[NSW] Thoughts on Regular ULP ban?

[Chris259]

Although me myself dont buy PULP quite often, was wondering about the general response in regard to the ban. At the moment its only for NSW and whether it reaches other states I'm not quite sure. To me this just looks like another profit making scheme by the government as it will be easier to fluctuate the prices of 98RON since its the only option for owners with Europeans and pre-1970 vehicles.

Source : The real cost of dumping regular unleaded

[The_Hawk]

PULP Ban? Did I miss something in that article? Or something about a ban? They are talking about not carrying "normal" 91 fuel and only E10, 95 and 98 (for the moment) .... right?

Personally I have only ever run 98 in my petrol cars since way back when because while it may cost a little more you tend to go a little further roughly equaling out anyway. (and all the other better/cleaner fuel things are nice too). It's sort of annoying that the news and papers only seem to talk about the cheapest fuel rather than the one a growing percentage of us really use... especially those with newer (and older) cars.

One thing that was interesting to note was the talk about emissions:

The other point lost in this debate is the miniscule reduction in emissions. Litre per litre, ethanol produces about 37 per cent less C02 tailpipe emissions than regular unleaded - 1.51kg per litre compared to 2.39kg per litre.

But you need to burn more ethanol blended fuel to travel the same distance as a car using regular or premium unleaded.

Science tells us that ethanol burns 34 per cent faster than regular unleaded - which means the net benefit at the tailpipe is diminished.

Now is that I burn 34% more fuel... or 10% of my fuel burns 34% faster meaning I'm really burning maybe 4% more fuel?




I'd love to see more competition in that space, but then I'm not holding my breath either.

[Chris259]

PULP Ban? Did I miss something in that article? Or something about a ban? They are talking about not carrying "normal" 91 fuel and only E10, 95 and 98 (for the moment) .... right?

Just to clarify, they are getting rid of the 95, not the 98. Sorry If i caused a confusion :\

[team_v]

I know in QLD they have done something funny where petrol stations were limited in what they could sell os they ditched regular (91) and kept diesel, 95, 98 and e10.

Since then people haven't jumped on e10 and some are going back to offering 91.

The annoying thing is that they don't make lawnmowers run on 95/98 so win a way we need 91.
Also for the older cars out there that run on 91 it is pointless upgrading to 95 if the car isn't tuned for it.

[The_Hawk]

I can't see anything in that article that actually says what they are getting rid of?

Like I said, I though NSW dumped 91 in favour of E10 but still kept 95 and 98. Are you suggesting that they are wanting to move to E10 and 98 only?

[Chris259]

I may have misinterpreted the article, but it seems that while it may not completely ban 95 per se, they may limit the availabilities of 95.

[woofy]

The annoying thing is that they don't make lawnmowers run on 95/98 so win a way we need 91.
Also for the older cars out there that run on 91 it is pointless upgrading to 95 if the car isn't tuned for it.

This is an odd thing to say, I've been running our lawnmower on min 95 for years and then 98 when I got an RS Octavia as I put some in the lawn mower container at the same time as filling up. Why wouldn't you be able to use it, the higher octane rating won't hurt it, lower octane is whats bad for engines. If anything the PULP is cleaner so you get less crap buildup in the carby.

[greasykitchen]

Also for the older cars out there that run on 91 it is pointless upgrading to 95 if the car isn't tuned for it.

I ran my Mk1 on 95 as it required a minimum of 91 RON but I had heard that 91 isn't always 91, but sometimes less. So I ran 95 to be safe. I had no problems.

I also ran my '72 Beetle on 95 sometimes - I recall once filling up at a BP and then noticing how much better it ran on 95.

Now it's all 98 in the Mk5

I was speaking to my mechanic the other day who said that fewer and fewer cars can take 91 these days.

[The_Hawk]

Another Article:

Petrol switch to leave 750,000 motorists out of pocket

Again, I'm reasonably sure this is simply the complete demise of 91 in favor of E10 leaving you with both 95 and 98 to choose from if you don't want ethanol.

[Blitzen]

This came out the other day. They are discontinuing 91RON, and going to E10. There is no discontinuation of 95RON. And who cares, for the pittsance that you pay extra at the pump for 95RON, you get better fuel economy for it, so you are cancelling out the extra price with better distance per tank.

[JustCruisn]

Now is that I burn 34% more fuel... or 10% of my fuel burns 34% faster meaning I'm really burning maybe 4% more fuel?

The ethanol portion burns faster.
So it is a reduction of 3.4% over normal fuel.
When normal fuel is $1.469/litre the 10% ethanol needs to be $1.419/litre, or 5cents/litre cheaper to make up for the loss in efficiency.

I've noticed than when fuel was around $1.10/litre the ethanol was 3cents/litre cheaper. Now fuel is $1.469/litre the gap has lessened to 1 cent/liter.

I only use 98RON in both my cars. The Golf is chipped and wont run on anything less.
My 1.3litre Mazda 121 gains 20% fuel economy on using 98 over normal 91. From 7.8l/100km down to 6.2 l/100km). There is only a 10% increase in the cost.

Get rid of 91 altogether make room for more 98 bowsers so I don't have to line up.

[Chris259]

This came out the other day. They are discontinuing 91RON, and going to E10. There is no discontinuation of 95RON.

I see, thanks for the clarification.

[Diesel_vert]

Although me myself dont buy PULP quite often, was wondering about the general response in regard to the ban. At the moment its only for NSW and whether it reaches other states I'm not quite sure. To me this just looks like another profit making scheme by the government as it will be easier to fluctuate the prices of 98RON since its the only option for owners with Europeans and pre-1970 vehicles.

Source : The real cost of dumping regular unleaded

Umm... I think the mods should rename the thread title.

As for thoughts, I suspect anyone who is member of a European car forum (or a high performance Japanese car forum) couldn't care less about the phasing out of regular unleaded (91 RON), or the introduction of regular unleaded E10 (93~94 RON), since nearly all European vehicles are designed to run on either premium unleaded (95 RON) or super unleaded (98 RON) - it is very rare for a service station Europe or Britain to have regular unleaded.

Also, owners of vehicles designed to run on super leaded (96 RON) also probably couldn't care less, not to mention that if they're old enough to need leaded fuel in the first place, it would be safe to assume it wouldn't be compatible with ethanol.

[wai]

First, this has been brought about because the previous government mandated 6% of all petrol sold would contain ethanol. The incoming government has refused to overturn that decision partly because of lobbying by the ethanol industry. If the 6% mandated ethanol requirement is not met, the oil companies can be fined. Given that E10 is a 10% blend, it would require 60% of fuel sold at an average service station to be E10. This will mean that to avoid penalties, oil companies will either get service stations to shut down non E10 pumps or for oil companies to not supply non E10 fuel until the mandated requirement is met. Of course, the oil companies could choose to add the ethanol to PULP to meet the mandated requirement.

On to E10.

Ethanol has around 30% less calorific value than Standard ULP. With a 10% blend, this means a straight out 3% reduction in energy available and therefore a minimum 3% increase in fuel consumption.

Erhanol has oxygen atoms, and when it combusts,this oxygen is released. This has the effect of leaning the mixture by around 3.5%. This causes the combustion temperature to rise which might be good for unburnt hydrocarbons and CO/CO2 which is very slight anyway, but causes NOx to almost tripple. NOx is responsible for the brown haze or photochemical smog.

Ethanol has a higher octane rating. This simply means it has a greater resistance to detonation. Of itself a higher octane rating will not increase power. It will allow an engine designer to use a higher compression ratio to realise a higher BMEP and therefore power. This does nothing for existing engines.

Etnanol is corrosive. This means that any gum deposits built up in the fuel system could become dislodged blocking carburetor jets and fuel injectors. It can also degrade flexible fuel lines that are not designed for ethanol

E10 will only be mandated in NSW. If you tune the engine to use E10 by making the mixture slightly richer (and use even more E10), then when you travel interstate where E10 is not available the mixture will be too rich. This will result in incomplete combustion more pollutants and carbon deposits in the engine and catalytic converter.

All up, you will use around 10% more E10 than Standard ULP which is absurd because it is supposed to be better for the environment (or so we are told). You end up burning exactly the same amount of ULP PLUS a further 10% ethanol.

Many currently using Standard ULP will switch to PULP as they have already done in metropolitan Sydney where Standard ULP has not been available. The cheapest alternative is PULP 95, but there is nothing to say that oil companies will withdraw PULP 95 and only make PULP 98 available. This will place a much higher cost disadvantage than using PULP 95 and is also a tactic that can be used to increase the sale of E10.

So E10 does nothing for the environment. It does impose a cost on the consumer who has a vehicle that is not able to make use of E10. To top it off, there is no guarantee that ethanol will not be added to PULP because if the oil companies are to meet their mandated 6% requirement, they will HAVE to employ a variety of tactics or pay penalties. The cost of those penalties will then be passed on to the consumer.

Another absurdity of this whole situation is that the current ethanol producer in NSW (Manildra) does not have the capacity to meet the 6% requirement anyway. This means that to meet the requirement, ethanol will have to be imported, and yet again we will pay to employ people in other countries for no benefit. Looks like the federal disease has been caught by the NSW state government.

[JustCruisn]

The NSW state Government has backed down on the ban.
Premier bows to motorists on unleaded fuel