Looking at this sticker : https://imgur.com/a/mjCFtiq
It seems like it needs at least a Premium 95(Caltex) or Unleaded 98(Costco). But then it also says E10 Fuel suitable - does that mean regular (cheapest) petrol can be used as well? Sorry, its really confusing as Shell's website says Shell Unleaded E10 has a minimum 94 octane - so E10 is not meeting the min requirements?
Which Fuel Type Is Suitable? Sticker Says Min 95 RON but Also Says E10 Suitable
smishra on 02/11/2022 - 17:35
Poll Options
- 58E10
- 140Premium 95
- 12Premium 98/Unleaded 98
Comments
- 1
- 2
E10 is 94RON though
.
Maybe the car is tuned to run on 94 like it says on the sticker? :eyeroll:
it's close enough that it won't make a difference. Have used E10 on 95 cars before with no issue.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00455/Supportin…
E10 averages 94.7RON. Probably close enough to 95RON that cars that need it will be fine. There are tolerances…..
@Moddy: E10 also cools cylinder temps more than plain unleaded (due to the ethanol). So it could provide even better knock control than 95 (cooler temps = less knock).
In my experience using E10 on my own dyno tuned vehicles, it performs pretty close to 98 in knock resistance.
does that mean regular (cheapest) petrol can be used as well?
No. regular (cheapest) petrol is RON 91. Your vehicle needs ** E10 or 95 unleaded**.
regular (cheapest) petrol is RON 91
E10 is usually cheaper than 91
Cheaper at the bowser but costlier overall as it contains less energy!
RON has nothing to do with energy density, it is the rating for resistance to spontaneous combustion. The energy/power comes from higher compression/turbo charging.
And any newer car will adjust timing to compensate for lower RON fuel, it just won't have the same amount of power.@Brian McGee: It is a gamble. Every engine design reacts a little different. Not an engineer myself bad had insight to high use engines that had both side by side use of straight petrol vs E10. Ethanol is perfect to eliminate knocking but contains water and on most engines either requires more frequent oil changes or face premature wear.
@payless69: E10 fuel isn't going to have any more water than any other fuel.
pure ethanol will absorb water, it isn't correct to extend this to anything that contains some ethanol
@greatlamp: Pure petrol can't absorb water just ask a chemist
Any form of alcohol including ethanol is just about impossible to distill past 96%. So it contains 4% of water, hence it is an emulsion.
Bimmers love meth! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRwUKP_jyvo@payless69: That isn't what "emulsion" means. Ethanol and water absolutely do mix, so well in fact that "just about impossible to distill past 96%"
If you don't understand something, it isn't polite to downvote the person who is trying to educate you.
@greatlamp: No I do not buy a Bimmer no matter how fast they go with meth.
So if you are a Bimmer freak feel free to behave like they mostly do.
@Brian McGee: "it just won't have the same amount of power"…. soooo what you're saying is it's got less energy?
@Cunning Linguist: Engine power and Fuel energy are 2 different things you are erroneously collating.
'An octane rating, or octane number, is a standard measure of a fuel's ability to withstand compression in an internal combustion engine without detonating. The higher the octane number, the more compression the fuel can withstand before detonating. Octane rating does not relate directly to the power output or the energy content of the fuel per unit mass or volume, but simply indicates gasoline's capability against compression.
@Brian McGee: Ethanol has lower energy density than petrol though, so you do end up with less total energy in your tank.
And any newer car will adjust timing to compensate for lower RON fuel, it just won't have the same amount of power.
In the words of the universally loved John Cadogan:
"It can’t hurt your engine if you use a higher octane fuel. So, for example, if you use 95 or 98 in an engine designed for 91, that’s OK. However, it’s not acceptable to put in a lower octane fuel than the minimum recommended by the manufacturer. Using 91 in an engine designed for 95 or 98 is potentially destructive."
https://www.canstar.com.au/car-loans/which-petrol-should-you…
@Brian McGee: I've posted this one before;
"The facts about E10:
Higher octane; ~94RON (YMMV)
At a 10% mixture, we get 3.4% lower energy density
Improved emissions
Higher latent heat of vaporization in pure ethanol (854kJ/kg vs. 289kJ/kg)The benefits of E10:
Higher octane allows ICE systems to potentially advance timing, increasing the effective compression ratio and improving thermal efficiency.
Lower emissions are obviously beneficial (but less convincingly there is also some evidence to show that cleaner exhaust gas will lessen the efficiency impact of EGR's)
Better thermal properties; pure ethanol has a much higher latent heat of vaporization resulting in improved thermal load removal (mostly around cylinder heads and walls). Although too much cooling can be a negative (changes your emissions makeup, certainly not the case with e10).
The negatives of E10:
Cost; it's rarely more than 3.4% cheaper than unleaded91 (YMMV)
Reliability (controversial); we've known and used ethanol blends for at least 30 years now, and it's ubiquitous nowadays. Millions of engineering/research hours have been spent across the globe on the topic, I'm gonna go ahead give them the benefit of the doubt as opposed to the local mechanic or the random guy on an internet forum (me).
Hygroscopic properties; pure ethanol readily absorbs water, reducing life span. Not really a problem unless you have a specific use case.
Basically, YMMV give it a test in your car, go about your day, collect the best data you can and come to your own conclusion regarding fuel efficiency. Some cars will show no difference, others will show a large decrease/increase in efficiency.
Please add more if anyone can think of anything or somethings wrong."
@cathole: However, I never mentioned energy density of fuel, I corrected someone else making that assumption about the RON VALUE. The number related to its ability to resist combustion. Can you please stop correcting me for statements I never made? Maybe reply to the person collating RON value to energy and power? @Cunning Linguist is who you need to harass.
@Brian McGee: You replied to this comment though, and appeared to be disputing it.
Cheaper at the bowser but costlier overall as it contains less energy!
@trapper: They were saying that RON 91 had less energy than RON95, but that is not the measure for RON. RON is the measure of resistance to combustion, not a store of energy.
They were saying that RON 91 had less energy than RON95
No that's not what you replied to.
as it contains less energy!
YES IT IS !!
Cunning Linguist on 03/11/2022 - 11:37
@Brian McGee: "it just won't have the same amount of power"…. soooo what you're saying is it's got less energy?They are mentioning energy when comparing different fuel RON ratings.
Yeah, I got significantly less range from E10 the one time I tried it.
@us3rnam3tak3n: How much was ‘significantly’. Did you actually measure it or just read the trip meter before filling up? Did you account for differences in driving conditions?
@Euphemistic: This was about 15 years ago but IIRC it was more than a 10% decrease.
I document my fuel usage and the car was pretty much exclusively used for commuting so I'm confident the difference was purely fuel type.
@us3rnam3tak3n: Fair enough. A lot of people claim such figures because they once didn’t get to 600km on the trip meter between fills.
My experience was not the same. Measured every tank and recorded it fuel type did not make any noticeable difference outside the normal range of variance between tanks.
@Euphemistic: I tend to agree, think 10% difference is extremely unlikely, that's a massive drop considering the only difference is that 9-10% ethanol. Maybe on a car not designed to use it where it's not adjusting timings for the higher octane?
@Brian McGee might be misinterpreting the comment. RON does not in itself effect energy density but adding ethanol into E10 definitely does.
@nigel deborah: I never mentioned fuel efficiency or any other features of fuel apart from RON being a measure of knock resistance/ resistance to combustion/ ability to withstand higher compression. I never mentioned energy density of fuels.
Use 95. You'll save a little filling up with E10 (generally speaking) but it's less energy dense so you'll get less km travelled for the same volume of fuel usually more than offsetting the saving. If you find yourself somewhere that doesn't have 95 then use e10 or 98.
This.
I did some economy tracking a while ago and the E10 had to be at least 5c per L cheaper than U91 to be comparable. Not sure on the parity with U95 but given the choice I'd stick with U95 for my particular vehicle - I make the fuel savings back by being a plug-in hybrid instead.
I do this as well. Only difference is I ended up using a % difference instead of a $$ amount. My car only requires 91 at a minimum. Between 91 and E10, averaged over 6 months of regular driving, had a difference in mileage /L of around 3-4%. So in my case, since my car does not require 95RON, if the difference between E10 and 91 is greater than 4%, I reckon I'll be ahead if I pump E10, anything under that and I'd be on the losing end.
At the current average of $1.9~/L (in NSW), E10 would have to be ~7.5 cents less than regular unleaded before I'd fill up with it.
Thanks for your confirmation, that ties with the information found online E10 having about 3.3% less energy content
On my motorcycle I've done a test with each type 91, 95 and 98. According to the trip computer after 1000km on each, 91 gives me the best fuel economy @ 24.9km/L, 95 @ 24km/L and 98 @ 23.7km/L
The engine feels the best on 95.
yair - my old car felt more zippy on 98
so ima guess that if you want the best economy of pedalo speeds then the cheapest fuel is the way
if you want the most fun driving with the feeling of more zip, then 98 may be your thing
i won't question your feels (there's no accounting for feelings) - as there are so many other factors contributing to feelings that I won't contest your reported results based on your feels ;-)
@Hangryuman: ‘Felt more zippy’? Butt dynos are notoriously unreliable, often swayed by ‘I got the good stuff therefore it must be better’ and ‘my mate said his car runs heaps better on 98, so mine must as well’.
The E10 is about 14c/L cheaper than 95 which more than offsets any extra fuel consumption.
Each driver should do their own tests for their own driving style and conditions.
Run a few consecutive tanks of each. Check how many kms and litres per tank - maths - get an average and work out which is more cost effective FOR YOU. Don’t forget to account for difference in driving conditions. Ie if during your testing you take a long weekend road trip, run another tank and dismiss that one.
My experience was that different fuels did not make any more difference than normal variance so I kept getting the cheapest. I couldn’t feel difference in the driving experience with my butt dyno either.
Also because the car will probably run smoother if it's higher compression forced induction.
My Ford ecoboost can run E10 but it has less vibration and more go on 95 and 98.This is only true if you compare 91 vs E10 (as 91 is only 2-3c more). 95 is as much as 15c more so E10 is the better buy.
Are you sure that's valid for 95? I've heard that said about 91, and the price difference between 91 and E10 is much closer so it makes sense.
With 95/98, I thought your car had to be tuned to run on them or there wasn't much benefit to it
It tells you what you can use. That doesn't look very complicated to me. 98 RON, 95 RON, or E10, which is 94 RON.
It literally says min 95 RON, so E10 that is either 91 or 94 RON is not suitable
How do I check? It just seems to be generic info on e10
That's strange, it was working when I posted it. You could search via numberplate (for Qld registered vehicles) or by make and model for the rest of Australia.
Use 95, as mentioned here before E10 is less energy dense so you'll be filling up more often, completely eliminates the 4 cent saving at the pump and then some. General rule of thumb you can use whatever RON is specified as the minium or higher. Don't go below.
It's a little more than 4 cent saving from 95. It's probably closer to 15-20 cents.
Doing the calculations on my driving, the reduced efficiency from using E10 just about equals the savings from it being cheaper (about 10% higher fuel consumption for about 10% lower cost). I decided I'd just stick with 95.
Part number on the petrol flap appears to be from a 2021 Ford Puma / Fiesta 1.0l Ecoboost. Didn't go to much effort searching but at least one Australian website claims Premium 95 required on this model.
Good point P. Enis.
I chuckled.
Ford Fiesta Mk8 1.0 EcoBoost 12V Euro 6
1.0L 3 cylinder turbocharged direct injected petrolWould not run anything less than 98 premium on this car
The fuel cap means 95 RON is the minimum AND the petrol can have a maximum of 10% ethanol blended in
My interpretation of the fuel cap agrees with @highmargin.
95RON is the minimum and it will take fuels blended with up to 10%.
Every petrol station I've seen so far has their E10 marked as 94RON - so below the minimum recommended by your manufacturer.
Just to clarify, the E10 suitability and RON requirement are two different characteristics of the fuel. eg. if you have a blend of E10 that is at 95RON or greater, that'll be in line with the recommendation.
In this case, it appears that the manufacturer’s (Ford) recommendation of RON 95 is also due to the lower sulphur levels. If you use U91 (or most E10 which is usually blended from U91), then you could damage the particulate filter: https://www.drive.com.au/news/ford-puma-escape-focus-and-fie…
Use half a tank E10 and the other half RON95, just to be safe :)
And whatever drips and drabs are left in the 98 hose without pulling the trigger
just the tip
A shandy with 98 will get you more RONs per dollar.
If you zoom in close enough, the QR code looks like Super Mario.
Speaking of - does that QR code take you anywhere or is that there for another purpose?
I spotted that too..
It isn't a QR, it is a Data Matrix code and is often used for part numbers. See them all the time at work… It says;
KU5A-9A095-AA
Which would most likely be the part number for that sticker…
I wondered if it was for parts.
Either way, it’s-a-Mario!
The minimum RON rating is related to engine knocking. The car's engine was designed by engineers to run a specific minimum OCTANE rating to prevent engine knocking.
E10 has a higher RON than U91, and less carbon, more oxygen Burns cleaner Less pollution and lower gas milage.
E10 actually means UPTO 10% ethanol. So dont expect your e10's octane rating to be exactly 94. It may be slightly different.
To be honest I would just put in E10, if your car's fuel tank allows e10, then no point wasting money on expensive U95. I think John Cadogan's video comparing E10 vs U91 said e10 fuel need to be about at least 4c a litre cheaper in his case to be a better choice than filling with U91.
the price difference btw U95 and E10 is a lot lot bigger. ofcourse your car might be different.
Except, as pointed out above, many cars that specify 95 do so due to the lower sulphur content.
I've got to say I don't understand how people will go out and spend tens of thousands of dollars on a car then try to save a negligible amount on petrol when it may cost them more down the track.
E10 is an emulsion.
Great in theory to be less independent on foreign supplies.
For my engine: sorry I pass, I will hang onto my engine a bit longer.Great in theory to be less independent on foreign supplies.
Surely you meant less dependent?
Meanwhile our Ethanol producers are sold off as well I think to Singapore!
Sticker is giving 2 seperate bits of info about fuel.
E10 contains 10% ethanol which degraded the hoses and seals on some older fuel systems. Your vehicle has a fuel system that 10% ethanol will not harm. E10 has less energy that 100% petrol too, so you will travel less for the same volume of fuel.Your engine is designed to use fuel of 95RON or higher. Lower RON fuel may cause 'knock' - pre-ignition that is harmful to your engine.
Many modern engines have knock sensors to pick up knock and adjust engine timing to avoid knock. This also reduces power and fuel efficiency.
So 95RON is your suggested fuel. If you use E10 it wont eat you fuel system. E10 also happens to be 94RON and ive no idea if a single RON number is going to make any difference to your performance. So you will save quite a bit using it and will use a little more for the same distance.
Stories of 'E10 is sh!t, it ate my mums Mazda' or similar likely derive from early use on incompatible fuel systems. They most likely persist from individuals trying to drink the stuff. Just avoid their spittle stream and youll be fine.
Yeah this about sums up my opinions on it.
Weird that they'd say E10 and 95 RON though as it seems confusing unless theres an expectation that there'll be 95+ RON E10 fuel available (or there is in other places). Some countries do E85, know some of the newer model commodores support it unsure of what the octane rating is for that though.
Ideally the 1pt octane difference won't be too much.
I really cant find any info on whether 1 RON is an observable difference anyway.
In a lot of research info that i am able to find via Google E10 is quoted as 95 RON.
I run E10 around town and use 95 or 98 when towing where engine is pushed harder.
Of course you did call the local Dealership first…….. didn't you?
It is not like they would not advise you correctly on your inquiry.
So…what did they say?
9/10 dealerships don’t actually know. They parrot information from the manual (or sticker) and don’t have mechanical experience to tell you the whole story.
But they Service and Warrant them. Some of us, Mechanics in Dealerships and in Private Enterprise do actually research and know what we are talking about, for our own knowledge and for Customer Service.
They should always be first port of call. Then come here with further inquiries is I feel best.
There’s always 1/10 who know what they are on about and actually do know the answer rather than parroting what’s in the book.
I’ve always done my own investigation before contacting dealers/salespeople. I find it gives me the opportunity to assess wether they know what they are talking about in a semi-informed manner. Sorts out the brochure readers from the knowledgeable.
Dealerships sell cars. They dont make cars.
But they Service and Warrant them. Some of us, Mechanics in Dealerships and in Private Enterprise do actually research and know what we are talking about, for our own knowledge and for Customer Service.
They should always be first port of call. Then come here with further inquiries is I feel best.
Premium 98 will definitely not provide any advantage over the other two fuels other than satisfying the fuel company shareholders because you’re buying fuel with more profit margin.
Does E10 in other countries have RON 95 or more? If the global norm is RON94 in E10, then you can use E10 but not regular ULP (91).
Just use U95 or E10, as the sticker says. One RON (94 vs 95) is fk all.
Only problem is the Ethanol content isn't guaranteed. Servos are allowed to substitute U91 instead of E10 if they choose to, but most won't due to cost reasons. Also, the wholesaler is allowed to do that too I believe.
What is the vehicle ?
If in doubt use diesel. Only joking.
Ok, did some maths added 91+94+95+98/4=94.5 round up to 95. Problem solved and all doubts cleared. Thank me later.
Just use 91 because science is a myth!
Camry? Because I saw this too on the new ones.
I can answer this
So it is rated minimum 95 but E10 is 94+10% ethanol which is acceptable
Toyota dealer said it is ok to run E10 but if you are running no ethanol then 95 is the minimum
I've also see taxi drivers put E10 for a full tank and 95+ for a full tank….. but never 91
You should be looking at your car manual rather than ozbargain. But my interpretation is up to 10% ethanol is okay if RON is 95/+. So not the 94RON e10 common in Aus petrol stations.
You should be looking at your car manual rather than ozbargain.
Sure, but the manual is pretty generic and does not say anything about Australian fuel grades which is a fair question for the consumer as they (manufactorer) put on a big label on fuel cap with E10/E5 compatibility.
This is the correct answer. The sticker means e10 is suitable if the RON is still 95. Which we don’t have in Australia. I’m guessing your car is euro or Japanese and the manual/sticker is not specific to Australia. Also the nsw government and some fuel manufacturers specifically state that if your cars manufacturer has stated that your car requires premium 95 fuel then e10 is not suitable for it (in Australia).
Just fill up with RON95 you will be ok.
The 10% Ethanol is good for cleaning your fuel system. Fill it up with E10 once a while since your car is compatible with it. Keeps it clean.
Which Fuel Type Is Suitable? Sticker Says Min 95 RON but Also Says E10 Suitable
E10 Suitable
Don't fall for the upsell. E10 runs perfectly fine in your car, use it and save money.
If it's the fiesta St (which seems like it is) It's made in Germany. And they've not removed the sticker for Australia. E10 in Europe is min 95 octane.
E10 in Australia is RON94, so it's not suitable. E10/E5 is an indication that the fuel system can run on ethenol based fuels, but your engine requiress minimum 95 RON (which is the compression ratio). So it's going to have to be 95 premium. If you use E10 and something happens and they find you have less than 95 RON fuel in the tank there goes your warranty!
So say the engine shit itself because of E10 and the manufacture rejects the warranty on that premise. Explain the sticker on the fuel cap which presumably put on by them?
Explain the sticker on the fuel cap which presumably put on by them?
This is where the good old “did you read the fine print” garbage comes into play, because next to the giant E10/E5 and runs on E10 advertising crap there is “minimum 95 ron” label. So you put E10 because it said but the E10 you put is not RON 95 or above.
My car (vw) also have those labels which to me as a consumer looks plain wrong as none of the e10 fuel available here in australia are compatible. (e10/e5 in europe and us&a are ron95 or above)
that almost sounds like European car brand are too lazy to take out the current sticker and put Min Ron 95 to avoid the confusion.
Now I understand!!
I'm pretty sure this is the Fiesta st (or any vehicle that has this engine like the puma) I've seen this sticker and I've owned this vehicle
Made in Germany
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/e10-petrol-explained
Looks like in Europe E10 can actually be 95 octane hence the sticker. Here in Aus it's 91.Therefore minimum 95 octane here in Aus. That's what I used.
Can put 98 but engine is tuned for min 95Unless you have no other choice ( stuck in the middle of nowhere) E10 should be ok…..but they will void your warranty if it's the cause/in the car if your claiming any warranty that's anyway close to a fuel issue.
wrong
E10 is 94 with 10% eth
91 is 91 but might have a bit of ethanol too… they all do actually a little bit
Mechz on 02/11/2022 - 17:38 Comment score below threshold.
- 1
- 2