E10 unleaded,does it work?

[Diesel_vert]

Hi All,

Just want to share my opinion on this topic, because I am in the same boat and try to find a logicalanswer.

I have also wrote to VW Australia to ask then whether my Tiguan TSI engine can handle the E10 fuel or not, I got the similar answer, which they told me 98RON recommended. But this is not a acceptable answer because,

1. Both the car manual and fuel tank label clearly indicate min 95RON is required. – How can VW Australia given a confused answer like this?

2. E10, VW Australia said no E10 is allowed in the TSI engine, but why Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries says YES for E10 on all VW fuel injected models post 1986. link Can my vehicle operate on Ethanol blend petrol? : FCAI


I have tried to ask VW Australian for explanation why they responded to this issue are so not match their own manual and government resource. I haven’t no heard a thing from them for more than 2 yrs.

At the very least, TSI engines require fuel that meets EN228 (the European standard for petrol). EN228 specifies a minimum RON of 95 and a minimum MON of 85, as does the Australian specification for premium unleaded.

TSI engines are also compatible with petrol than contains up to 10% ethanol (E10).

Some (but not all) TSI engines recommend the use of super unleaded (98 RON), though no damage will be caused by using premium unleaded (95 RON). Refer to the sticker in your fuel flap specifically for the recommended fuel (it may be different, even if within the same model range).

...

In Australia, the majority of E10 blends are mixed with regular unleaded (91 RON), which gives it a final RON of 93~95 and a MON of 81~83.

Regular unleaded E10 does not meet EN228 standards, nor does it meet the Australian spec for premium unleaded, so they are not suitable for cars that require premium unleaded (i.e. most European cars).

United Petroleum sells two grades of premium unleaded E10 (98 and 100 RON) which are suitable for ethanol-compatible cars that require premium unleaded. The only problem is that they are not as widely distributed as some other fuels.

[wai]

As for the manual and filler flap saying 95 RON when they recommend 98 RON, this would be put down to Errors and Omissions Excepted.

On the FCAI saying YES to E10, they are not the ones offering any warranty.

The NSW government (former Labor) mandated a progressive increase in substituted bio fuels for petrol until it now stands at 6%. The Labor government had actually intended to withdraw Standard ULP, but the new government decided not to ban Standard ULP, however they still maintained the mandated substitution. The reason we have E10 has to do with the distribution mix of SULP and PULP. If the refiners fail to sell the required amount of E10, they are hit with fines which will then see the ethanol added to PULP as well. This is why you will sometimes see PULP pumps "out of action", forcing motorists to use E10 or find another service station that will sell PULP.

So the whole situation is a mess, and will only get worse.

[tigger73]

I filled up once with 100RON from United and there was a noticeable performance improvement over the usual Caltex 98 I usually run. I'm not sure if it was E10 or not but the 100RON certainly ran a lot better.

[Diesel_vert]

I filled up once with 100RON from United and there was a noticeable performance improvement over the usual Caltex 98 I usually run. I'm not sure if it was E10 or not but the 100RON certainly ran a lot better.

Premium 100 is a E10 blend. If I were to make an educated guess, it's probably been blended with 98 RON fuel.

Fun facts about ethanol:

Charge Cooling Effects on Knock Limits in SI DI Engines Using Gasoline/Ethanol Blends:
Part 2 - Effective Octane Numbers

Abstract:

Spark Ignited Direct Injection (SI DI) of fuel extends engine knock limits compared to
Port Fuel Injection (PFI) by utilizing the large in-cylinder charge cooling effect due to
fuel evaporation. The use of gasoline/ethanol blends in direct injection (DI) is therefore
especially advantageous due to the high heat of vaporization of ethanol. In addition to
the thermal benefit due to charge cooling, ethanol blends also display superior chemical
resistance to autoignition, therefore allowing the further extension of knock limits.
Unlike the charge cooling benefit which is realized mostly in SI DI engines, the chemical
benefit of ethanol blends exists in Port Fuel Injected (PFI) engines as well. The aim of
this study is to separate and quantify the effect of fuel chemistry and charge cooling
on knock.

[wai]

I filled up once with 100RON from United and there was a noticeable performance improvement over the usual Caltex 98 I usually run. I'm not sure if it was E10 or not but the 100RON certainly ran a lot better.

The RON (Research Octane Number) is an indicator of the resistance of the fuel to detonation or pre-ignition. With a higher RON, you can have a higher compression ratio and/or a greater ignition advance. This increases the BMEP (Brake Mean Effective Pressure) of an engine and therefore the brake power output.

Simply using fuel with a higher RON will not give you any increase in performance unless the ECU is capable of altering the ignition advance by using the engine knock sensor, detecting detonation and taking the ignition advance to the limit. Generally, an ECU that can do this will not really be able to alter the advance by enough to get any more power.

By the way, increasing the compression ratio or ignition advance will also increase the burn temperature and this can increase NOx emissions and the increased emperature can burn exhaust valves and burn pistons.

This is why there is no advantage in using high RON fuels unnecessarily. You might get a smoother running engine but you will not get any real or measurable increase in power.

As I have mentioned, E10 burns leaner and this can cause an engine to run a little rough. The tune for an engine running E10 is different to that for ULP (low or high RON).

[tigger73]

This is why there is no advantage in using high RON fuels unnecessarily. You might get a smoother running engine but you will not get any real or measurable increase in power.

Yes that's how I'd describe it - definitely ran smoother. Not distinguishable difference on power output but just smoother delivery.

[Lemonskin]

I can't speak for my Polo as its 98 RON only but my Commodore I had previously definitely ran better on 95 and 98 than E10. It was a company car and i was told when I got it we could only fill up on E10 or regular unleaded. I did that for 2 years until someone found out we can fill up on premium too. Filled up on 95 when empty and there was an immediate difference, MUCH smoother and far punchier. Never tried 98 as I thought that would be pushing it but the Commodore loved the 95. And the fuel consumption was so much better too.

[Martin]

Personally I won't touch E10 (can't as my car is a turbo TSI)

There are plenty of E10 studies and comentaries you can read

Ethanol has a lower energy content than petrol, the 1998 Australian field trial by Apace Research observed a fuel consumption increase of up to 2.8% with E10. Because of this higher fuel consumption there are fewer kilometres per tank of fuel, so ethanol blended fuels will cost motorists more

A test conducted by Drive last year found that over more than 2000km of city and highway driving, a car powered by 98-octane (98 RON) premium unleaded cost $237.36 to run, while one using E10 cost $218.84. But the same test found that the car using E10 emitted more CO2.

Advocates of E10 claim that litre per litre, ethanol produces about 37 per cent less carbon dioxide (C02) exhaust emissions than regular unleaded. But as you need to burn more ethanol to travel the same distance, the net benefit at the tailpipe is diminished. There are also the environmental and social costs of growing and harvesting the crops to produce the ethanol.

This test in Sep 2012 produced a great summary chart
Look at premium 95 and 98 - clear winners in the litres per 100 km contest and cheaper than E10

[wai]

Filled up on 95 when empty and there was an immediate difference, MUCH smoother and far punchier. Never tried 98 as I thought that would be pushing it but the Commodore loved the 95. And the fuel consumption was so much better too.

That's because E10 effectively runs lean, and a lean burn is not necessarily an efficient burn.

I tried E10 in my Hiace for a few months and apart from it costing me more over that time, the engine was always slightly rough and a bit harsh at the exhaust. I switched to 95 after running the tank down to the warning light coming on, and when I started the engine and drove out, it was like it was a completely different car. It was quiet and smooth.

If you use E10, you need to re-tune the engine to take away the leaning factor. The problem is that E10 is only available in some metro markets, and if you re-tune the engine for E10, you then have to re-tune it again if/when you have to buy Standard ULP. The other problemis that our ethanol production simply cannot meet the demand for all Standard ULP to be phased out. This means we will have to import the majority of our ethanol making the reason for E10 in the first place (to help our farmers) look rather silly.

We don't want to back away because of the Green lobby, and pollies dont like flipping over this.

[ido09s]

I put E10 in my Tiguan once accidentally and noticed no change at all in fuel economy or power levels. It ran exactly the same and even got the same fuel economy.

I ran my 2007 model Civic exclusively on E10 after realising it went better on it than 95 octane. It went better, got better fuel economy and cost me less in the long run