I've been observing for quite some time now when I fill up my car, most people rather not use E10 for their car. (of course excluding diesel engine)
My anecdotal evidence suggests about 50-60% of people use premium 95, about 20-30% use premium 98. About 10-20% is E10. With the rest being spread with other fuel types.
I personally owned CR-V 2003 and use premium 95.
Do you use E10 with your car? Why/why not?
Me too. I have tested the difference in fuel efficiency. The 2 cent discount for e10 is lost due to worse fuel efficiency. Cheapest option is unleaded 91.
It's often 3c and seen it up to 5c. Some people use it because it's made from a local, renewable, and sometimes waste product. If you are at all concerned about the environment or energy security then that may compelling you to buy it.
I just checked my results - spreadsheet since 2012 - new (then) 1800cc 2011 Corolla (6-sp) manual.
Basically, for U91 and E10-94 - "the same".
I have been filling up on E10-94 since November last year - so a good mix of Holidays and not, and for the same period the previous year there is 0.1 l/100 difference 6.8 vs 6.9 (2%). That 0.1 could be 'rounding' error even. The car is remarkably consistent.
Now, this is my use-case, for my driving to and from work each day - mix of (usually free-flowing) freeway + medium to heavy suburban traffic in both directions.
The price differential between U91 and E10 is about the same as the mileage difference - 2%. Do I stress if I can't get E10? Nope, move to U91. And vice-versa previously.
I also ran a test using U95 - but the extra 15c/l was not reflected in the improved economy. There was an improvement, but not more than (or even close to) the 12% or more premium price.
So, in my instance, it doesn't matter too much.
What else do you track on a regular basis - that is impressive.
electricity usage (to 5 minute resolution)
electricity generation (solar panels) to same resolution
internet usage on main / landline and 4 mobiles - daily resolution
gas and water is only at quarterly resolution (and then daily average calculated)
that's all I can think of the top of my head :)
I loves my spreadsheets :) - and no, I am not a bean counter - IT bod :D
@harrywwc: If you don't mind me asking, what system do you use to determine electricity usage and generation?
My 2011 4-speed automatic zre152 has given me 8.8L/100km, as average consumption for 30,000 km in last 12 months (calculated by an app - Car Manager). I predominantly use U91, apart from occasional E10 during interstate drives.
my inverter (Fronius) sends the data to pvoutput.org - it also emails me the data on a daily basis.
I had an electrician add an "efergy engage" in the powerbox to feed to the same site.
on that same site, I get a temperature feed from a local wunderground weather station
So, on pvoutput I get a live feed of the above three items, downloadable CSV files, at a glance I can see how much energy the panels have generated over their 18 month lifespan (10MWh - yes, Mega!) and how many tonnes of CO2 I have saved (10.3), how much power the house has consumed, and a bunch of other stats they can wrinkle out of the data
@quasims:
looks like the extra two cogs on the manual helps ;)
of course, I expect our driving conditions are not "the same" :)
Excellent post!
We are thinking of getting a similar Corolla.
Any tips / specific models or options that are totally worth it?
@movieman:
if you have lots of freeway / clear highway driving - cruise control is brilliant for not receiving any speeding tickets (only had one in 40+ years of driving) - it also helps with long trips and the cramping you sometimes get with your right foot in one spot for a couple of hours (take a break every two hours, folks)
upgraded the headlight bulbs - same wattage, whiter light
I use the USB input on the audio-console a_lot with a very low profile flash drive - audiobooks are great for the commute to and from work when the radio is, um, shall we say "ordinary".
handsfree bluetooth for phonecalls is pretty nice too (keep 'em short)
I'm pretty much the only driver of the car in the household. While it's not "perfect", it is super reliable. I service it at KTAS every 10,000km within a couple of hundred km (free roadside assist for 6 months with a 'log book service' - and I do about 25,000 pa.
@movieman:
Mine is an Ascent, I fitted cruise control myself in 2015, look it up on youtube, 15 minutes job. All required parts available from Aliexpress for $50 or so. Dealership wanted extra $1000 for it when we bought it, doesn't worth it to get from dealership, if you are handy with a screw driver and a socket set. Now I service it myself too, as most mechanics use the cheapest oil out there and may change brands/types of oil. I've been sticking to Castrol Edge for last 5 years or so and change filter too, Castrol was also used at the dealership during the capped price servicing (Warranty) period. Super Reliable (as suggested above) and starts like a charm still (after 7+ years and 140,000km). Lot easier and cheaper to maintain (compared to my other car, a Bimmer).
I do use it because my engine is designed for 95ron and advances the ignition as far as possible whilst avoiding knock, which increases power and efficiency. E10 is 95ron so gives me better efficiency.
If your car accepts 91 and has no knock sensor, then it won't help.
Some drive too close to knock with normal octane fuel, let alone when the octane rating of the fuel is low, so in some cars it can be quite dangerous to use lower octane fuel. The car pings and rattles (not enough to cause catastrophic detonation where a hole is blown in a piston), but its close. Extra heat, loss of efficiency, and increased chance of total engine failure are all that result, other than a few dollars saved when you filled.
The problem with E10 is its propensity to absorb water, for acids to form when your car is not used, and corrosion to begine throughout the entire fuel system. Injectors, lines, pumps and the internals of metal fuel tanks- all these can rust and send your car to an early death.
If I wish to use E10, I'll only do it if the service station has new tanks and trustworthy (E10 tanks have bigger problems with excess water condensing inside them, and can damage the car). And only if I am going to use all the fuel (and repalce it with normal petroleum fuel) before the car is left stationary for a long period (E10 left standing absorbs water from the humid air that moves in and out of the tank each day (due to ambient temperature/pressure change). If not, after a while the E10 will be near 100% saturation, and you will have a fair bit of water in the bottom of the tank to remove or cause trouble. It's bad enough with non ethanol fuels.
Assuming your car is running properly, always use the octane your car is designed for. Anything else will cause combustion losses and clogs the injector nozzles over time.
E10 is actually 94 octane.
Source: I sell fuel for a living.
If it's a turbo or sort of compression direct injection type, use RON98.
It's not worth saving some pennies for the fuel when the fuel calls more trouble in long run after 50,000km or so.
I'm in the same boat. I have tried E10 on 3 cars and multiple tanks on all 3 and always found E10 to be LESS economical! For anyone using E10 because you think it works out cheaper it most likely isn't. For anyone using it for "environmental" reason…good for you!
Personally, I don't think anyone is really going to notice a ~3% drop in efficiency (get your mate to fill it up and tell him what fuel it is).
But your point is right, I use E10 for environmental reasons, not cost saving. Apart from the fact that it is renewable, it also creates fewer partly combusted nitrogenous gasses.
Definitely more than 3% drop in efficiency, at least for me. On average I got 14.5% less kms per tank on E10 vs RON91. It wasn't "exactly" the same driving conditions all the time but similar and I did test it on 3 cars over the years and at least 3 tanks full each time.
E10 is not renewable, only 10% is not regular petrol. If you really want to help the environment grab a bike.
Yeh burning down rainforests so farmers can grow crops to make ethanol is very environmentally friendly.
The truth is most of us are careless and could make our travels more efficient and cut out one or multiple trips here and there. Just doing that would save more petrol than E10 ever could.
@ninetyNineCents: E10 is hardly good for the environment. Some studies have showed the net energy gain from producing it is barely positive (if not negative, depending on who you listen to!).
I.e. between the farmers that produce it, the land clearing, fertilizing it, planting, spraying it, harvesting and transportation of the crop, processing and fermenting it to create ethanol, transporting it for blending, so much energy (usually diesel) is used it is barely worth it. Especially when you consider in many areas it cuts down in good agricultural land that could be used for food production or trees for oxygen, in itself an environmental issue.
Strangely when I buy e10 at Caltex, Bp and Woolworths in qld, I also get poor economy making e10 expensive. United mix their own fuel and claim their e10 is 95 octane. The others in qld state 91 or 92 octane. If I buy e10 at united I get the same economy as u91 making e10 usually a better deal. I usually buy e10 from Woolworths with the discount card if it is cheaper than e10 at united.
Yep, exact reason I don't ever use E10. If it's 10% ethanol, and ethanol is less efficient than normal fuel (there's a roughly 10% reduction in efficiency), then E10 fuel should be about 5% cheaper than normal fuel to break even, let alone be of benefit financially.
That equates to roughly 7c a litre difference. If they want me to use a fuel that requires filling up more often, then a fair difference would be closer to 10c a litre cheaper (and not just the 7c that makes it 'the same'). The fact that the difference is nowhere near that these days, tells me I'll never use it.
And I reckon the fuel wholesalers are making a mint off people dumb enough to buy 'watered down' fuel for pretty much the same price as normal unleaded. I'm actually really surprised at the number of people who've selected on the poll that they use it regularly.
Do some homework folks. You're getting ripped off! And just because you don't notice it in fuel use (would be very hard to notice 5%) doesn't mean you arent being duped.
'watered down' fuel
E10 is comparable to 95RON, not 91, so prices should be compared between 95 and E10… in my area right now, E10 is $1.249, 95PULP is $1.449… that’s more than 7 cents… closer to 20c/lt.
If anyone needs to do their homework, it’s you. Stop with the scaremongering rubbish.
There is no way that the average driver could discern the km variation over ‘a few’ tanks of fuel as being attributed to ethanol. There would be more variation per tank of fuel from copping a few extra traffic lights or bad traffic. One tank you predominantly had a car full of people, next tank you were alone. Used the A/C more One tank than the next. Pumped up your tyres from one tank to the next…
I log every trip I do in every vehicle I own partly because work needs to get tax back and partly because it interests me. I drive to work every day, same route, same times, same traffic. I go out on jobs, make deliveries, customer support, etc. Some tanks of fuel I can get an average of 8km/lt down to some tanks at 6km/lt… I run E10 in my vehicles. So, explain to me, using your 10% economy loss using E10, how I can get such massive variation ONLY using E10. How can you tell what is E10’s contribution and what is situational traffic conditions contributions?
This is why people who say “I get less KM out of E10” typically have no idea what they are talking about and can not back it up because of the massive other variations of just driving a car on the road can have on fuel economy. Sure, ethanol doesn’t have the energy density of petrol, but unless you were running back to back tests on a dyno under identical circumstances, there is no way the average car driver could ever possibly know what was the fault of ethanol and what part of their right foot was affecting their fuel economy…
Octane rating has nothing to do with energy density.
It's solely about the temperature/pressure of auto-combustion (something you want to avoid in Spark Ignition engines). The higher the number, the higher the compression you can run and therefore your engine can run more efficiently.
UFO is correct, E10 has a lower energy density than U91.
If your vehicle can only run 95 octane, then maybe the price difference is worth it. But for vehicles that can run on 91 Octane fuel, U91 is likely the better economic buy as the higher compression advantages are likely either not present (if your car has no knock sensor), or not sufficient to overcome the loss of energy available per litre.
Higher compression is not for better efficiency, it is for more power (torque). Compression ratios in the ranges of cars petrol engines have very little to do with how effective they are at burning the fuel and more about the size if the bang they can make.
And @UFO is only "partially" right. Yes, E10 has a lower energy potential, but at the 10% ethanol mix, it's about 97~98% of the energy density of straight fuel. To be 10% less energy density, the ethanol in E10 would have to have 0.0 energy density, and that just isn't the case…
For the record, 91, 95 and 98RON fuels all have the around the same energy density. There is no more power in 98 than there is in 91. The extra power comes from how the engine is engineered, not from what fuel you put in it. You don't get "more POWER!!!" from just filling up on 98 unless your car was designed to be running 98. If you car was designed to use 91 and you put 98 in it and feel "massive amounts of power", chances are, it's all in your head.
@pegaxs:
More power = less fuel to generate the same power = greater efficiency per unit of power.
How else do you define efficiency?
Apart from that we're in agreeance.
E10 has a lower energy density and your vehicle can only make use of the higher RON if designed for it.
So if you are choosing between E10 and U91 and your vehicle is not capable of adjusting the timing, at 2cpl difference when fuel is 120cpl, then the ~2% loss in Energy density per litre is greater than the 1.66% saving per litre and therefore you're better off buying U91.
for U95/98 the maths is different of course.
@scubacoles: except it's not as simple as that. 2% difference in fuel economy is hard to measure, and the performance difference is probably some sort of conformation bias (should feel faster so it does etc) given the small differences.
If I can't feel the difference, and the distance guage shows almost the same after each fuel type, then I'll keep the difference in my sky rocket rather than under the bonnet.
You've misquoted and misrepresented pretty much everything I said above mate. Re-read what I typed. I NEVER said E10 is 10% less efficient, that's your error in comprehension. ETHANOL is less efficient as a fuel, and when mixed into normal unleaded efficiency drops around 5% (which is what I said!). What you've said above about "97-98% of the energy density of straight fuel" is what I was talking about. So you're quibbling over that 2%, is that it? (I said 95%, you say 97 to 98%)
Come on man. I'm not scaremongering, I'm simply stating facts.
You and others here are quoting real world figures and insinuating that if you dont notice it on the distance computer, then its ok with me. And that's wrong as its flawed thinking. You can't beat science mate. E10 is a less efficient fuel. To be virtually the same price as normal unleaded is a ripoff. You're talking RON ratings… I'm talking actual fuel efficiency, a completely different thing.
As you've already said, the RON rating on fuel makes jack all difference on engines that aren't tuned to run on the good stuff. So why in the world would you use RON ratings at your point of argument. For normal non high performance engines (most cars on the road), RON means very very little. Fuel density on the other hand, is much more relevant.
What do you mean "hard to measure"? It doesn't have to be measured… science is science.
There's a difference in the fuel, so why pick the one you are getting less bang for your buck on?
Your argument is "oh, it's only 2% so its ok". It's not ok. And it's not just 2%.
@UFO: my real world measuring has shown no significant difference between E10 and U91 economy wise. My driving style appeared to be significantly bigger influence in economy and I couldn’t pick the performance difference.
Regardless of the science and real world measuring there isn’t much in it. Each person has their own reasons for choosing. I ended up using mostly U91 as I’d heard that ethanol production wasn’t an efficient use of a potential food product. That may or not be true, but it further indicates that it isn’t a simple argument about one fuel being more energy dense than another.
@Euphemistic: Dude, I've given up. (We seem to agree on something for a change, which is nice…) It's like trying to explain what chickens are to blind people, over the phone. People are blind and scared of ethanol in their fuel, this thread is tantamount to that fact. It's full of "98 = MOAR POWER!!" and "E10 = less milez :(" comments…
End of the day is, E10 is about 2~3% less energy dense than petrol, but is about 10~15% cheaper to buy than the equivalent 95RON straight petrol.
If you run E10 in your 91RON requiring car, there is no real point (other than helping the planet and easing demand on a finite resource…), and yeah the break even point is not as large. But if you are using it where it is supposed to be used, there's more than adequate margin in that 20c/lt to cover any "energy density" issues.
There are much, much better ways for people to save money on fuel than by swapping to or from E10, but it seems no one cares about them. And ANYONE that can tell me they can tell the difference between E10 and straight fuel on their odometer each fill up is full of shit. Too many variables to be able to determine and there are other factors that play a WAY bigger part in fuel economy than E10's energy density, but people always want an easy target to blame…
For @UFO
You've misquoted and misrepresented pretty much everything I said above mate. Re-read what I typed. I NEVER said E10 is 10% less efficient
(there's a roughly 10% reduction in efficiency)
Oh, my bad… FWIW: Straight ethanol is only about 75% the energy density of petrol.
Fuel density on the other hand, is much more relevant.
For the record @UFO, energy density of 91, 95 and 98 is virtually the same. You keep comparing E10 to 91, which it is not. Find one of my other posts about it here. I cant be bothered saying the same thing again on why you cant compare E10 to 91. E10 is an alternative to 95, not for 91, but it will work in 91. sigh
E10 fuel should be about 5% cheaper than normal fuel to break even
It's about 13% cheaper on average when you compare it to the same rated fuel. Or, you know, keep comparing it to 91… Which is irrelevant (and negligible)..
From United Petrolum's E10 info page;
Theoretically E10 fuel consumption is approximately 1-3% higher, however this is almost always offset by being 3cents per litre cheaper at the bowser than unleaded fuel. Further, the real world experience is that reduced fuel consumption is a non issue, in fact, the “increase in octane” results in improved fuel consumption.
But then again, what would United know?
Anyway, I'm done in this thread. It's like yelling into an empty bucket. I have to be content that some people will never be happy and let them believe what they want too. :)
More power = less fuel to generate the same power = greater efficiency per unit of power.
How else do you define efficiency?
My brain cant even…
Efficiency is the balance between input and output. If I put 100MJ in and get 100MJ out, I am 100% efficient (Hint: the law of thermodynamics wont let that happen)
You can not get "more power" from "less fuel". Fuel has a certain value, lets say that value is 100MJ/kg. I can make an engine 5% efficient, that means, for every 100MJ I put in, I get 5MJ out. If I improve the engineering of the engine, so it can convert that fuel source more "effectively", I may be able to put 100MJ and get 75MJ out. This has NOTHING to do with the fuel. The fuel is ALWAYS 100MJ. It is the ENGINE that has become more efficient. The only way i could get MOAR POWER!! from less fuel is through making the converter (ie: engine) more effective…
Now, lets say E10 is 97MJ/kg. If I put 97MJ worth into that 75% efficient machine, I will get 73MJ out. It's still 75% efficient.
NOW, what you are confusing is, if I want to get 75MJ out of E10, I will need to burn 102MJ of E10. This is not about efficiency, as engine efficiency has remained the same (75% conversion rate) and fuel potential has remained the same (I just need to burn more of it)…
Lets say water is 0.1MJ/kg (which it isn’t, but i like small round easy to work with numbers)… I would need to burn 1000kg of water to every kg of petrol to get that same 75MJ of power output. (See a pattern here? The "engine" is still only 75% efficient.)
You see, the efficiency of being able to turn petrol (stored) energy into torque (kinetic) energy has everything to do with the engine, NOT the fuel you put in it.
But yes, i do agree, E10 is less dense in stored potential energy, but it is only by such a small margin, that you would only need to burn a very low amount extra for it to have the same output as straight petrol. Certainly not the 60 to 100km less per tank i have seen people quoting, it would be more between 6 and 12km less per tank.
E85 on the other hand… And don’t get me started on methanol! Holy shit you can burn through a lot of methanol in a very short amount of time :D
@pegaxs: "E10 has …about 97-98% of the energy density of straight fuel"
Correct, which is exactly why all else equal you get about 2-3% less mileage from a litre of it. As other posters have measured. It's really got nothing to do with octane ratings - they're a whole different issue.
At $1.30 per litre it then needs to be about 3-4 cents per litre cheaper than straight fuel to cost the same per km.
you get about 2-3% less mileage from a litre of it. As other posters have measured.
That equates to be around 6 to 18 less km for an average 60lt tank of fuel. Not the wildly stupid 70 to 110km less on 50lt that some people have been quoting on this thread.
It's really got nothing to do with octane ratings
It does, though. It is about comparing apples with apples. I have said a few times in this post, if your car only requires 91, there is little to no benefit to using E10, as the saving is either negligible or non-existent (possibly negative). If you compare E10 to 95RON (as E10 is closer to 95 than it is to 91.), then there is a saving to be made there. E10 is on average 20c/lt cheaper than 95, this equates to a saving of about 10 to 15%, which is 5 times your 3~5c/lt needs…
The other point is, that there are a lot of misinformed people in this thread that think that 91, 95 and 98 all have substantial increases in energy density over each other. That 98 goes harder. And that is pure bullshit if you are pouring 98 into your 1997 Mitsubishi Magna…
I swear, it's like trying to communicate with cement sometimes…
ethanol is a renewable source of energy. save the world
And that is one big point that people are missing… :)
This is it for me.
Leave the ethanol fuel for the people who by from the soiled and damage section.
I use Unleaded 91
Same for me.
Doesn't seem to be a poll option
Whole post is screwed up. 90% of fuel would be 91 (excluding Diesel). Bizarre.
"I use unleaded premium"
PREMIUM! DUUDDEEEE!!
Also, there's no option for 98, just 91/98.
"Do You Fill up Your Car with E10?"
Nuh, because it plays hell with the upholstery.
I fill up the Petrol tank though if that is what you were on about. lol
You’re my kind of comedian
:+)
Username definitely checks out.
Dad?
Yes son?
Nooooooooooo
I use 91 not because I have an older car, it's because it doesn't require 95/98 m88888
Stupid poll
4 95\98
and no 91
The OP is probably from NSW and did not realise that 91 is still very common elsewhere in Aus. I filled up at 3 different places in Sydney over Christmas and none of them had 91.
So why have four options in the poll for 95/98? That can't be a NSW thing.
what? NSW so posh they don't even offer 91?
ULP 91 is available in NSW. There did seem to be a period maybe 5yrs ago when it was hard to find, due to the mandate on having to sell a certain percentage of Ethanol based fuels. But over time regular unleaded seems to have crept back into play and is available pretty much everywhere again now.
An ethanol producer donated a lot of money to political parties.
Manildra had 20 meetings with NSW ministers before new ethanol laws introduced
Well perhaps to the former NSW ALP government who mandated that E10 had to replace 91RON. Thank goodness that sanity prevailed when the Baird government arrived and reversed the E10 mandate.
Only Bob Katter (representing a cane growing area) lobby's for ethanol in the federal arena - perhaps the Greens might, but I doubt that they'd want more rainforest cleared to grow sugar cane to power private motor cars.
@philart:
Yep, a lot of people argue ethanol is MORE environmentally damaging than oil because of that. Plus its a very expensive way to reduce carbon emissions anyway - things like solar panels or (even better) energy conservation measures save far, far more CO2 per dollar outlayed than ethanol fuel.
And, yes, it didn't hurt Manildra - who had a monopoly of Australian ethanol production - that the CEO at the time was the PM's brother.
Like finding hens teeth in NSW
91 is still relatively common in nsw
Sorry just realised I wrote "I use unleaded premium". I meant unleaded 91
Stupid poll
Stupid comment.
There is a noticeable shift in performance when using e10 and U98. Before, I was filling my Ford Focus 2013 with e10 mainly because it is affordable but when my Dad suggested to try U98 (that is what he always puts in his XR6) I am convinced and noticed the car running more efficiently and doesn't struggle when it has a full load.
My two Focus's (07 and 11) both required 95 (or higher presumably) to not ping. The manual said U91 was OK, but whenever I filled with it I'd get lots of pinging going up mild slopes/acceleration.
What does pinging mean?
Copy/Paste answer
"What Is Engine Pinging?
"Pinging" is the metallic rattling sound an engine can make when accelerating. It usually occurs when the vehicle pulls away from a stop and the engine is under a lot of load.
When an engine pings, it releases pollution into the environment in the form of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and raw, unburned hydrocarbons (HCs). These two chemicals are poisonous gases that show up as yellowish-brownish in a polluted sky. They can also cause respiratory problems like asthma and emphysema—a pinging engine is never a good thing.
Common Reasons for Engine Pinging
Improper Combustion Process
An engine can ping (or knock) due to an improper combustion process. A "spark knock" is the result of combustion occurring too early. Early combustion can occur from carbon buildup inside the combustion chamber, a lean air/fuel mixture, and advanced ignition timing (spark plug firing too soon). In a properly-firing cylinder, the spark plug ignites the air/fuel mixture and a flame front starts on one side of the piston and burns across the top to the other side, which creates a rapid and evenly-expanding gas that pushes down on the top of the piston. When the air/fuel mixture is ignited prior to the spark plug firing, the two flame fronts collide, causing the pinging/knocking noise.
Engine Is Too Hot
An engine can ping because it is too hot. This is another uneven combustion scenario that is caused by the air-to-fuel mixture "lighting off" by itself. If the cooling system does not keep the engine's combustion chamber temperature in check, the air-to-fuel mixture will begin to spontaneously explode. This is also called "pre-ignition."
Improper Gasoline Octane
In addition to cooling system problems, pinging can be caused by improper gasoline octane, an overly lean air-to-fuel mixture, or a lack of proper exhaust gas recirculation. The exhaust gas recirculation system (EGR) was created to neutralize engine pinging by adding a small amount of exhaust gas to the air-to-fuel mixture going in to the combustion process, which limits the peak combustion chamber temperature."
Tldr: It's when the air fuel mixture ignites prematurely in the combustion process. Creates shock waves in the piston area and can lead to failures, like holes in the side of your engine.
Search on Youtube if you want to know what it sounds like.
So presumably E10 which is 95 is fine?
Same here, I tried to fill up with E10. My car had rough idle and significant loss of power.
What car do you have?
Edit: sorry appears to be a crv according to the OP, doesn't appear to require premium though so you may not be getting value for money
Can you just edit this dumb poll and make 5 options?
Don't forget:
6 Eneloop
7 Hydrogen
8 LPG
9 Mr Fusion
11 Lithium Polymer - which actually exists as a car battery chemistry in EVs
Will do better next time. I can't really edit the poll now.
10 Plutonium
Kim Jong Un, is that you?
Great Scott, Marty!!
12 Bikies
13: E85
14: Senzu Beans
Falcon Heavy.
So liquid Oxygen and Kerosene? lol
And the biggest midlife crisis in the history of mankind.
I've got a diesel now, but when I had a petrol car I couldn't tell the difference in performance between the fuels. The economy didn't seem to change much either (tracked kms every tank). The variation in fuel consumption between tanks was no different to the variation between fuels. The biggest difference in economy was open road driving vs city. Even summer to winter didn't make much difference using the AC.
Ultimately I ended up mostly using standard unleaded, e10 occasionally and premium only when it was cheap.
dang, my AC has been stayed off all these while
you're telling me no noticeable fuel saving from that ?
Bought a new car, have been logging kms/fuel since i drove it off the showroom floor.
The fuel consumption has been directly proportional to my work location (aka primarily city or highway driving).
In my experience I typically use AC in summer, but not winter apart from the occasional warm winter day. I haven't noticed an increase in fuel consumption in summer despite logging fuel use since 2012.
I don't use E10 because the price difference between E10 and regular U91 is 2 cents. The extra mileage I get from U91 vs E10 is around 5% to 10%. It makes more economical sense for me to use U91 instead of E10. Also, my car is an older car and is not on the E10OK list. https://e10ok.initiatives.qld.gov.au/