E10

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vern

So how is e10 less value than 91 then?
No pinging on any of tthe fuels used either.

---

The same as lpg has a Ron of something like 100 but calorific burn value is less than 91 Ron - tuning to maximise the benefits of a higher Ron will reduce the losses but is still not enough to make up the lost zoom zoom.

All testing of 91Ron against E10 (94 Ron) in the same car has always shown less mpg (less zoom zoom) and the difference in price is not enough to overcome the reduced cost per mile. Maybe if they retuned the car to run on 94 octane E10 some of the losses might be ragained but not enough.

Modern cars with computer controlled variable efi and ignition timing will automatically tune the car to suit the fuel so driving will not make a noticeable difference, but if timing is not changed then it will be noticeable particularly if it is a 98 Ron car on 91.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vern

I get that, but for me, the e10 is better bang for my buck than 91. Car runs better, has more power (it feels) gets better k's.

---

Well you are the exception to all the official testing - placebo effect? [bighmmm]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101RRS

Well you are the exception to all the official testing - placebo effect? [bighmmm]

---

No, calculation from litres used per tank. And i'm not the only one who has measured it in their y62.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vern

So how is e10 less value than 91 then?
No pinging on any of tthe fuels used either.

---

Any small loss of value is more than made up for by the warm fuzzy glow you get from saving the planet and people's health, which is the point of E10, not an economy measure.

wouldn't it be really nice if the fuel manufacturers were honest?

what is in their mixes?

what changes in my distllate, ie diesel?

same bowser most of the time , usually do about 6-800km before filling up , so for me that could easily be 6-8 weeks or more

the reason I ask is with each tank the exhaust smell varies , sometimes it has a coffee smell, sometimes the sweet smell you get from a diesel running , every 2nd or 3rd fill the coffee smell comes back.

why do the nissans seem to chuff out soot? mine doesn't although egr is modified.

I think these fuels are changing all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

wouldn't it be really nice if the fuel manufacturers were honest?

what is in their mixes?

what changes in my distllate, ie diesel?

same bowser most of the time , usually do about 6-800km before filling up , so for me that could easily be 6-8 weeks or more

the reason I ask is with each tank the exhaust smell varies , sometimes it has a coffee smell, sometimes the sweet smell you get from a diesel running , every 2nd or 3rd fill the coffee smell comes back.

why do the nissans seem to chuff out soot? mine doesn't although egr is modified.

I think these fuels are changing all the time.

---

The exhaust smoke is caused by over fuelling, which is a cheap trick to extract the max performance out of a diesel engine, as it will try to burn whatever fuel it is given to the point of meltdown really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

wouldn't it be really nice if the fuel manufacturers were honest?

what is in their mixes?

what changes in my distllate, ie diesel?

same bowser most of the time , usually do about 6-800km before filling up , so for me that could easily be 6-8 weeks or more

the reason I ask is with each tank the exhaust smell varies , sometimes it has a coffee smell, sometimes the sweet smell you get from a diesel running , every 2nd or 3rd fill the coffee smell comes back.

why do the nissans seem to chuff out soot? mine doesn't although egr is modified.

I think these fuels are changing all the time.

---

A story, admittedly from a long time ago, I had a Maverick as a work vehicle with the 4.2 N/A diesel. At the time I was travelling to Sydney fairly often and there is a long steady climb out of Bathurst to Glanmire. I had Caltex and BP fuel cards at the time; if I filled upon with Caltex I could look in the rear vision mirror and very clearly see where I had been by the black smoke. If I filled up with BP there was virtually none. Vehicle was completely stock, the only difference was the fuel and it was repeatable at will. This was pre refineries closing down and low sulpha fuel in about 1992.

Regards,
Tote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vern

No, calculation from litres used per tank. And i'm not the only one who has measured it in their y62.

---

Being a modern engine the tune will automatically change to suit the fuel. If you believe E10 is best for your vehicle then use it.

A few years ago I was persuaded by friends to try some premium fuel in my SV21 Camry. They claimed they went much further on a tank (maybe they just let the tank get a bit lower before they filled up).

I had always used E10 and calculations based on each refill always gave me something very close to 8.25 l/100km. I tried three consecutive tank fulls of premium and each time I refilled, my calculations showed that I had used 8.25 l/100km. I just accepted that a 1998 engine wasn't designed to get any benefit from the more expensive fuel.

My AVV50R Camry says inside the filler flap that it can use E10, so that is what I use. I tried a couple of tank fulls of 95 to see if the 10% higher price gave me a 10% improvement in fuel consumption.

However, even though the trips I did were similar 300-400km highway drives, I found that variations such as the number of roadworks, whether I had the kayak or canoe on the roof bars, the prevailing winds and the traffic density had a greater effect than the potential difference between the fuels.

The best guess I could make was that there might have been a 5% improvement, so not worth the 10% higher price.

I think my real conclusion was that in the real world, it just isn't worth obsessing about the potential differences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101RRS

Being a modern engine the tune will automatically change to suit the fuel. If you believe E10 is best for your vehicle then use it.

---

No i don't think it is best, but what i was saying, is i get better bang for my buck with e10 than 91, both cost about the same, car goes better and gets better k's with e10, thats all i have been saying all along. We predominantly use 98.