E10 -Why use it
Submitted: Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 19:29
ThreadID:
59736
Views:
3107
Replies:
8
FollowUps:
16
This Thread has been Archived
wigger
Forget the environmental benefit. I'm puzzled as to why people are turning to filling up with this stuff without (as far as I'm aware) some recognised trial to show that there are PROVEN economies in using it.
E 10 has a lower calorific value per litre than straight 91ULP so delivers less energy so..........
Aren't people simply being drawn to its use because of the 3c p.l
saving without being able to measure the cost in terms of poorer economy.
Need someone like RFL in post 59712 to fill in the gaps
Reply By: Member - Madfisher - Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 19:42
Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 19:42
My old 22r 4runner loved it, pulled better. The Jack and paj hate it. The Jack in particular was running like a hairy goat after trialing it. We run premium in both vehicles anyway.
Cheers Pete
AnswerID:
315142
Reply By: Member - Andrew (QLD) - Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 19:57
Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 19:57
Why can't the environmental side alone be enough to justify using it? Why do people have to have other reasons as
well?
Figures i saw mention that the energy value is around 3% different....31.9 MJ/L for ULP and 21.2 for Ethanol, i'd like to verify if that is correct though. If it is, the difference translates to 4-5c/L needed to break even.
BTW Shell state that their E10 is 94 octane minimum....
Andrew
AnswerID:
315145
Follow Up By: Member - Andrew (QLD) - Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 20:03
Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 20:03
mind you, i just checked to verify this, only to read that the values "may" be more like 3.9% different for E10......still a smallish amount.
Andrew
FollowupID:
581286
Follow Up By: Scubaroo - Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 20:04
Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 20:04
I found that with my NM Pajero,
United's E10 resulted in something like 20% higher fuel consumption, so I was burning more fossil fuel than before!
Stick to premium fuels now - logbook proves the economy of doing so. I think a lot of the unwashed masses just buy petrol based on price per litre, and fail to comprehend that different fuels give different economy.
Same sort of people that run around with half flat tyres for weeks on end.
FollowupID:
581287
Follow Up By: Member - Andrew (QLD) - Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 20:08
Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 20:08
20% wow! Was that just
united Scubaroo or was it with other providers?
I might keep putting diesel in
mine :-)
Andrew
FollowupID:
581288
Follow Up By: Member - Oldplodder (QLD) - Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 08:50
Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 08:50
What worries me about ethenol is that I heard it takes more energy to produce it than it contains.
Heard that in the US it is now a big issue, the corn used to produce enough bio-fuel to fill a large yank
tank once would feed a person for quite a while, as in months.
Bit sad that we demand fuel for vehicles so others can starve.
FollowupID:
581353
Follow Up By: Member - Andrew (QLD) - Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:10
Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:10
Just because the US has that philosophy, isn't necessarily what happens here. Ethanol is also produced from sugar cane here in Australia, with
places such as CSR's Plane
Creek Mill at
Sarina producing around 60 MegaLitres of Ethanol per year (2005).
I agree with the issues of corn, however i'm sure we could do without some sugar in these days of fastfood and high sugar content products.
Andrew
FollowupID:
581364
Follow Up By: Mr Pointyhead - Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 14:09
Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 14:09
Making ethanol from corn is one of the most inefficient ways of producing it, and from memory it does nearly take as much energy to produce it as it gives out. On the other hand ethanol from Cane is one of the most efficient ways of producing it and you get a lot more energy out than it takes to produce it.
I cannot remember the source I read it on but it was something like the new scientist web site so the source was reputable. ( Also, SHMBO is a environmental scientist at a university so I always being updated on this stuff )
FollowupID:
581392
Reply By: blackmax11 - Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 19:58
Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 19:58
I agree, in fact at 2 or 3 cents a litre less than ULP its more costly to run.It does increase octane slightly but is about 7% less power per litre.
Another interesting issue with Ethanol fuel is it absorbs
water readilyand easily. So if you use it in a vehicle that is only used now and then, I would not recommend.
If you have a boat DON'T use E10. You are potentially buying trouble.
AnswerID:
315147
Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 20:11
Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 20:11
Certainly the result of my research into it as
well.
At anything less than 5c per lt difference you are actually going backwards.
FollowupID:
581289
Follow Up By: wigger - Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 20:17
Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 20:17
This is part of my point. Bm thinks that it's about 7% less value
and Andrew says about 3.9%. When you are only making a 2%cost saving then the need to know exactly what the benefit(or cost) is.
A few years ago when John Howard was trying to push Ethanol, there were suspicions that this was part of lift up for his mate at Manildra. How do we know that the latest Etanol"sell" isn't the consequence of some active lobbying.
Pete
Hmmmmmmmmm.
This might not be able to be classed as a scientific study because you gave yourself away using the word "hairy" Einstein definitely
did not use this word.
FollowupID:
581291
Follow Up By: Member - Madfisher - Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 21:02
Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 21:02
Wigger, It would not ilde, was cutting out when changing gears. May have been a cooncidence or dirty fuel perhaps. Went back to premium and problems disappeared.
Cheers The old hairy goat.lol
FollowupID:
581300
Reply By: Rock Ape - Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 20:30
Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 20:30
I run it in 2 vehicles, 1994 and 1999 models and it makes no difference to power or fuel consumption. Have been running it for a few years and nothing has blown up or fallen off.
So I guess this is the trial you requested.
AnswerID:
315158
Follow Up By: wigger - Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 21:36
Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 21:36
R A ,
Contacted
Ross Garnault and put your name forward as being available to do a bit of climate modelling. Would advise you not to use terms like "blown up" or "fallen off' when talking about the earth. Have a certain imprecision about them.
FollowupID:
581314
Follow Up By: Rock Ape - Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 06:47
Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 06:47
Wigger,
Blown up and fallen off are very precise words also the fuel consumption is precise as one way I use E10 and the other unleaded and the fuel consumption is virtually identical, in fact the best consumption was with E10 and no tail wind.
You are not constructive at all, even boarding on sarcastic.
Read the thread it asks for information on the fuel which I have given.
All the scare mongering about the damage it does to engines in my opinion is BS. As I said nothing has blown up or fallen off.
FollowupID:
581346
Follow Up By: stevesub - Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:37
Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:37
We have used E10 in our 2000 Rangie for the last 2 or 3 years. We have found no difference in the way it runs and no difference in fuel consumption (trip computer and km/tank) when compared with regular unleaded or premium unleaded - all the same
We have also had no problems with the engine at all over 50,000km we have been using it.
Stevesub
FollowupID:
581385
Follow Up By: wigger - Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 19:37
Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 19:37
Tks R A
Didn't mean to wind you up.
FollowupID:
581434
Reply By: Mike Harding - Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 20:38
Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 20:38
Is this the stuff which has pushed up Third World food prices?
AnswerID:
315159
Follow Up By: Member - Madfisher - Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 21:05
Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 21:05
Yes it is a complete disaster Mike. Thousands of people now starving because they cannot afford food. That is a good reson not to buy it.
The wheat cockies will have a field day if they get a crop.
Cheers pete
FollowupID:
581302
Follow Up By: Scubaroo - Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 21:51
Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 21:51
As someone pointed out above, it depends on the source - in the US, much of the corn crop has been diverted to ethanol production for E85 FlexFuel vehicles (overall corn plantings have increased, but yeah, price of corn for food has skyrocketed). In
Australia most appears to come from sugarcane, which is not diverting foodstuffs - I think sugarcane ethanol is from what normally would be biomass byproduct. Could be wrong on that though.
FollowupID:
581482
Reply By: Doin It - Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 22:48
Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 22:48
Be it E10 or for diesel users the Bio diesel both, are realtively new what in the long run will they do to your engine? (especially the older makes) I have had a 2 mechanics from 2 different
places tell me to stay away from the stuff (either of them). They have both told me that there have already been vehicles come in with serious engine problems.
AnswerID:
315182
Follow Up By: ben_gv3 - Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:06
Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:06
I'm not sure you can lump ethanol and biodiesel in the same category.
A lot of the older diesels (eg 1HZ) run happily on bioD because the tolerances are so great, mechanical fuel pumps etc.
Most of the older petrols will not run happily for very long on high concentrations of ethanol due to the rubber seals being eaten away by the ethanol.
Why manufacturer's can't produce cars with ethanol-capable seals as standard is beyond me. If they can do it for the Sth American countries where they run E85 then why not here?
I'm sure the oil companies wouldn't be too happy with us running E85.
Regardless, I'm not running E10 because I think it's a waste of money due to lower power and a 3c saving isn't enough to justify.
FollowupID:
581379
Reply By: DIO - Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 09:56
Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 09:56
Some say CHEAPER IS BETTER !!
AnswerID:
315213
Reply By: Bob of KAOS - Tuesday, Jul 15, 2008 at 18:14
Tuesday, Jul 15, 2008 at 18:14
'Forget the environmental benefit' That is becoming increasingly difficult as the Murray dries up and Antarctica melts.The more renewable fuel we use the less we need to import from the Arabs.
'We are taking food away from starving people' Well maybe there are just too many people. People are too afraid to say that maybe the
population of the Earth should be substantially less than six billion. I reckon about four billion is more than enough.
Food prices have gone up because of the increasing cost of fuel used to produce it.
Corn in the USA is converted to corn syrup (fructose) which is put into all kinds of food and just leads to fat bums. I reckon its better in the fuel tank than another layer of lard on some obese rrrrrs.
AnswerID:
315464