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?
@dazweeja: but for your own peace of mind, check your fuel consumption. It's not hard compare fuel litres purchased to kms travelled
Will do. It's a new car (for me) 2014 CX-5 so it's interesting to compare with my previous 1997 Ford panelvan which I ran mainly on LPG. New car is much cheaper to run but by golly is the 2.0L engine gutless ;)
Well clearly I didn't show up but it does increase fuel consumption because load. It may not be within your variance though, so small enough that you don't care or can't measure it
@Jackson: of course it does increase fuel consumption. Every bit of energy consumed in the vehicle, lights, stereo, fan etc, has to come from the fuel you put into the tank but it is a small amount compared to accelerating the mass. Others have claimed (another recent thread somewhere) an increase of 10-20% running the AC which is not in my experience.
by golly is the 2.0L engine gutless ;)
2.0L engine is fine, the problem is you have 1.5T of car SUV strapped to it.
This is a old myth busters episode.
But long story short on it AC increases fuel usage if you are in a lot of slow stop n go traffic. But if you are doing a lot of free flowing driving highway and multi lane where the limit is at about (65 or above… can’t remember the exact number and they use (profanity) up imperial) using the AC is more effecient due to not increasing drag by having the windows down.
@Kiato: yes this, from memory AC becomes more fuel efficient once you are doing 80kmh with one fully open window
Depends on the size of your engine. For bigger motors, the loss in fuel economy isn't as great. The Scangauge in my 2006 Swift (1.5l 4 cyl) reveals that A/C over various speeds increases fuel consumption by about 10-15%. As a result, unless it's an extremely hot day, I use a beaded seat cover and IceRays soaked in water with A/C only on deceleration/coasting.
Above about 50 or 60 km/h you spend more fuel overcoming additional air resistance by having the windows open than your AC will use. IIRC Mythbusters had a whole episode testing that out.
Which car is this? My car (admittedly 2003 car) definitely hate E10. rough idle and loss of power. Even though the E10 website state it's compatible.
I was running a 2003 Subaru Forester. It ran fine be on everything I put in it.
I always used E10 in my Forester 2000. Never have had issues.
Where is the U91 option?
Sorry just realised I wrote "I use unleaded premium". I meant unleaded 91
Fixed now
E10 is less efficient. So depending on the price difference, unleaded 91 or higher could be of better value
https://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/what-you-need-to-know-ab…
Agreed, pretty sure i read a similar thing in the NRMA mag too.
You car can be configured for E10, they did it on MCM (youtube). But unless you're a mechanic, or your car has already been configured, it sounds kind of pointless.
You sure you're not getting confused with e85? A very very different beast to e10 (which is trash)
Put 98 in my lada
98 Litres of oil per week?
That's a lada oil
Tonka?
I use 98 because our car requires it and it’s not an older car - brand new
Same here, though it's 15 years old. Tried 95 when moving to a certain area where Shell V-Power … Or whatever it is… Doesn't exist and it got really cranky. Vortex 98 and all good. Makes my lawn mower go faster too right?
"Makes my lawn mower go faster too right?" Only if your lawn mower engine has full engine management, sensors and injectors and so on, (unlikely) Most small engines are designed for low octane fuel, (it'll say on the tank/cap/manual) putting higher octane fuel in just makes them run rich, slight loss of power, more carbon build up.
So I take it you're not buying the whole "if it's red it'll go faster" bit either. In all seriousness I haven't actually tried anything but 98 in that thing, while filling up the car stick a couple of litres in the can. Haven't mowed for a bit but from memory a tankful would last about 2.5x 1000m2 sloped backyard with grass/weeds from ground to knee height.
Same here, my GT86 requires 98 and is certainly not old. I drive about 30min daily and only need to fill up once a month.
Any mods?
Just a shark fin antenna that I installed myself (after the default antenna got snapped by a lowlife vandal).
I plan to do more starting with the wheels once I move to a place with a garage because I don't really want to make it stand out too much while it's parked in the street.
My vehicle manual advises to put no less than 95 ron.
I'll hazard a guess your car is a European import.
It's not such an issue with Japanese made cars.
kia
edit: after re-reading my owners manual i think ill speak to my dealer at the next service
If you can read the manual, you shouldn't need to 'speak to the dealer'. They're are more likely to offer personal opinion than what the manufacturer recommends (IF they even have any idea).
Once you've done that, do some of your own tests and see what works best for you.
@Davo1111: Not in Europe, don't need 95. Even in Europe, using 91 is ok. It is probably almost the same engine for them both anyway. Aussie: 91, unless you can measure the benefits of 95.
Kia mainly sells in China, US, Korea and Europe.
What boggles my mind is that 91 RON is considered "premium" in several states of the USA and 87 RON is considered "regular":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._State_Fuel_Octane_Standar…
what does this all mean? No idea!
I would have thought a vehicle sold in the USA would handle 91 RON fuel without a problem.
Then again, modern vehicles are fitted with knock sensors - so perhaps the car's computer is programmed differently depending on what country the car is sold in.
@mranderson978:
I read somewhere that the US RON rating is not the same as our octane rating, or something like that happening around the place. Thus it’s not always comparable, depending on location.
Regardless, fuel sources differ in their natural octane and engines are modified to perform with the country’s fuel source. As such you can’t use your last reasoning to justify why an engine should be happy with 91.
volkswagen Passat - 1.8 Turbo - must use PULP. Engines are well known for throwing piston rings if you use lower grade fuel.
ITT, bogans putting 98RON in their 15yo Commodore and Falcons cause; "it makes it go harder!"
Octane rating is a measurement of the fuels ability to resist auto-detination. It doesn't burn hotter or cleaner or give better performance or extra miles. It is related to stopped engine knock or pinging from compression ignition.
Short lesson: the higher compression engine you have, the higher RON fuel you need to be running. Turbo charged cars fall into this catagory. The engine may be 8:1, but jamming in 1bar of boost essentially makes it 16:1. Lower RON fuels tend to auto-ignite at this pressure before the spark has fired, resulting in pinging and engine damage. Most high end/Euro/sports NA cars also fit into this bracket. To get performance, you need higher compression and more fuel. To sustain predictable fuel burn at higher compression, you need higher RON. It doesn't make more "power", it just stops engine damage…
Now, onto E10. The reason that you get less km/tank on E10 has nothing to do with the RON, but all to do with the potential energy stored up in the ethanol additive. Ethanol has a lower kw/kg than petrol, but has a much better knock resistance. This is why race cars use E85. They have to use more E85, due to the energy density of ethanol, but the RON of ethanol is much higher, so they can jam LOTS more fuel in at much higher compression ratios without the resulting auto-ignite issues with lower RON fuels…
So, basically, most who say… "my car goes harder on 98 than E10" don't know what they are talking about. And same goes for "I get at least 25km more from 95/tank". A slightly different trip to work or weekend away could cause a difference in fuel usage more than what using E10 would. Yes, technically you get more distance out straight petrol, but that's due to energy density, not octane, and at E10 levels, most people would not notice the difference…
Source: mechanic for too many years. Have experimented with milage on workshop vehicles over the years and who ever is driving it has a much greater effect in economy that if it has E10 or not…
I'll wait here for my negs though, cause one thing I have learned on OzB is, people don't like having their choices and opinions questioned.
+1 E85 user here
Great insights. What is the recommended fuel type for us ordinary drivers of common japanese and european cars based on your experience?
Depends on what you drive. Check with your vehicle manufacturer to see what they say. There is no saving to be made putting 98RON in a car that doesn’t need it. If it has a sticker on the inside of the fuel flap, most newer cars do, use that.
Fuel companies will convince you that you need 98 because they can sell it to you with that premium price tag.
For the record, there is no problem running 98RON in a car that only required 91. But it is a big problem if you run 91 in your car that requires 98…
Good read. Thanks. Confirms what my fuel economy logs have shown. Highway vs urban use has much more impact than AC usage or fuel type.
People don’t realise that they can save more money by just changing driving habits or their route to work, than by changing from E10 to 95…
the difference between fuel savings from E10 to straight petrol is so minimal, that simply changing how you drive would have a much bigger benefit…
Agree with the fact that E10/ 95/98 will not give extra kms or performance. But E10 & 91 has way more sulphur than 95/98. This is why I prefer 95/98.
Correct. About 3x the amount of sulphur (50ppm in 98PULP vs 150ppm in 91ULP).
Unless you are driving a high end Euro car designed for low sulphur fuel, or like hugging trees, then sulphur content in fuel doesn’t make that much of a difference. If it helps you sleep at night, go nuts.
N00b here. Is Sulphur bad for your engine?
Petrol? Not really. It’s more of an environmentally friendly thing. The higher the sulphur the worse the NOx and emissions that contributes to pollution.
Some cars are designed to run on ultra low sulphur fuels, but this is more because the exhaust system catalytic converters can’t cope or are not designed to cope with too much sulphur and it can cause damage to these parts over time. From memory this is from the Euro6 emissions standards…
Low sulphur car engines usually require fuel with about 10ppm, where most Australian fuel is around the 16 to 30ppm. The lower quality fuel we use here can actually be up to 150ppm sulphur, though.
It turns the oil acidic. Lower sulfur levels allow for a longer distance between services.
It affects the catalytic converter which results is high emissions.
This also means manufacturers are not allowed to state E10 as a recommended fuel.
Thanks pegaxs for the extremely detailed and helpful information.
You learn something new everyday. Good stuff.
Upvoted.
As I understand it my car says premium fuel recommended on the fuel cap and has two octane tables in the tune high and low, when it detects low octane fuel it retards ignition/timing so you don't damage the engine therefore less power on 91 because of the reduced ignition.
Then when it detects premium fuel it switches to the high octane table and you get full ignition and full power. Is this correct? Also not sure if I have used right terminology.
Yes, most remotely modern cars have a knock sensor and will adjust themselves to deal with different fuels.
I have not heard of a car that actually runs a chemical analysis on the fuel, but the end result is pretty similar.
detects premium fuel it switches to the high octane table
More likely that if the engine detects knock it will retard the timing giving you less power.
To sustain predictable fuel burn at higher compression, you need higher RON. It doesn't make more "power", it just stops engine damage…
Of course, the confusion comes about because higher compression does make more power. So people associate 98 fuel with powerful engines, they just have the causality around the wrong way.
No doubt the marketing helps confuse them further.
Exactly. I tried to put it as simple as I could and didn't want to bang on too much, but you are right.
A high compression engine is designed to make more power, the offset of higher compression is higher cylinder temperature. This higher temp can cause auto-ignition of the fuel mix. To combat this, you need a fuel that resists pre-ignition, ie: higher RON.
Simply adding high octane fuel to a vehicle does not make it produce more power. But fuel companies do a great job of selling the idea that it does and that it "cleans your engine" and this marketing works well. You only have to look at the poll and read the comments to see that people buy into it. Fuel companies want you buying the expensive shit and want you scared of the cheap stuff.
Basic rule is, if your car does not require 98RON, you can use it, but you're just throwing 20c/lt down the corporate marketing well.
But again, for clarity, if your car requires 98, do NOT run it on E10 or less than what the manufacturer recommends. Running under your recommended RON can cause damage over time. Running on higher than recommended is no problem, but will cause damage to your wallet over time…
Thank you for explaining all that.
I do 95 because my old Audi has a label near the petrol tank, saying I have to use at least 95 octane fuel for whatever reason.
for whatever reason
username checks out.
Yeah, I have the same requirement (min 95 ron), but tend to do 98. Only buy 3 tanks a year so might as well.
Can’t touch 91/e10. 95 didn’t exist here when I bought the car (it was still leaded) so always used 98.
Dumb question pegaxs:
If a car is running on low octane fuel and the engine is changing its timing to combat pinging, wouldn’t this have a negative impact on power and fuel efficiency?
In short, yes. So it’s not really a dumb question.
Timing is only changed when and if the engine knock sensors pick up that the engine is pinging/knocking. This can happen under three typical situations, engine is over temp and running hot, too much load (ie: wrong gear, 5th gear at 20km/h instead of 3rd) or incorrect fuel.
If engine is too hot, you got other issues…
If you’re lugging, change back to correct gear. Power will return instantly ;)
Poor quality fuel/wrong (low) RON. This will cause pinging/knock in engines that are designed for 98. The engine will compensate by changing timing and/or changing fuel injection and/or valve timing. I don’t know of any car that tests what fuel you put in, it’s all done on the fly when it hears pinging.
At the end of the day, there would be a slight decrease in performance. Most people that say “it’s so sluggish” are full of shit and not many people would know when the engine was working its magic. If you can hear pinging and feel bad performance, it’s usually a result of the first two examples, not from slight engine mapping adjustments.
As I have reiterated a few times already, there is absolutely no harm to be done by using a higher RON fuel in your car. If it makes you feel better, then use 98. BUT, if your car needs 98, do NOT feed it 91 unless you have no other option.
Hmm I wonder if ring land failure in the wrx/sti EJ engines partly relates to fuel RON.
Probably - usual sh!tty factory tune, which even in a "sports car" is tuned for economy.
Quite possibly. But usually only if it is the top or crown area of the piston that is affected by pinging. If it’s down the side of the piston, that’s usually a lubrication issue. Because of the way boxer engines are, they tend to blow the top sides of the pistons out from what I have read and discussed with other mechanics…
I know of the EJ engines doing this, but I have never set eyes on a Subaru engine out of a car, let alone a stripped one to make any defining determination for myself. So, if anyone has a spare EJ, let me know ;)
Those "IT bogans" have been informed otherwise by the fuel manufacturers, service station owners and their mechanics. You can debate whether or not the information they got is correct, but these aren't just bogans drunkenly telling stories of magic fuel by a campfire as you'd imply.
ITT = In This Thread…. nothing to do IT…
I’m not debating if it is correct or not, the facts are searchable and that is what I’m trying to teach people. The problem is that this is the internet and mis-information is just as easy to find as fact. It is easy to find arguments from both sides of the fence, it’s sifting through the marketing bullshit on one side and the paranoia from the other that can get to be a but confusing…
And if you cared to read most of my other comments on this thread, and compare that to the poll and other comments on here, you will find that there are a lot of ill informed people on this site. And I would exactly compare their opinions to those of drunk bogans giving their dumbarse, “heard it from a mates mechanic” beliefs as facts. Bad information is bad, no matter who it comes from or where they regurgitate it…
I am a mechanic by trade and have been for many, many years. I have worked in with engineers from various manufacturers and spent a lot of time building race cars and race engines. If there is one thing that I do know, it’s engines and fuel…
So point to a source. It isn't really that hard to work out if a source is likely to be credible. I promise I'm not easily confused.
…and yep I completely recognise fuel suppliers are going to supply marketing BS to sell their higher end fuels. Nor do you need to confirm that there are misinformed people. I know that.
Your anecdotal evidence as mechanic and race car enthusiast (if I verified that) makes you more credible than the average guy on the street but scientific and engineering papers where the research has been done would be far far better. But right now you're just another guy who claims to be a mechanic on a forum so not even a "mate's mechanic". I'm not calling you a liar, but if I'm going to be objective I have to point that out. We can skip all of that if you can cite sources whose validity I can focus on.
I've given up on this thread. I have provided sources, done maths and tried to format any information I can provide into a coherent, easy to understand read.
What I have said in this thread is easily verified through searching. I have not made outrageous claims and tried to stay on the topic. But humans are humans. If anything I have said is wrong, please feel free to let me know so I can research it and update my knowledge.
This thread is full if people who have a misconception if what is "actually" happening with their car and what they "think" is happening to it. I lost count of the number of "one tank of E10" scientists we have had here already.
I'm by no means pro-E10, I'm just anti-bullshit.
I use regular unleaded.
Don't want to risk it with using E10. The savings (if any) aren't worth it
I use E10 because that's what Costco has.
Costco a.k.a. 'the cheapest/fairest fuel seller in Australia'.
Stupid poll. I put in 95/98 because I have to. Car doesn't run on anything below 95 without risking issues…says it on the fuel door and the manual.
I use BP Ultimate because I can get it for the same price as 95 everywhere else, and enjoy the slight power benefit over stock standard fuels.
Same here and it's a newer car.
I use 95/98 coz my car manufacturer specifies it (european car).
Old banana peels in my remodelled flux capacitor.
I use E10 RON95 into my 2008 XR5.. get 9L/100km mostly freeway driving.
Saves me a bucket load.
No pinging.
No issues.
No it doesn't rev as hard as RON98 but honestly more than enough power to get out of situations..
Use U91, lucky E10 is not commonly sold in the NT yet! Personally think it's a superior fuel to E10. Adding ethanol is meddling the quality of U91.
oil n nails lol
Have only ever used e10 in my camry. Ive had occasions when I fill the tank (I mean to the point where its right up to the neck) where I can get 700kms from the tank.
Which year Camry?
2015
where I can get 700kms from the tank
Username definitely checks out.
Have you tired 91? 700 is insane, I've never tested properly but I really don't think my 13 Camry hits that on 91. Also I've never seen E10 in Melbourne anywhere.
United, the blue coloured petrol stations, they have E10. On their price board it's the top most in green.
Oh wow I did not know that, thank you!
700km per tank!
Mostly highway driving?
If it's start/stop around town, how you manage that?
i would like answers/more info too
Family car takes 95, car requires premium
When i return a petrol rental car i fill it up with e10.
for my own car 98Ron always.
Camry Unleaded RON91 life yo.
I use unleaded RON91 because NRMA car service told me to do so. Using E10 can build up dirt near the fuel injection.
NRMA know more than Google about 'e10 dirt'
I use 98 because turbo. #suuutusuuutusuuuuutuuu
Thanks for sharing. I was using AC sparingly but it's now all the way for me!