks on every graveyard shift I do. On each tank. Every night. With easy-enough-that-blind-freddy-can-tell water finding paste. Heres the product: http://www.gasoila.com/all-purpose-w...ing-paste.html this stuff turns from baby poo brown to yellow at the sniff (and I am not joking about that) of water. No matter the fuel product.

Do you know how many times Ive had to mark up that water has been found on the dip sheet in E10? Not once. In ten years. Over a number of sites.

And all the tanks in the ground are vented (check it out next time your at the servo. You'll find approx 2m tall galvanised or white stacks either in the garden or beside the building) so by that logic, I should see water in it every night.

[Revolver]

Originally Posted by FGX335

Yep, they are meant to test weekly with water finding paste to detect the presence of water. Some of the tanks can be as large as 60,000L, and once 50L or more of water is detected in the tank, they need to suck out the water.

Apart from that, company owned sites don't touch the fuel, it goes straight in the tanks. Independents however could do anything they wanted to, although it is extremely rare.

No, Ive worked for a couple of independents. Its the same thing. Fuel gets ordered. Sub contracting tanker company delivers it. Nothing in between. It usually comes from one or 2 depots.

[sprintman1]

Originally Posted by castellan

That's not always true of 98 with all engines, but it is mainly true.

Do believe that when Holden brought out the new VT 5.0L V8 179 KW and 195 KW that this type of engines were to run on 95 but then they came out saying 91 was ok. due to people spinning out on the price of 95 octane being 4c more.
Yes 91 was ok, but it was not tuned to run on 91 as all it did was set the knock sensor into action on hot days or if you got up it, as it backed the timing off, in that case and you lost the fuel economy and performance advantage.

The new 4.0L Falcons ford says you can use 91 but truly, it is tuned to run 98 for the best economy and performance.

From Ford Wiki

The inline six-cylinder engine received a power upgrade of 5 kilowatts (6.7 hp) and 8 newton metres (5.9 lb·ft) to 195 kilowatts (261 hp) at 6000 rpm/391 newton metres (288 lb·ft) at 3250 rpm. The engine can also use 95 RON fuel, adding 6 kilowatts (8.0 hp) and 18 newton metres (13 lb·ft), a figure higher again on 98 RON fuel where certain sources would claim 420Nm of torque and 208 kW on RON98 petrol. 0–100 km/h tests show 6.2s times with RON98 fuel versus 6.8s with RON91.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by Dr Terry

Somebody earlier brought up the topic of leaded fuels. This one is a big myth, leaded fuels were not banned because of lead in the atmosphere being bad for you. The reason unleaded fuel was introduced was so that catalytic converters could be fitted to remove the genuine 'nasties' from the exhaust. Things like oxides of nitrogen & excess hydrocarbons. You can't use leaded fuel in a car with a cat converter, it will very quickly 'poison' the cat & it will become blocked.

Lead in the atmosphere & water table was far worse decades ago, when houses had lead pipes & all paint was lead based.

Dr Terry

I dispute this comment as I remember clearly why leaded fuel was phased out, leaded fuel was removed for pollution reasons, also removed for health concerns.

Yes you are correct on the catalytic convertor quote where leaded fuel will contaminate it & render it useless.

[Bill M]

This is what Yamaha say about ethanol and water.
I believe they may know a thing or too about engines and fuels.

Ethanol molecules have a stronger bond to water molecules than to petrol molecules. In the absence of water, ethanol and petrol molecules will bond. When water is added to E10 fuel, the bond between the ethanol and petrol will weaken. When the percentage of water in E10 fuel reaches approximately 0.5%, the bond between the ethanol and petrol molecules will breakdown and the ethanol molecules will attach to the water molecules. This is called phase separation.

http://www.yamaha-motor.com.au/suppo...ction-to-water

[calais]

I work with aviation fuels, as in I run a storage facility.

There is no getting around the fact that you will find water in a bulk storage tank. Somewhere, somehow it gets in there. Becomes entrained, dissolved or stays free. Hell, doing low point sump samples you can see it clear as day. In any form, you can find it with either paste or using a 'shell water pellet' and coalesce (filter) it outI conduct fuel quality assurance checks every day of the week on millions of litres a day.

In an aviation environment, water and the resulting microbiological growth is the greatest hazard relating to fuel. For ground fuels, I fail to see why the fuel isnt filtered and coalesced again through the bowser. Additional expense no doubt....