E10 fuel consumption

[smeghead]

In a rather non scientific test I seem to be getting c10mpg less with the new E10 as opposed to E5. I regularly got 90-93mpg on E5, on E10 I'm getting 83mpg.
This is a rather ridiculous result, if it pans out in the long run. This stuff was supposed to reduce pollution but if we're using more I can only see one benefit. This is to the chancellors coffers. Are we having the wool pulled over our eyes?

[wightegi]

Sounds about right .Found this on the web thingy..


Tests, however, have shown fuel consumption could increase by as much as 11 per cent, especially in small cars. When What Car? performed independent testing of the fuel consumption of family cars run on E10, they were found to guzzle more fuel, by between 9.8 per cent and 11.5 per cent. Even the government’s own research suggests that best-estimate costs to car owners using E10 could be a total of an extra £200 million in the first year alone.

200 million of extra taxable revenue...

[roadster]

... not to mention the extra income for fuel supply chains through forcing the use of over priced premium grades. From lawn mower through to classic bikes and car to Euro4 spec new bike and modern car only one out of my six will run properly on E10 according to the manufacturers own recommendations. I have previously only once used Premium grade on a high performance sports car ( long gone). Next trick on the horizon is the much publicised heat pump for domestic use. I am willing to bet that only 1 in 100 members of parliament actually understand the engineering concept and the true cost of installing, running and maintaining these systems.

[StephenC]

The change in weather may also be a factor - colder starts with longer warm up times this time of year.

Whilst current vehicles may use more fuel (I don't think there's any doubt about that), as people naturally update what they have the negative impacts will recede, surely? I remember moans when lead was taken away and more recently the power losses when we moved to Euro4 (was it 4, can't remember?) but times and people move on.

It is estimated that this change will help reduce CO2 emissions by 750,000 tonnes a year, which is the equivalent of taking 350,000 cars off the road.

[smeghead]

... not to mention the extra income for fuel supply chains through forcing the use of over priced premium grades. From lawn mower through to classic bikes and car to Euro4 spec new bike and modern car only one out of my six will run properly on E10 according to the manufacturers own recommendations. I have previously only once used Premium grade on a high performance sports car ( long gone). Next trick on the horizon is the much publicised heat pump for domestic use. I am willing to bet that only 1 in 100 members of parliament actually understand the engineering concept and the true cost of installing, running and maintaining these systems.

I have heard that unless your house is extremely well insulated these heat pumps are effectively useless. Governments make my piss boil, they introduce this new legislation and the poor sods who are affected the most are the likes of the average bloke who simply cannot afford it. Who the hell can afford to pop out and buy a Tesla? Currently there's not a single politician I'd vote for, I detest them all.

[Stibbs]

Interesting post Smeg. Coincidentally I’ve noticed my burger has dropped about 6-7 mpg in recent weeks. In that time I’ve had around 16l of e10. Sort of defeats the objective as you’ve said.

[Data]

It's not the E10 fuel causing a big drop in fuel economy, it's definitely the ambient temperature. Same happens every year but we mostly don't bother even checking. This year we are and are associating it with E10. My car is running E5 97 Oct & consumption has increased too. Most people won't notice any difference in mpg using E10 and there is a lot of bollocks on the internet about it. My fuel economy has dropped over the last week due to lower temps. During warmer weather on E10 my economy remained the same as for E5 confirming what the eggspurts say.

[smeghead]

Data, the first tank of E10 I bought was literally as it came out. The weather wasn't cold at that point. I still had a reduction in MPG.

[Data]

I doubt it's due to E10 smeg. It's far more likely down to other environmental conditions such as temp, humidity, wind, traffic and the variable way you (we) ride and routes you've been riding. Not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs here of course. It's widely reported that E10 will improve your fuel economy for some folks and that indeed seems to be the case as reported on the news. Others it may reduce fuel economy fractionally (use more fuel) but most will remain unchanged or with such as small difference you won't notice it. My first tankful of E10 gave me 87mpg on the GTS. Yes...I did check like most folks are doing! I normally get around 90mpg or more in general riding. Very doubful it's the fuel causing that slight drop. However, the ecu does take a tank or two to fully adjust to any new fuels and trim settings properly. I've since covered over 350 miles on E10 and it's actually giving me identical fuel economy figures as the E5 I previously used. The calorific value of E10 is almost unchanged compared to E5 so it has pretty much the same energy density, being just over 1% lower. This means fuel economy can be affected on average by around 0.6% to 0.8% (so less than 1%) depending on motor type. The extra ethernol is useful for increasing burn efficiency and cleaning the internals of the engine too.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 075634.htm

If you check your fuel economy very accurately you'll get a more reliable figure smeg. But expect less in lower temps as your motor takes longer to warm up, the fuel injection is on full advance for longer pumping in more fuel for longer, the oil is thicker etc etc. It really knocks fuel economy.

[smeghead]

As I originally said it wasn't a scientific measurement. I work out MPG by brimming the tank and zeroing the odometer every time I fill up. I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for the info Data.