Thread: E10

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

E10 is 94 octane around here, so higher than 91.

Huh? I know, perhaps read Ians comment that i replied to.

Originally Posted by Vern

That's odd, we get better performance and kilometres with e10 than 91 in our y62. We get very similar outcomes with e10, 95 and 98, but can definitely see the difference when using 91.

That would be down to timing and/or compression ratio. Remember, RON is not indicative of calorific value, it is a measurement of speed/length of burn. Any vehicle, tuned or designed to use a particular RON value fuel will ping and be unable to extract efficiently, the calories of a lower RON fuel.

Originally Posted by V8Ian

That would be down to timing and/or compression ratio. Remember, RON is not indicative of calorific value, it is a measurement of speed/length of burn. Any vehicle, tuned or designed to use a particular RON value fuel will ping and be unable to extract efficiently, the calories of a lower RON fuel.

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

Originally Posted by Vern

So how is e10 less value than 91 then?

calories / $

i would imagine

Originally Posted by V8Ian

Bang for buck, or cost per calorie, E10 offers less value than 91. E10 needs to be 6cpl cheaper than 91 to offer equivalent calories per dollar.

Originally Posted by V8Ian

That could be down to ignition timing or compression. The higher the RON, the slower and longer the burn.

Originally Posted by Vern

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

As Incisor said, based on calories per dollar. The correct RON for the engine tune/design is the most efficient way to extract the available energy. The wrong RON, plus or minus will waste energy.

Originally Posted by V8Ian

As Incisor said, based on calories per dollar. The correct RON for the engine tune/design is the most efficient way to extract the available energy. The wrong RON, plus or minus will waste energy.

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.

Originally Posted by incisor

calories / $

i would imagine

Hmmm, so better k's per tank and power means its worse?

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.

Yes, because the engine is setup to make best use of 94+ RON.