Is using E10 in your car worth the 2 cents per litre saving?

[old man emu]

I drove from Sydney to Gilgandra and back over the ANZAC Day weekend in my 4.2 litre Falcon (94 model with close on 400,000 ks). Normally I put E10 91 octane into it, but I decided to use only pure 91 octane for this trip. Apart from Camden to Lithgow, which is mostly restricted to 80 kph, I was sitting on about 110 kph and 1950 RPM. On my return trip, I averaged 10 km/litre on a trip of 600 km. Around town I usually get around 9 km/litre.

 

Now I'm starting to wonder if the 2 cents per litre difference between E10 and ethanol free fuel is worth the saving.

 

I read the information sticker on the fuel bowser, and it says that fuel marked E10 can have up to 10% ethanol in it. It also says not to use E10 in marine engines (2 stroke outboards) or petrol powered garden equipment.

 

Consider this. If I select 91 non-ethanol, or any of the higher octane fuels, I can be assured that I am buying a full litre of petroleum product. But, if I buy E10, I could be buying anything between 0.9 litres and 1.0 litres of petroleum product. With that uncertainty, how could any consumer who wanted to, work out a comparison of the calorific contents of E10 and pure petrol to make a sensible decision based on cost per BTU?

 

Since both fuels are lead free, what environmental savings am I making by using E10 around town as opposed to using pure fuel?

 

OME

 

 

[SDQDI]

When we first got our commodore I did a few tanks of each 91 95 and 98 (e85 wasn't available out here and still is hard to source) and found that the better economy I got out of 98 well and truly paid for the difference in price per litre, our local servo for a long time only had 95 which was still better value per 100ks than 91 and as it turns out probably better for it than even 98.

 

I realise different cars will have different rates but that is how it worked out for me.

 

 

[Rastus]

When we first got our commodore I did a few tanks of each 91 95 and 98 (e85 wasn't available out here and still is hard to source) and found that the better economy I got out of 98 well and truly paid for the difference in price per litre, our local servo for a long time only had 95 which was still better value per 100ks than 91 and as it turns out probably better for it than even 98.

Absolutely right.

 

I did the same type of tests in 1998 with a 5.0 litre VT Berlina. I also used full synthetic oil. The saving in fuel burn more than paid for the extra cost of the 98 octane and the oil as well. I forget the exact figures now, but it was something ridiculous like a 20% reduction in fuel burn. The other saving is in maintenance costs. At 120,000 Km the motor was due for an injector clean. All the injectors were nearly perfect and the cylinder bores (looked at with a boroscope through the sparkplug hole) looked like new.

 

There is also a slight improvement in power when using 98 over 91.

 

 

[kasper]

Same conclusion here on running the 3.0L Mitzubishi Triton - 20-22% difference in L/100km regardless of trip mixes in the tank used - I have switched off using all E petrol until the price differential is greater than 20%

 

 

[dazza 38]

With my motorcycles, I do not have a choice, I must use 95. If I use a fuel containing methanol , there is a really good chance thst I will burn a hole in my pistons.

 

 

[Ultralights]

i am cringing at those numbers, thats why i love diesels, and especially cars, im driving it to hard if i get over 5.3L/100Km economy, a good Hwy run at 4.3L/100Km and im happy.

 

 

[farri]

i am cringing at those numbers, thats why i love diesels, and especially cars, im driving it to hard if i get over 5.3L/100Km economy, a good Hwy run at 4.3L/100Km and im happy.

What are you driving? I`ll have one of those!

 

Frank.

 

 

[Geoff13]

6.0 ltr Commodores recommend nothing over 91 so thats what I use.

 

The bikes all three recommend 98 so thats what I use.

 

As for E10, it is legislated that in Queensland E10 is to be 3 cents per litre less than 91. When it first came out it was and I used it in the cars as Holden said it was acceptable. After about 12 months BP put the price up to the same as 91 and to get your 3 cent rebate you had to send in your receipt and apply for it from BP Australia. Needless to say I promptly stopped using BP and still don't unless I am stuck. The other providers followed suit about 6 to 12 months later. I still boycott BP on principle because they started the fiddle.

 

I know my little protest does them no harm, but I would rather give my $5,000 per month to someone else.

 

I no longer use E10 or any other derivative in protest of the government not enforcing the spirit of the legislation even if they still do enforce the actual ruling.

 

 

[dazza 38]

What are you driving? I`ll have one of those!

Frank.

Rob has a I30 Hyundai.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I like Diesels, I own one. But a lot of modern diesels need DEF as well as a anti polution device. Which to me is just another expense. Apparently it isn't too bad with little engines as a full tank should last until the next service.

 

But a lot of trucking companies are having a expensive time with their trucks.

 

DEF- is diesel exhaust fluid which is injected down stream of the engine into the exhaust pipe. It is also known as adblue and other names. It is basically a urea/ammonia mix. It is a seperate system to a fuel system and has its own tank.

 

 

[farri]

Rob has a I30 Hyundai.

One of these?

 

[ATTACH]47595._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[SDQDI]

i am cringing at those numbers, thats why i love diesels, and especially cars, im driving it to hard if i get over 5.3L/100Km economy, a good Hwy run at 4.3L/100Km and im happy.

Diesel is another kettle of fish altogether.... I love my diesel. Dad has a late model pajero and was getting around 9l per hundred which I though was good but then he put a 'Tunit' chip in it and went down to 8l per hundred with loads more power, I was very impressed with that. We have a landcruiser which was sitting on 12.5l per hundred and after seeing dad's figures I got a chip as well and now I can get 10l per hundred.

 

I'm not sure how much they would save on the likes of an i30, I guess if it was only half a litre per hundred they might not be worth it but for us they will pay for themselves in no time.

 

I'm very impressed with my cousins i30 and if we ever upgrade our small car they would be my pick.

 

 

[dazza 38]

One of these?

[ATTACH=full]35459[/ATTACH]

Yes in Silver. He has had it for a couple of years maybe its the older shape.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

I NEVER NEVER put that E10 crap into any vehicle. Even the old dunnydore gets the 95 . My mrs had had to be seriously chatted to about making sure she uses 91 or higher prefer 95 when she fills up her 2013 Kia cerato....E10 eats rubber and seals its just crap produced becuase off people whinging about fuel prices. In the 6ltr V8 dunny door I only ever used 98 and got awesome economy. I used to get 9.4 litres per 100 km from a 400 hp V8 on a trip. Of course only 98 in the Rotax

 

The other cars are a Iveco daily van and a Kia Sportage AWD both are turbo diesels and they rock..super economy as well.

 

 

[Ultralights]

yeah mine was the last shape, only got it then as it was the last that was not required to have the Diesel particulate filter or use the ablue fluid. though im pretty sure the newer ones dont require it either, cant comment on the 2015 models though. it now has 110,000km in 3 years, and still averages 5.1L/100km over all those Km's and with 280Nm torque, just a little less than a V6 Commodore, makes it perform more than expected, especially on highways..

 

Last week i was at Cameron Corner, and watched as someone filled up his petrol V8 Landcruiser, towing a huge off road camper, that was an expensive fuel stop.

 

as for modern hybrids, i cant understand why they dont use small diesle engines in place of petrol, especially when they are doing nothing but turning a generator to provide the car with electricity, eg, Holden Volt.. or even the Mitsubishi PHEV...

 

 

[Doug Evans]

Around town I don't think it makes much of a difference but on the hwy 98 is the way to go but the farther u go the better it gets I have a ford ute & a turbo territory & a Jeep Wrangler not much hope for the jeep firsthy bugger she is 17 lt per km

 

As for the turbo she gets around 9 /10 km per lt on the open road as long as Use The cruise control ,and keep the size nine off the loud pedal

 

The old ba ute give me around 10/12 Km per lt on 98 with Cruze control .

 

My little two stroke give about 18.5 on 98 with a low egt even better with avgas .

 

And I try not to use 91 but on the odd time she runs a tittle hotter and burns about 20 /21 lph

 

Doug

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

we have a ford focus diesel since 2008.... 2LT diesel Turbo (100kw 320Nm torque). On the highway it gets between 5 and 5.6L per 100 depending on driving style. When I moved from ADL to Coffs I pulled a trailer with the Airborne Trike and its wing on the roofracks. The car was chocka block with stuff the removalist wouldnt move and was probably pretty close to max weight.No issues maintaining the speed limit and the economy degraded to 9L per 100kms

 

In my old 94 VR commodore on GAS when I pulled the trike over to ADL I couldn't do 100kmph and make it town to town on Gas......I cant recall the efficiency in terms of L/100 but it was horrendous...

 

I'm not sure I will ever own another petrol car....

 

My sights are set, for my next car on a Skoda Octavia RS Diesel...also around 5.2L per 100 km about 30% bigger car in size than the focus. 135kW and 380nM still from a 2L Engine

 

 

[ben87r]

My ex had an I30 and I would have put 10k+ km on it. Now I must say I have a dislike for the Hyundai and other similar cars but the i30d was great, would nearly buy one

 

 

[ben87r]

I now drive a v6 jackaroo and it uses more fuel than my v8 100 series.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I now drive a v6 jackaroo and it uses more fuel than my v8 100 series.

My V6 Rodeo used more than my previous Holden VR V8 5 speed manual Ute.

 

My 2.4 petrol Hilux ute did as well. My Patrol ute TD42T burns about 14.5 litres of diesel per 100 km.

 

 

[Downunder]

Going against the grain, my 2005 1.5 Getz hated any fuel other than 91. Don't know why but economy dropped OFF with 95 or 98. Best car I've owned. Never missed a beat.

 

After 314 000 kms (10 yrs) I gave it to my niece and am 12 000 kms into a new Isuzu ute (4X2). 4jj1 turbo engine.

 

I've wondered about these "chips" and if they're worth it? Pretty expensive.

 

Getting 900kms from 72ltrs out of the 76 ltr tank currently(8l per 100). Will let it run-in some more then go full synthetic oil. Have already put in a K&n air filter...

 

Would really like to get 1000k's a tank but not sure it's possible......

 

Anyone running biodiesel or derivative ?

 

 

[old man emu]

There's no denying that a diesel engine will give better fuel consumption figures than a petrol one but . I was talking about 91 octane E10 -v- pure 91 octane.

 

I suppose there is the problem of sourcing pure 91 octane. You really have to scout around for it. Shell and BP don't seem to carry it. Woolworths/Caltex carries it in a few locations. 7/11 seems to have, as do the independents.

 

That's an interesting comment of Downunder's regarding poor economy on the higher octanes. It suggests that the higher octane fuels have a slower moving flame front, and the stroke of the Getz engine is too short to enable a full burn of the charge. (Don't forget that the power stroke of an engine is not "bang". It is "burn": Suck; Squeeze; Burn; Blow. If you are getting "Bang" you are getting detonation.)

 

OME

 

 

[Vev]

OME,

 

You will mostly experience fuel consumption reduction when you use E10 as the ethanol fuel component has roughly half the calorific energy of 91. It's not unusual to see a 5% reduction in fuel economy. I won't comment about the savings using E10, other than to say there is no such thing!

 

Personally I won't use E10 it in anything ... Politicians make poor petrochemists!

 

Vev

 

 

[ben87r]

There's no denying that a diesel engine will give better fuel consumption figures than a petrol one but . I was talking about 91 octane E10 -v- pure 91 octane.

I suppose there is the problem of sourcing pure 91 octane. You really have to scout around for it. Shell and BP don't seem to carry it. Woolworths/Caltex carries it in a few locations. 7/11 seems to have, as do the independents.

 

That's an interesting comment of Downunder's regarding poor economy on the higher octanes. It suggests that the higher octane fuels have a slower moving flame front, and the stroke of the Getz engine is too short to enable a full burn of the charge. (Don't forget that the power stroke of an engine is not "bang". It is "burn": Suck; Squeeze; Burn; Blow. If you are getting "Bang" you are getting detonation.)

 

OME

On my current petrol vehicle I haven't done enough long drives on tar to worry about it, i've done 40k in it and ild guess at 35k being 4x4ing. In my previous vehicles and company vehicles that I owned, it was only 95+ as i had calculated it to be a few % total saving and on average 10-15% extra km per tank of motion lotion. That was for highway k's and around town was 50-50 as to whether there was any saving but worst case was no saving, no extra cost. Only vehicle ive used that wasn't effective was a 4cyl 2wd hilux.

 

 

[ben87r]

To add to the above, i've had diesel mostly in the last 5 years and 95+ used to only be 8-10 \CPL more than 91, whats the difference these days? 15CPL+ more?