E10 fuel consumption

[Deleted User 18446]

It ain't going away so have to get used to it .

[abitmad]

There is no doubt that E10 increases fuel consumption for the reason spindal states, ethanol has a lower energy density than petrol. But the consumption difference is only very slight compared with E5 so many people may hardly notice it, given all the other numerous factors that affect fuel consumption each time you ride your bike or drive your car.

Because the increase is so small, I'd say that comparing just one tank full of E10 against E5 is an unreliable test for increased consumption. You are likely to notice it, if at all, only by keeping a record of many fills, both on the old E5 and then comparing the new E10, so as to try and average out the other reasons why consumption varies. Even then you may not be able to average them out, for example if one series of fills was in warm weather and the other in cold and so on.

[roadster]

I suppose for high mileage drivers and riders it could be more economical to pay extra for E5 fuel but this would be dependent on pricing and also the specific behaviour of the vehicles engine management systems. I don't have that option as my ( Euro 4) bike specifically warns against using E10 petrol.

[Deleted User 1756]

There is no doubt that E10 increases fuel consumption for the reason spindal states, ethanol has a lower energy density than petrol. But the consumption difference is only very slight compared with E5 so many people may hardly notice it, given all the other numerous factors that affect fuel consumption each time you ride your bike or drive your car.

Because the increase is so small, I'd say that comparing just one tank full of E10 against E5 is an unreliable test for increased consumption. You are likely to notice it, if at all, only by keeping a record of many fills, both on the old E5 and then comparing the new E10, so as to try and average out the other reasons why consumption varies. Even then you may not be able to average them out, for example if one series of fills was in warm weather and the other in cold and so on.

How is it you can comment on E10 saying there is NO DOUBT that it increases fuel consumption in one paragraph then state that my test is unreliable in another. I am Confused with your logic or are you just trying to politely dismiss my findings and prove that you know better. How many comparison tests have you done because I would like to know what hands on evidence you have about it to dismiss me so quickly,or do you just work for .GUV.UK

[abitmad]

How is it you can comment on E10 saying there is NO DOUBT that it increases fuel consumption in one paragraph then state that my test is unreliable in another. I am Confused with your logic or are you just trying to politely dismiss my findings and prove that you know better. How many comparison tests have you done because I would like to know what hands on evidence you have about it to dismiss me so quickly,or do you just work for .GUV.UK

Eh? What are you on about and being nasty with it? I was agreeing with you! E10 increases consumption.

What I was saying is that the increase is slight so that one tankful is an unreliable test due to the numerous other factors affecting a vehicle's fuel consumption. I thought I was clear but in case you don't follow, this does not mean that I'm denying the increase. If you wanted clarification or to discuss my original comment, have the courtesy to say so politely.

[Data]

There is no doubt that E10 increases fuel consumption for the reason spindal states, ethanol has a lower energy density than petrol. But the consumption difference is only very slight compared with E5 so many people may hardly notice it, given all the other numerous factors that affect fuel consumption each time you ride your bike or drive your car.

Because the increase is so small, I'd say that comparing just one tank full of E10 against E5 is an unreliable test for increased consumption. You are likely to notice it, if at all, only by keeping a record of many fills, both on the old E5 and then comparing the new E10, so as to try and average out the other reasons why consumption varies. Even then you may not be able to average them out, for example if one series of fills was in warm weather and the other in cold and so on.

How is it you can comment on E10 saying there is NO DOUBT that it increases fuel consumption in one paragraph then state that my test is unreliable in another. I am Confused with your logic or are you just trying to politely dismiss my findings and prove that you know better. How many comparison tests have you done because I would like to know what hands on evidence you have about it to dismiss me so quickly,or do you just work for .GUV.UK

Spindal, Abitmad is correct in his analysis. As I eluded to earlier and we all agree, E10 will likely lower fuel economy by some amount for many engines. Although it's important to note this is not universally the case. But it's mainly the amount that it lowers it by that is in question. In fact, the majority of folks won't notice any difference at all due to using E10 because the difference is so small. Additionally, some (the minority) will get a slightly better fuel economy as has been shown by some testing houses. But here's the thing, and to remind you, everyone experiences changes to their fuel economy especially at this time of year as the weather and ambient temperature changes, especially at night. This temp change means your fuel injection system will be in the full advance position delivering many many more pico litres of fuel on each injection cycles for up to 20-30 times longer than in a summer month after start up and lowering your mpg. Also the humidity changes. We also get "winter petrol" which has a slightly lower calorific value anyway. These are main factors in getting lower mpg for most folks just now, not specifically E10. This year everyone wants to blame it on E10 especially the folks on Youtube who want to get the best ratings and earn money so they sensationalise and demonise E10 to the point some give very misleading and spurious information. So don't get sucked in to that drivel!

In fact since you talked about calorific values, I think you need to explain your figures and your experiment a bit better. It's not very clear what you did. What method did you use to recover the ethernol? If you are saying you put some neat ethernol in your wifes car, that's a very bad thing to do and it could affect your wife's engine and indeed the fuel economy will be poor. The fact is there is very little difference in calorific value between E5 and E10 petrol and that's why the government testing and other company testing of the two types of petrol shows an average difference in mpg between the two for most engines of 1% lower mpg for E10. That's testing that's been done on the roads and in the workshops. We also did this testing several years ago for an American company. As you will likely know they got E10 a decade ago in many states. And in spite of attempts by many to convince the US folks that E10 is terrible, it actually isn't and fuel economy didn't change for most folks by hardly anything.

When switching to E10 some folks actually get slightly better mpg. There are many reasons for that, the main one being that E10 actually cleans the inside of your engine better than E5 and promotes cleaner burning. This improvement in engine burn efficiency can compensate for the marginal decrease in calorific value thus improving fuel economy slightly. Government testing showed improvements on some engines of up to 4% better fuel economy. When we tested E10 years ago we also found improvements in fuel economy but it varied from engine type to engine type. The higher the mileage on the engine the better it seemed to be as the E10 cleaned out carbon and gum from the fuel systems and the piston crowns and valves. Very modern direct injection engines didn't seem to experience quite the same improvement as no fuel ever flows over the inlet valves but some of these engines still gained a little better mpg.

So to be factual and scientific about it you must look at all the factors. If you are getting a lot lower mpg it won't just be E10. The bigger factors are the ones that are always here at this time of year. And if you have been putting in your own mix of ethernol into your wife's car, strongly advise you to stop it! It's likely to damage the engine. and other parts of the fuel system even if it says you can run E10 in the cars handbook.

[Deleted User 1756]

Well I tryed to give some insight into what I had learned but I give up, as it seems I now know nothing.As from tonight I will no longer bother anyone with my lack of insight and let you impress each other from now on.

[Data]

I notice "Spindal" has now deleted his account. That's a shame as I was hoping for some "insight" into how he conducted his experiment on his wife's car and what method he used to remove the ethernol from his petrol. Removing ethernol is quite easy if you do it right but can be dangerous. He didn't produce any actual proper information for us to make any judgement/s. And lets not forget, insight from who ever is always welcome even if it's wrong because they probably don't know it's wrong and it causes debate. That's what forums are about .

[Deleted User 18446]

He's probably an anti vaxxer as well .lol

[Data]

He's probably an anti vaxxer as well .lol

But seriously, sorry to see him go.