Printable View
Shell E10, which according to the pump is 94 RON, and Shell 95.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredoops
I did run through 3 or 4 full tanks, and noticed no difference between any of them. After the final tank I got a figure which was 0.03L/100km less than what I initially got on E10, which is probably nothing to do with the fuel anyway, and simply because the driving conditions can never be 100% identical.
You shouldn't be using anything less than 95 in the euro anyway. it voids warranty pretty much instantly.
Keep running e10 and see how much corrosion damage can be done in a year, while the knock sensor of the euro will prevent immediate damage to the engine (blown gasket etc), over a longer period... It will speed up wear/tear/corrosion of engine parts. And all ethanol fuel contanl 4-5% water. Because pure distillation isn't possible.
Sooo, for a 60 ltr tank filled with e10, you have 360ml of water in your fuel.
The performance deficiency is compensated by resetting the ecu, because engines buns much leaner when you reset ecu, it takes a long while for ecu to 'settle down'
Why would E10 cause any corrosion damage at all, especially when Honda Australia specifically states that all Accord Euros (as well as most Hondas in general) can safely use E10:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredoops
http://www.honda.com.au/cars_for-owners_ethanol.aspx
The only condition is that it needs to be 95 RON minimum, but there's really not much difference between 94 and 95 RON, especially in a stock Euro.
I'd like to see some actual proof that using less than 95 RON in a Euro (specifically CL9 - I know that some CU2 models would ping on certain fuels) will cause damage. One thing I've noticed about the Honda community is that there are so many myths with no actual facts behind them. Another which comes to mind is that you must use genuine Honda auto transmission fluid, but nobody is able to explain why this is the case, or what will happen if you don't.
Honda Australia advises E10 fuel with a RON of 95 or above is safe to use in all Euros. The fact that there is less energy per joule of ethanol than octane has nothing to do with it damaging your engine so long as it has an ECU... it just means you need to burn more fuel to get the same amount of power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredoops
91 fuel is a no-no as a rule but in a pinch you can get away with it.
EDIT: 360mL of water in 60L = 0.6% water. Negligible considering that exhaust gas is 31% water by weight...and the intake air is not going to be at 0% humidity...
Also 95 fuel is required in order to meet ADR standards for emissions and so forth, as well as meeting advertised performance, and then of course to minimise engine knock. As for genuine fluids...Honda mechanical engineers designed their components and when they did that they made assumptions about the chemical and physical properties of the lubricating fluids. So then they said to the Honda chemical engineers, "make us a fluid that has these properties". So they did, then they sold it.
They don't recommend using anything else because they can't be sure it will do exactly everything it has to.
Honda ATF is DEX 6 or something made by Newmarket, so it is cross compatible. Honda OEM PS fluid however, has a unique anti frothing agent, to prevent damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanneko
The problem with testing fuel, is it's long term, so I guess your car will be our test bed on the effects of long term ethanol use.
Of course Honda will allow you to use E10 because the damage won't occur within the warranty term, any issues after than you'll be buying Homda replacement parts, more money to them.
Remember shell e10 is a mix of 91 ULP + 10% ethanol (of which 6% is water), the 94 ron comes from the octane boosting effect of ethanol.
The knock sensor may prevent pinging, but remember your ECU is still tuned for 95ron +
Not necessarily. Honda specified a power steering hose that could fail under normal operating conditions. They are now paying dealers all over Australia money out of the company bank account in order to replace the components, even on vehicles that are well out of warranty.
If they say you can use E10, and you do, and it damages the car, then they have to replace your parts free of charge. Or at least, a decent lawyer could successfully argue that case.
The ps hose is another matter. the anti frothing agent is to prevent damage to the steering rack, a different part altogether.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuboy
Honda says you can use 95ron plus e10, not 94ron which is below the bare minnium fuel rating, e10 or not.
What I don't understand is how the 200kW V6 Aurion I've been driving regularly of late gets under 9 l/100km but my CL9 only gets 11.5l/100km at best. Same driver. Same roads. Same driving. And in the USA, the V6 version of the CU2 is listed as having better fuel economy than the I4.
Neither, especially because I have read from some American magazines that the TSX gets good fuel economy (I4)Quote:
Originally Posted by SPQR
Top Gear drove a Prius at top speed through their racecourse and got a BMW M5 (I think) to follow behind it, matching pace.
The Prius used way more fuel than the BMW despite the BMW having a thirstier engine. Smaller engines have to work harder to acheive the same performance.
That is true. Saw that as well (was an M3) but I don't drive with a heavy foot (whereas the Prius was flooring it the whole time). Out of curiousity, what sort of fuel consumption do you get on your 06 euro?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuboy
Generally, a bigger engine does not have to be worked as hard as a smaller engine to achieve the same performance, therefore less fuel is used. I say generally as my FD1 civic Auto averaged 6.83L/100km over 60,000km, yet my CU2 Auto is averaging 7.07L/100km over 37,500km. That is only a difference of 0.24L/100km. Figure that one out, I can't.