With the prices of petrol rising and my budget is so tight at the moment traveling Brisbane and Gold Coast everyday, car is a Nissan Juke 2014.
Previous owner recommended 95 and above, can I mix half 91 and 95, or perhaps just use 91? Will the engine knock? Has anyone done this before and what did you notice?
Thanks
You can mix any petrols - just not diesel and petrol
But to answer OPs question
Its not what the previous owner recommened
Its what the manufacturer recommends!
And this is nearly always marked on the fuel cap so just take a look
You can also ask "Google"
The required information is "everywhere" right under OP's nose
Here is what I found on Goggle
"The Nissan JUKE is available with the following fuel type: PULP"
Thats PREMIUM ULP dear OP i.e ULP 95 and or 98 or a mix of the two.
So you can mix 95 with 98 but not with 91
So do NOT use or mix with standard ULP 91
If desperate where PULP is not available you can run the car on ULP91 "temporarily"
It wont hurt the engine. But long term use of ULP 91 may cause engine damage
Bad advice, there is more to the fuel than just the octane rating. You should only use E10 if allowed by the manufacturer
@nigel deborah: Agree 100% though even temporary use of E10 (part of a tankfull) should not damage the engine
Unless the manufacturer says the fuel system supports ethenol based fuels, do not under any circumstance use it. It will corrode your fuel system start to end.
@kaleidoscope: Stop scarring people with rubbish
As a general rule cars post-1986 can run on E10, whereas most cars that once ran on leaded fuel or are carburetted cannot.
Not to mention that regular 91 octane can have around 5% ethanol added to it as an octane booster so the difference in ethanol from 91 octane to E10 is not very much
@spaceflight: If you're buying any Unleaded 91/95/98 anywhere that is advertised to have ethanol in it, you need to have a chat with Consumer Affairs as that would likely be considered contaminated fuel.
Ethanol is an additive and needs to have additional treatments included, so that the petrol and ethanol combine rather than separate. Cars that can use E10/E85 will have additional sensors, as they need to adjust the engine maps to support it as the unleaded fuel maps may result in poor performance and/or other issues.
Also, more so an issue for E85 than anything else, if your car actually supports it you're strongly recommended to drain your tank and re-fill with ethanol based fuels, so that the blend of fuel (octane content) is consistent.
If you're buying any Unleaded 91/95/98 anywhere that is advertised to have ethanol in it, you need to have a chat with Consumer Affairs as that would likely be considered contaminated fuel.
Consumer Affairs couldn't care less because ULP and PULP can contain up to 10% ethanol without the need to disclose it on the label.
Don't believe me?
Read what the FACI says
The Australian fuel quality standards allow up to 10% (by volume) of ethanol in unleaded petrol
https://www.fcai.com.au/environment/can-my-vehicle-operate-o…
Don't believe them?
Read the standard yourself
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2022C00758
Cars that can use E10/E85 will have additional sensors
As a general rule cars post-1986 can run on E10. That doesn't have anything to do with sensors. It's because older cars that once ran on leaded fuel or are carburetted cannot use E10.
@spaceflight: I think you are a bit mixed up
Your quote is referring to E10 which is ULP 91 with up to 10% Ethanol.
@HeWhoKnows: Actually I'm not mixed up because my quote is referring to ULP, not E10.
You could also read the fuel standard I linked to which says the same thing…
@spaceflight: 2003 Ford Focus specifically lists not to use E10, it even had a sticker on the inside of the fuel door, I never looked into why. @Amayzingone is correct, use what the manufacturer recommends, not what random people on OzB tell you
@[Deactivated]: "as a general rule" does not mean all cars, there are going to be a few exceptions.
Feel free to check your own cars compatibility here
https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/e10-fue…
2003 Ford Focus specifically lists not to use E10, it even had a sticker on the inside of the fuel door, I never looked into why
Perhaps they wanted you to use 95 octane and not 94 octane that you generally get with e10
@[Deactivated]: I actually had a 2003 Ford Focus before my current car (replaced it earlier this year), I put E10 in it once for some reason, the fuel gauge stopped working correctly for a few days. I don't think it can accurately gauge the amount in the tank because of the extra ethanol in the mix, I never put E10 in the tank again after that, and the gauge returned to normal after the next refill. I actually didn't know that car specifies to avoid E10.
I put E10 in it once for some reason, the fuel gauge stopped working correctly for a few days. I don't think it can accurately gauge the amount in the tank because of the extra ethanol in the mix,
The fuel level sensor is a float that sits on top of the fuel.
E10 or not the float will still sit on the top of the petrol. There was likely something else playing up with your gauge.
https://m.autopartspro.co.uk/carparts-online/fuel-level-sens…
@spaceflight: That's how I thought a float would work, but the issue was resolved after I stopped using the E10, so I don't know why it caused the fuel gauge to be inaccurate. It only happened the one time I put the E10 into the tank, I only refill when I've got less than a quarter of a tank left, that was many years ago and I had the car for 15 years (never replaced the fuel float).
@BuyNow Think Later: You can literally google what I said and take your pick
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=cars+post-1986+can+run+on…
Not to mention that regular 91 octane can have around 5% ethanol added to it as an octane booster so the difference in ethanol from 91 octane to E10 is not very much
Mind sharing your source?
@BuyNow Think Later: I was actually remembering wrong when I said 5%, it's 10%
You can read what the FACI says
The Australian fuel quality standards allow up to 10% (by volume) of ethanol in unleaded petrol
https://www.fcai.com.au/environment/can-my-vehicle-operate-o…
You can also check the standard for Australian petrol
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2022C00758
You could also read what WayWay said about their findings
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/11870538/redir
@kaleidoscope: It wont if only temporary use
And it would usually be mixed with normal unleaded in the fuel tank so diluting the E10
It was common especially in Europe to add a small quantity of petrol to diesel vehicles in severe winter weather to aid starting.
I accidentally put 20 percent of a tank of petrol in my diesel and it was fine
@Tleyx: Diesel engines will run okay ish up to surprisingly high % petrol (in cases where you added the wrong duel to the tank). Obviously not recommended though.
Looks like the car requires 95RON according to its spec sheet. I wouldn't do it for the savings. New car would be much more expensive than that…
FYI - the fuel flap 'should' contain information on what fuel to use for your vehicle.
Previous owner statement to you tells me he used E10 but wanted you to think he is been putting premium petrol in the car hoping you will think he looked after the car
So what are the signs of engine knocking? Anyone tried 91 or E10 on their 95 requirement car?
E10 has an octane of 94
Looks like the car needs premium. Your best bet is using 95 since putting 91 won’t be good for it plus the engine will burn 91 at a faster rate( due to it been designed for premium) thus negating fuel savings
plus the engine will burn 91 at a faster rate
Wrong, octane is not energy density, all gasoline has the same energy density regardless of octane. Octane is just about knock prevention. The only thing that will happen is that max power will be reduced as the ECU will protect the engine from knock.
The only thing that will happen is that max power will be reduced as the ECU will protect the engine from knock.
If it's a Euro with a PPF you MUST use 95 if stipulated. 91 has 3x the sulphur content limit which will clog the filter.
Pretty much all modern engines have knock sensors. The engine management computer will try to work around the "bad" fuel, you will very much likely get less power and it may run less efficiently. Permanent damage? Not really, but an engine is designed to run on a particular fuel, so best go with that.
Yep, the engine's computer will look after things so that it won't do any damage but if the engine is made for PULP then putting lower octane in it is a false economy - it will be less efficient and so use more fuel. It will be down a bit on power too, though not enough to cause you a problem.
She needs premium dude! Premiuuuummm!
Just use E10 if you are worried about knock as its compatible with the Juke and runs to about 94 octane due to the ethanol blend - you will use slightly more fuel than running on straight petrol due to ethanol needing more fuel to air than petrol but its very unlikely you'd notice the 3-4% difference overall.
Lots of people do it daily and have for years, don't pay attention to the "OMG E10 will nuke your engine, melt your fuel lines, steal your partner and run over your pet!" crowd.
If that's so, can I mix E10 and 95 then? Is it like 94 and 95 mixed, just to avoid any damage or minimize if ever?
I really would not worry about it - your vehicle has a knock sensor as part of the engine management system. If any knocking occurs it will back off the timing, increase fueling or in really bad fuel quality cases throw an error and go into limp mode.
If on a budget just fill it with E10, use the money saved to ensure it's serviced regularly and not worry about it.
This "limp mode", I have experienced this once while driving a 2007 Outlander in the motorway 4 years ago at a speed of 110km/hr for an hour. I've only driven it to go shopping and during weekends, never taken the car on a long drive. I only filled it with 91 coz that's the previous owner told me. When it went limp, like the engine died and I can't do anything even if I press the gas pedal, is that the sign of limping (it was scary for a moment, not having control of the car), coz back then I thought it's a Mitsubishi kinda issue thing, like when I was backing off on a steep hill and suddenly the ABS warning started appearing and had to be reset by a mechanic.
@kiwiyonip: Limp mode is generally ongoing until a cause is resolved and/or a flag is cleared in the computer, such as with a gearbox issue or similar. If it was momentary, it wasn't likely limp mode.
you will use slightly more fuel than running on straight petrol due to ethanol needing more fuel to air than petrol but its very unlikely you'd notice the 3-4% difference overall.
E10 is cheaper but burns less efficiently. So you save a little at the bowser for a full tank, but have to fill up more frequently. What's the point?
Being ~7% cheaper than 95 for the same / similar octane rating might have something to do with it?
That ~7% still outweighs the 3-4% at worst consumption increase depending on how much you drive and how much you value your time - the argument on that front is more valid between 91 and E10.
So the net difference is about 3-4%? On a $100 tank, it's only a few bucks saving. But that comes with more frequent refuelling.
It doesn't seem to be a big difference to justify a whole different type of fuel.
@bobbified: If your vehicle can use both fuels, you should do your own measurements to determine which fuel is best for you.
I was never able to determine any repeatable difference between u91 and E10 in a few years of driving. I recorded all litres and kms and calculated consumption, didn’t just guess. Tank to tank variation on the same fuel was just as much as the difference between the fuels. Driving conditions were the biggest contributor to variation. Highway/urban/hot/cold/AC on etc. all made more difference thang the fuel type.
@Euphemistic: Ethanol does have much lower actual energy content than petrol though.
It will be hard to notice the difference though outside controlled conditions as you noted.
Because only 10% ethanol is used, it will only reduce the total energy in your tank by about 3%.
So for example over 500km it would only make a 15km difference.
@trapper: I’m aware of the difference in the theory. Wasn’t what I saw in practice however. I was genuinely interested to see if I’d get a difference but couldn’t get anything meaningful out of my recorded consumption.
Maybe if I’d run consistently on one fuel for half a dozen tank fulls, then repeated with a different fuel for the same time there might have been a measurable difference. But a couple in a row still had enough variation that there was no consistent increase in consumption due to E10.
@Euphemistic: It's not a difference in theory though, it is a difference in fact.
But a 3% difference will be lost in the normal variance of day-to-day driving, not something that you could really expect to measure.
You would need to test this in controlled conditions to have something you could actually measure.
@trapper: Yes but E10 will burn at a more controlled rate and a modern engine with a knock sensor will adjust and get more out of it than the uncontrolled burn and wasted energy caused by Unleaded.
But a 3% difference will be lost in the normal variance of day-to-day driving, not something that you could really expect to measure.
That’s exactly my point. If you can’t tell the difference, it is rated for use and it’s cheaper to use then why wouldn’t you.
@Euphemistic: lol, what kind of logic is this. The difference is there, whether you can measure it or not.
Next time you fill up, just pour out a liter on the ground. You won't be able to tell the difference from that either.
@trapper: If you can’t measure the difference in consumption/power why wouldn’t you put in the cheaper fuel where you CAN very easily measure the difference in $.
You go and throw away a litre every tankful if you want. I’d rather save $ on fuel.
@Euphemistic: I did a similar test many years ago and did notice a difference. Hence I only use regular ULP. Also I remember reading if you don't drive the car a lot, the stagnant E91 will absorb water from the atmosphere as ethanol is hydrophilic
This is the kind of comment that I was warning about - ethanol (be it E10 or E85) does absolutely no damage to vehicles designed for it (which pretty much every post 2000 vehicle capable of running on 95 is in the case of E10). My Nissan runs regularly on 85% ethanol and as a counterpoint the valves / pistons, exhaust and oil are significantly cleaner running on E85 than when running on 98 and makes more power to boot.
I am sure that people had bad experiences running E10 on older vehicles not designed for it but it normally turns out that any modern vehicle issues that are blamed on E10 usually come down to the owner being a cheapskate on all aspects and neglecting to maintain the vehicle properly or filling up with badly contaminated fuel.
The only issue with E85 is you need significantly more fuel to make the same power - plus you can put in even more fuel if you can and you have enough air to burn it (a turbo). All this generally means you need a phatter fuel pump and injectors.
I wish people knew that ethanol has a higher octane rating than petrol.
The statement about E10 obviously based on extensive research and data to support it :)
More like "I don't understand E10, therefore it scares me and I must inform everyone else that E10 is the boogy man."
…previous owner recommended 95 and above,
What does the manufacturer recommend? It should be on a sticker behind the fuel door somewhere or in the Owners Manual. THAT is the minimum you should be aiming for.
Suspect OP knows it's 95 but wants validation that 91 will work.
OP can be save a few bucks per tank, but risking thousands in repairs. lol.
Thousands in repairs? 99.999% of cases if there was a knock in a modern car, the EMS simply adjusts the timing.
@Typical16-bitEnjoyer: One tank of lower-than-recommended octane fuel might be okay here and there, but if that's done on an ongoing basis, the chances of damage increases significantly. Especially if the car is driven hard. (People who drive their cars 'hard" probably don't know they're driving it hard).
In short, the engine management system can adjust to a certain extent, but there's no guarantees that it'll totally prevent risk of damage.
@bobbified: Not really. The EMS will seamlessly adjust the timing and mixture so the engine will be down on both power and fuel efficiency, but there is no reason the engine will suffer any extra damage or wear. The point is only that it is false economy because the lower efficiency means OP will burn more fuel.
yes, that's why asking, to save a little but avoiding damage. just not sure if anyone has done it before
Even if a few other people have done it and come out the other end damage-free, you may not be so lucky. Is it really worth the risk for a few bucks?
@bobbified: if there's a way to save, why not, just want to confirm. Filling up the tank almost every other day is not cheap…
@kiwiyonip: I don't disagree with you about saving where you can, but to save a few a few bucks each week, seems to be "scraping the bottom of barrel". A bit of extra traffic (jam) here and there might just wipe those "savings".
Time to get a corolla
If your budget is so tight that you can't afford 10% in fuel costs then it's time to reevaluate your income/expenses.
Dump the car and buy a scooter/motorcycle/eBike.
yeah, grocery cost is up these days too , time to reevaluate and do shoplifting instead…
shoplifting may raise your legal costs
But it will reduce your rental expenses!
cheaper to squat rather than rent and pay for food and petrol.
just find an empty investment property with overseas owner and change the locks.
car is a Nissan Juke 2014.
That is your problem, right there
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
it's a chain not belt
Cool. Just assumed small capacity turbo would be a belt. My bad.
@Muzeeb: Seriously, cause you said Juke is WUC, not contesting it, just trying to figure out your taste in car…
They are actually painful to look at.
The best part of driving it is that you don't have to look at it.
What ratio are you thinking of using? 50-50?
I wouldn’t use anything below the minimum because it’s not worth the risk. If petrol is too costly surely there’s public transport or a train that goes from Brisbane to the GC?
yes, probably $30 each
That won't be 50-50
Lol 50-50 would probably be too low in terms of 95 to 91 ratio.
If you mix those fuels at a 50-50 ratio you’ll end up with 93 octane in your tank (assuming around 60L fuel tank).
If you mix ~15L of 91 and ~45L of 95 you’ll get ~94 octane which might be ok.
I duno, I guess the best way to try this is to go to 94 octane by mixing to that level, then if you don’t experience issues for a couple of months go down to 93. You could even split the difference and mix to 93.5 octane. I would say a 25-75 split could be the most optimal in terms of cost and not screwing up your car.
Up to you if you want to risk it, but it would be good if you can report how it goes here.
I’m not liable if your car dies.
Make your own 95 out of mixing 98 and 91… Or, you know, just buy 95?
Why the hell would you buy a car that runs on 95 if you were not prepared to burden the extra cost of the fuel?
@Pegaxs.Bangs head against wall.
Why would I buy it… hhmm, probably similar to people who buy newer/expensive cars and then not prepared for it being repossessed…?
91 mix 95 I don't think any problem will occur