![]() |
|
Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated. |
|
The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,252
|
For the last few years i have been running United E10 in my BF I6 but i've noticed lately that 91 is only 2cents dearer.
Considering that you use more E10 to go the same distance as 91 i've decided to start running 91 from now on. The whole Ethanol based fuels idea is false economy i believe? |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 | ||
Ex EF Futura Driver
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Old Junee
Posts: 32
|
Note down your fuel usage (actual km and actual litres)
Compare the fuels, it's the only way to know for sure. My bet is you will find 95 the best value, but the difference isn't huge. |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
This user likes this post: |
![]() |
#3 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,252
|
My BF is due for its 200'000 k service so the plugs will be getting replaced next week.
With my driving style I have at times gotten 700k's out of a tank of E10. But lately i've been getting about 650k's. Cant wait for the new plugs to be fitted next week. |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 | ||
Now Fordless
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fremantle, WA
Posts: 3,611
|
Same as 98. Yes you do get more kms out of it but its not worth it.
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#5 | ||
Experienced Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 7,548
|
Using e10 fuel will give you less economy than regular 91 but it does give you that extra octane for power if you have a heavy foot.....lol
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#6 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 1,604
|
Higher octane doesn't give you more power, it simply changes how the fuel detonates in the cylinder. E10 has less kilojoule value per litre than straight petrol.
__________________
____________________ 2019 LDV G10 2009 Mitsubishi Express-GONE 2011 Honda Jazz ____________________ |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |||
Experienced Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 7,548
|
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
This user likes this post: |
![]() |
#8 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pit Lane
Posts: 11,867
|
If the cars ecu is pulling spark advance while operating on 91 octane, there would be a power gain by using ethanol based fuel with higher octane, but the difference in the stoich value of the fuel means more will be consumed when in closed loop fuel control
__________________
Pit Lane Performance 20 Rosella St Frankston 03 9783 8122 Authorised Streetfighter, Pcmtec , SCT & HP Tuners Tuning Agent,
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#9 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,312
|
since regulations allow up to 10% ethanol without notice, they are probably both E10 anyway.
__________________
My ride: 2007 Falcon Ute BF XR8 Orange, MTO. |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#10 | ||
FG XR6T trayback
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: N-W NSW
Posts: 1,308
|
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#11 | ||
Moderator
![]() ![]() Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kenthurst
Posts: 40,394
|
After testing it in a bog standard FG I6 with ZF ... I found negligible difference between fuels ... and that's even E10 compared to 95/98 ... the only difference being 91/95/98 empy my wallet quick for no real difference in range.
It's a daily ... doesn't get drive hard at all. So i run E10 pretty much all the time. For a performance car ... yes i can see the advantages of using a higher octane fuel ... but for a daily commuter/family hack ... E10 has the better economic gains. When you are looking at 25C/L difference over say 60L (I don't let it drain to empty that often) ... it's a $16.25 difference per fill cost for E10 to PULP. That's just around 13.65L of E10 difference. Going on what I can get ... that's around 170km in range difference. There is no wayi can get 170 or more km in range using PULP of E10 ... it may be 20km more .... but that's it ... no .. E10 isn't a false economy for me at all.
__________________
The Current Stable 2016 SZII TS Territory RWD Petrol The Evolution of the EGA54D utes AU Workshop Build thread of EGA54D B-Series Workshop Build thread of EGA54D 2004 SX TX Territory AWD - Gone but not forgotten 2010 FG XT "The ex-rental" - Moved onto a new home Mechan1k's Flickr Page |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#12 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 403
|
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
This user likes this post: |
![]() |
#13 | ||
HUGH JARSE
![]() Join Date: May 2005
Location: Yap-Hoon
Posts: 21,540
|
Petrol is petrol. The only difference is the octane rating. Does using a higher octane rating than the manufacturer recommends makes ya car run better?
The answer is NO! I bet if you get a mate to fill your tank with either E10 or 91, and not tell you; you would not be able to tell which fuel he put in your tank because the differences in performance and economy will vary more using the same fuel each week than changing from 91 to E10. BTW E10 has an octane rating of 94 The same goes for the other fuels, 95 and 98. If the manufacturer says to run on 91, there is no point in running 95 or 98. There is no measurable difference to the performance/economy of your engine that can be measured accurately and repeatable. If you don't believe me, get a mate to select the fuel, take it for a spin and tell him what fuel is in your car. The higher octane means that the motor can use more compression to make more power. The fuel does not increase your compression so it cannot produce more power. Our petrol comes from Singapore in big ships - it's all the same basic brew. So don't be hoodwinked by the marketing rot that one brand is better than another. If a brand of petrol reckons it cleans ya engine and gets more economy, where is the evidence from their scientific studies? Maybe the coloured lights surrounding the bowser has you convinced that, for example, BP is better than any other brand. ![]() "More performance, less pollution" Show us the studies! ![]() ![]() What does low aromatic mean? Is this safer to sniff? ![]() AHA! Is V power in Shell the same as Vortex in Caltex? Before the keyboard warriors respond I will repeat the facts - the differences you get in economy from E10, 91, 95 and 98, if your car can run OK on 91, is no more or less than the normal variances you get from tank to tank using 91. E10 is nothing more than a feel good gesture that shows you care about the planet. Soon 91 will disappear. If it does will you use E10 or 95? That is the question. I'll be using E10 in my Fairlane Sportsman. My other car is a diesel. Comments? |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#14 | ||
Former BTIKD
![]() Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sunny Downtown Wagga Wagga. NSW.
Posts: 53,197
|
Opal fuel is safer to sniff
![]()
__________________
Dying at your job is natures way of saying that you're in the wrong line of work.
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |||
BA/F6 BF/F6 SSV/R TTG
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Perth
Posts: 7,251
|
Quote:
__________________
BA BF FPV starter button repairs. PM me. Nizpro equipped and Tuned by the BEST in the west Xtreme Ford Tuning 479RwKw Fuel limited, more pumps and power too come. F6#0507 & #0639 Pro racer and Tech expert NIZPRO modifying falcons like Premcar can only dream of , see VIDEO below. https://youtu.be/oa4IfguGQ-A Last edited by arronm; 25-04-2017 at 01:15 AM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |||
HUGH JARSE
![]() Join Date: May 2005
Location: Yap-Hoon
Posts: 21,540
|
Quote:
It is a pity that you RUBBISH other peoples opinions. You can disagree of course, that's what discussion is all about; but to only comment on one point that I made without addressing the core thrust of my post does not contribute anything to the thread. If you want to participate effectively in a discussion, show some respect for the opinions of others and if they are wrong point out why. You mention that WA has a refinery without commenting all all the other points I made. How does this add to the general thrust of this thread regarding the difference between the various fuels with associated performance and economy? |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
2 users like this post: |
![]() |
#17 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pit Lane
Posts: 11,867
|
Fuel octane number will change the amount of spark that an engine can tolerate without detonation, in most cases the more spark, the more power, maybe only 5 rwkw or so depending on the engine, but in some cars there is a benefit from using higher octane fuel.
Ethanol has a different stoich value, so fueling will change while in closed loop operation.
__________________
Pit Lane Performance 20 Rosella St Frankston 03 9783 8122 Authorised Streetfighter, Pcmtec , SCT & HP Tuners Tuning Agent,
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
5 users like this post: |
![]() |
#18 | |||
HUGH JARSE
![]() Join Date: May 2005
Location: Yap-Hoon
Posts: 21,540
|
Quote:
I'd be interested to know the basis for this Ratter. Was it measured on a dyno? |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#19 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pit Lane
Posts: 11,867
|
Quote:
It has been proven time after time after time by many shops
__________________
Pit Lane Performance 20 Rosella St Frankston 03 9783 8122 Authorised Streetfighter, Pcmtec , SCT & HP Tuners Tuning Agent,
|
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
4 users like this post: |
![]() |
#20 | ||
HUGH JARSE
![]() Join Date: May 2005
Location: Yap-Hoon
Posts: 21,540
|
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#21 | ||
Au Falcon = Mr Reliable
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: North West Slopes & Plains NSW
Posts: 4,076
|
I run 95 in my i6 vct AU because its the fuel that gives the best power & economy over the other octanes ive tested.
Ive done the numbers on all fuels that can run in my Falcon & without a doubt 95 is the clear cut winner around town & on the hwy. E10 for me does not give the mileage on both cycles (urban or hwy) unfortunately. cheers, Maka
__________________
Ford AU Series Magazine Scans Here - www.fordforums.com.au/photos/index.php?cat=2792 Proud owner of a optioned keeper S1 Tickford Falcon AU XR6 VCT - "it's actually a better-balanced car than the XR8, goes almost as hard and uses about two-thirds of the fuel" (Drive.com 2007) |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#22 | |||
HUGH JARSE
![]() Join Date: May 2005
Location: Yap-Hoon
Posts: 21,540
|
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
This user likes this post: |
![]() |
#23 | ||
Au Falcon = Mr Reliable
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: North West Slopes & Plains NSW
Posts: 4,076
|
Hi Cav, i found in order 98, 95, 91 then e10 gave the best economy overall. 98 gave the best economy by around 50km iirc a tank but for me 95 was the best bang for buck.
Nothing scientific about my tests sorry Cav lol, just noted how much went in & crunched the numbers by the litres used by distance travelled. Around town, hwy & combined were all tallied separately over about a year, my driving style was the constant ie stick to the speed limits, no thrashing lol! Set my trip meter then noted what i got out of the same amount of juice that went in. Towards the end of my fuel trialling, i started using the Motormouth calculator fuel app to calculate everything for me because of the convenience. Yes probably a bit of bush testing but I got a good idea what to use & not to use. Compression ratio plays a role here (Au i6 = 9.5-1) & though in Au i6's the knock sensor is non adjustable, there is a gain to be had in running higher octane fuels in power & economy. I just found e10 lacking in range, though power was better than 91 octane. If e10 was reformulated for more range, i would consider useing it a more. cheers, Maka
__________________
Ford AU Series Magazine Scans Here - www.fordforums.com.au/photos/index.php?cat=2792 Proud owner of a optioned keeper S1 Tickford Falcon AU XR6 VCT - "it's actually a better-balanced car than the XR8, goes almost as hard and uses about two-thirds of the fuel" (Drive.com 2007) |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
3 users like this post: |
![]() |
#24 | ||
Falcon RTV - FG G6ET
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In Da Bush, QLD
Posts: 31,331
|
I have four tunes for my Ute, a stock (91), And a 91, 95,98 tune whilst supercharged.
On 95 for example I get about 530km range, with 98 I get 650km. In my veiw, if running a tune on any motor you'll get better economy. Whether its worth tuning would depend upon the time/kms you intend to keep the vehicle.
__________________
BAII RTV - with Raptor V S/C. RTV Power FG G6ET 50th Anniversary in Sensation. While the basic Ford Six was code named Barra, the Turbo version clearly deserved its very own moniker – again enter Gordon Barfield.
We asked him if the engine had actually been called “Seagull” and how that came about. “Actually it was just call “Gull”, because I named it that. Because we knew it was going to poo on everything”. |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
2 users like this post: |
![]() |
#25 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 308
|
The biggest downside to E10 has not been mentioned here yet.
Ethanol as an additive to petrol has been claimed to be more environmentally friendly, as ethanol is a renewable resource. However, this comes at a cost. Ethanol is made from sugar cane, and the production of sugar cane requires large-scale agriculture to produce a fuel additive rather than food. This large scale agriculture requires huge inputs in the way of diesel fuel and fertilisers. The fertiliser residues leach from the soil and into our waterways - and in the case of Queensland grown sugar cane, the fertiliser residues will be carried into the ocean, and affect the Great Barrier Reef with higher algae growth, upsetting the ecological balance. As well, increased areas of cultivated land will increase the rate of soil erosion and ultimately the sediment content of waters in the Great Barrier Reef region. This soil erosion has been measured at up to 100 tonnes of soil lost per hectare per year. Not good. Surely we should be tolerating these downsides ONLY for food production - not for a fuel additive which has very little benefit in saving oil reserves. E10 is politically driven, it is not a logical approach to saving oil reserves. If a car on E10 uses 10% more fuel, doesn't this mean the E10 is doing absolutely nothing?? Why bother? Politics! |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
7 users like this post: |
![]() |
#26 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 700
|
[QUOTE=cro142;5921330]
Ethanol as an additive to petrol has been claimed to be more environmentally friendly, as ethanol is a renewable resource. Ethanol is not claimed to be environmentally friendly, it is scientifically proven to lower Hydrocarbon, Carbon Monoxide and Nitrogen Oxides exhaust emissions even in a 10% mix. However, this comes at a cost. Ethanol is made from sugar cane, and the production of sugar cane requires large-scale agriculture to produce a fuel additive rather than food. True, but sugar cane is not the only way to produce ethanol. This large scale agriculture requires huge inputs in the way of diesel fuel True, but so does shipping it in oil tankers from the Middle East. and fertilisers. The fertiliser residues leach from the soil and into our waterways - and in the case of Queensland grown sugar cane, the fertiliser residues will be carried into the ocean, True again, but fertiliser leaching is more the result of poor farming practices and yes it should be addressed. and affect the Great Barrier Reef with higher algae growth, upsetting the ecological balance. I will agree again, but unfortunately the Great Barrier Reef is doomed due to high CO2 concentrations in the water and the predicted sea level rise. It's more a case of it being on death row with the hang man knocking at the door. As well, increased areas of cultivated land will increase the rate of soil erosion and ultimately the sediment content of waters in the Great Barrier Reef region. This soil erosion has been measured at up to 100 tonnes of soil lost per hectare per year. Not good. Again, better technics and education within the farming community are needed. Any farmer worth his salt has a lot pride and soul in their lot and are not willing to lose the better part of their soil and fertiliser down the drain. I am not mocking you input, just merely addressing your concerns. Also I endorse your environmental concerns for so do I. Regards Peter ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
6 users like this post: |
![]() |
#27 | |||
Regular Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: SE QLD
Posts: 91
|
Quote:
So the argument that ethanol comes at either the cost of food crops or larger agricultural energy inputs isn't quite accurate. It is absolutely environmentally beneficial. But it has an element of politics because 10% isn't particularly significant. It's a nominal number that says we're doing something about renewable energy but don't want to upset voters who aren't necessarily well informed on ethanol and believe it's all bad.
__________________
~Internal combustion motor enthusiast~ |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
This user likes this post: |
![]() |
#28 | ||
Former BTIKD
![]() Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sunny Downtown Wagga Wagga. NSW.
Posts: 53,197
|
Or because your car manufacturer says no more than 10%
__________________
Dying at your job is natures way of saying that you're in the wrong line of work.
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
This user likes this post: |
![]() |
#29 | ||
Experienced Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 7,548
|
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#30 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pit Lane
Posts: 11,867
|
E10 is not consumed 10% quicker
__________________
Pit Lane Performance 20 Rosella St Frankston 03 9783 8122 Authorised Streetfighter, Pcmtec , SCT & HP Tuners Tuning Agent,
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
4 users like this post: |