E10 Performance Notes

Submitted: Wednesday, Sep 27, 2006 at 10:12
ThreadID: 38087 Views:3798 Replies:4 FollowUps:6
This Thread has been Archived
E10 Notes

Its 3 or 4 years since I first tried different octane fuel in my
current petrol 4wd , a Patrol GU 4800. At the time my conclusions
where that it was basically a non event.
This is pretty much as theory and government reports predict.
The recent fuel price increases promted me to re-check the situation
using United's 95 octane E10 fuel which gets its increased rating by
adding 10% ethanol. This fuel is on average 4c cheaper and its octane
up by 4 points from ULP's 91.

A higher octane rating just means that a fuel is more stable, slower
to ignite and this effectivily retards the timing a little.
This change is within the range of automatic adjustment of knock sensor
equipped modern cars ECU's.
Most of the automatic adjustment takes place in first 50km of driving.

In my car I noticed that it hesitated and almost stalled on first use
but this effect was reduced by the next day.

Two principle measurement were to be made
1/ Fuel consumption over not less than 1000km.
2/ Acceleration over wide engine rev range.

Fuel Consumption
---------------
Accurate results are hard and require consistentcy in type of
driving , weather, loads and fill up process.

In this test everthing was done to maximize accuracy including
such things as filling up at the same pump with car on same angle
as shown by a permanent vehicle bubble guage which prevents a part load
effecting fill up level. As a double check I record the cars sub-tank
fillup capacity seperately, and fill up at same time of day at similar
temperatures.

Have a long history of recording fuel use at points along the cars fuel
gauge and at every point a small deviation was noted from my long term
average. For the first time in ever the car recorded less than 800km
at the empty mark.
795km compared to average 825km amounted to a drop of 3.5%

Acceleration
------------
While it's fun to say the car has "200kw" this doesn't mean much.
What's important is how the car performs thru its typical rev range under load.
Accurate results are in a way harder to achieve here than fuel use as it
requires multiple accurately timed runs and you need to be able to
set up a process in which this is achieveable without looking like a hoon!

I use a straight flat section of road which can be driven on my way to work
each day. This means I can get 2 or 3 clean runs in a week as some times are
spoilt by traffic etc.

3rd gear for me is useable from 25kmh to 110km, generally allowing
valid results from 40-90kmh as first and last few km's are lost by backing
off to avoid speeding and to allow getting a clean start.

Data is recorded by using a GPS. Mine a garmin 3, can be set to record
location at 1 second intervals which usually allows about 20 recording points.

The GPS points can be displayed as a revealing plot directly in OZI-explorer
(shareware version).
Note - Ozi is a guide only, as its method of display is inherently lumpy
as it normalizes decimal data to the nearset 1 second interval.

Use of GPS eliminates many potential errors as it gives exact distance
speed and timing intervals.

To make use of multiple runs, the data collected is cut and pasted via
text editor into excel and various runs can be overlaid on each other.
To achieve best results the data is normalized to 40kmh.
(a run's speeds may be shifted up or down to nearset 1 second reading).

RESULT - The result of several runs overlaid on previous history
shows no discernable difference in power and acceleration with E10.

The car has two selectable engine maps, and neither showed a difference.

CONCLUSIONS
-------------
A small but discernable fuel use drop, that roughly matched its lesser cost
combined with no measurable power difference means to me that E10 is basically
a non event and offers no advantages or disadvantages.

Robin Miller
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - Roachie (SA) - Wednesday, Sep 27, 2006 at 10:44

Wednesday, Sep 27, 2006 at 10:44
Robin.....GET A LIFE.......

hahahahaha...sorry mate, just couldn't help myself......

You've gone to a LOT of trouble to accumulate a lot of data which has proven bugga all.

Thanks for sharing it with us.....I now need to have a BEX and a little lie-down to recover from just reading all those stats; so I can't begin to imagine how your head is feeling.....hahahah
AnswerID: 196762

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Wednesday, Sep 27, 2006 at 10:51

Wednesday, Sep 27, 2006 at 10:51
You will get used to it.. have alook thru the archives of the patrol list... search for LIGHTWEIGHT PATROL...
0
FollowupID: 455168

Follow Up By: Robin - Wednesday, Sep 27, 2006 at 10:55

Wednesday, Sep 27, 2006 at 10:55
Geez Roachie and Truckster

I thought Bex was banned when they found out it
ripped up your insides, maybe its a new formula.

Well that's the trouble with an engineering background
sometimes the real results just aren't sexy enough!

Robin Miller
0
FollowupID: 455172

Reply By: GoneTroppo Member (FNQ) - Wednesday, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:07

Wednesday, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:07
Robin

I for one much prefer the sensationalist reports/test/evaluations in the media.
They do it with much less work and come up with much better results.

Often they also have very attractive persons presenting the facts which makes it so much more credible

I'd trust them any day.
AnswerID: 196764

Follow Up By: Robin - Wednesday, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:58

Wednesday, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:58
Now that's torn it , I'll just have to come clean !

On our recent trip up the Hay river, we mistakely
filled the Nissan up with E10 at Birdsville.
We were on a secret mission to rescue a young kid from
cannabulls, but the lower fuel consumption with E10 meant
we had stuffed up and had to turn around 19 meters
before reaching our destination.

We were completely not to blame as I was buying an icecream
at the service station and let a Toyota driver fill my car up.

If we hadn't accidently erased the video tape it would have shown
he had switched the bowzers fuel hose to E10.

Robin Miller
0
FollowupID: 455180

Follow Up By: GoneTroppo Member (FNQ) - Wednesday, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:40

Wednesday, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:40
Aaaaahhhh.....that's better!
Now I believe it.

Seriously though, good work, wish I had the patience to go to that level of detail.

Chris
0
FollowupID: 455189

Follow Up By: Moose - Wednesday, Sep 27, 2006 at 13:16

Wednesday, Sep 27, 2006 at 13:16
Geez you must be a lazy bugger if you couldn't walk the last 19 metres :-)
0
FollowupID: 455192

Reply By: stevesub - Wednesday, Sep 27, 2006 at 20:03

Wednesday, Sep 27, 2006 at 20:03
We have been trying the E10 in our Rangie and have several observations

1. The idle is lumpy as on E10

2. The pickup seems to be slower than 91(possibly becuase of the un-even running at idle on E10) - I do not have the paitence to do timed acceleration runs anymore. I used to do them tuning my rally car on the cheap years ago but not now.

3. The fuel comsuption seems to have increased - trip computer readout. But it is very hard to duplicate the same driving conitions from tank to tank but overall, we are using somewhere between 0.5 and 1liter/100km more on E10.

I have gone back to 91 which seems to be more economical and easier on the engine. But then again, I should probably be using Premium in the Rangie but there does not seem to be any difference in performance or fuel economy between premium and 91.

Stevesub
AnswerID: 196835

Follow Up By: Robin - Thursday, Sep 28, 2006 at 08:08

Thursday, Sep 28, 2006 at 08:08
Hi Steve

Yes, it can be hard to have same driving condition over different fill ups.

With some 200+ fill ups on my fillup spreadsheet I have extra columns which include offsets for different wheels I run and also for type of loads/trips.
Ones which are hard to classify I take out of equation.

Seems to me that the cars ECU adapatibility plays an important part in results and mine seemed to adapt pretty well.

Robin Miller

0
FollowupID: 455304

Reply By: stevesub - Thursday, Sep 28, 2006 at 09:04

Thursday, Sep 28, 2006 at 09:04
Our Rangie is a 2000 model and the ECU may not be quite as intelligent as the latest models. I used to have a 1996 Honda Accord and there was no difference between 91 and Premium but my 1999 Subaru, there was quite a noticeable difference in perfromance between the 2 different petrols.

Stevesub
AnswerID: 196910

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)