Anyone use Etanol E10 fuel for the Euro?? Cheap cheap cheap fuel
Printable View
Anyone use Etanol E10 fuel for the Euro?? Cheap cheap cheap fuel
With E10 you use about 3% more fuel and you lose a similar amount of power. Here in canberra it is about 2% cheaper for E10 so in fact it DEARER to use E10 AND you get less power. Nuff said.
So if E10 was say 10% cheaper I "might" use it but probably not.
Ethanol is a scam imo, you pay big dollars for 100octane, but its cheaper to manufacturer than 98RON.
Even if the fuel companies adjusted the pricing, I still wouldnt use it. The Euro's performance orientated engine likes decent fuel.
the way i look at it , you have a newish car (assume paid / paying big money for it) -
why scamp on its fuel ?
i have a 13 yr old civic but i use nothing but 98 octane :) So treat it well :)
I used to use it in my 01 lancer and it was ok but got heaps worse milage in the Euro.
Most people have said they lose mileage with ethanol fuel to the point of diminishing return.
What everyone above me has posted pretty well sums it up,E10 :thumbdwn:
I found no issues with running the fuel..... Same mileage....
You've used 95RON E10 in your Euro?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Peekay34
There's also 98RON E10 at some servo's. That was what I used if I did use E10
I have nothing against E10 but at 3c/ltr.cheaper and getting approx.3% less distance/ltrs/100kms.i figure whats the point!
When I was having my EJ1, I notice that the engine likes 95 RON better.... you might want to test that out.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennjamin
With the Euro, I try to use Caltex 98 or VPower 98... sometimes no choice have to use those 95 RON.
I think some old engines perform better with leaded petrol too....
I also use Caltex 98.Notice a bit of diff. between 98 v 95.Not sure if its in the mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by tron07
what he said, treat your car like yourself you wouldnt want to be eating cheap dirty food would you ? =) my car eats better petrol then i eat my own food =/Quote:
Originally Posted by bennjamin
I use EGEN (10% ethanol), I didn't change to ethanol to save 3c but it is apparently healthier for the environment. Higher consumption rate (ZOMG extra $1 per week!) + loss of power (ZOMG 20 seconds late!) > environment?
I admit I could do more for the environment but believe it or not, every little bit does help.
lol i sound like such a hippie haha.
the E10Ron95 sucks. car is lethargic and if u do more city driving, the fuel consumption is surprisingly bad. i used abt 10-15% more fuel on E10ron95 then on the normal ron95.Quote:
Originally Posted by tron07
Actually, E10 fuel takes more energy to produce and also produces more greenhouse gases in the process. The fermentation produces CO2, while the refining of ethanol from the resulting mulch uses a lot of heat. The heat is generated either from electricity generated from coal burning (which produces pollution and greenhouse gases) or from direct heating by burning the remaining dried husk from the sugar cane, which also produces pollution (black smoke) and greenhouse gases).Quote:
Originally Posted by cutchorama
The valid reason for E10 is that there is less tax on it for that 10% of ethanol. Those savings, you won't see much of it in the end when you are paying at the bowser.
Alcohol does take more energy to create mainly because it is a renewable energy source, unlike oil. ethanol.org, Science Journal January 2006 claims that burning of ethanol emits a similar net amount of carbon dioxide but less carbon monoxide than gasoline. Carbon monoxide is the toxic pollution that cars and trucks give off. The CO2 (carbon dioxide) is needed for trees and plants for photosynthesis which creates more fruit to ferment.
I know too much carbon dioxide is bad for the environment but so is carbon monoxide.
But in Australia, they are using electricity produced from coal to produce that ethanol. So a non-renewable source is still being consumed.Quote:
Originally Posted by cutchorama
I don't see enough trees being planted in areas where most of the traffic occurs (in the city). :) Carbon dioxide isn't going to transfer itself to areas with sufficient trees.
Carbon monoxide is also produced during coal burning. In fact, more carbon monoxide is produced to make your 50 or so litres of E10 fuel than the amount saved by using E10 instead of pure petrol. :)
**** it, im buying a smart car lol
It's all propaganda. The reason why they are pushing for E10 is because it is taxed less. That means lower cost and higher profits for the oil companies. If they quote Brazil as a successful implementation of ethanol fuel (E85 there), it's false, because there is a shortage of E85. Why? Because the farmers rather sell their cane sugar to consumable alcohol producers for more profit!
Don't worry about how E10 will save the world. Enjoy your car, but don't go overboard by buying a car that consumes fuel like air.
But like all new things, technology develops. Instead of using fossil fuels to ferment the alcohol solar, wind or water energy could be used, just alot more starting expenses. If it wasn't a negative sum energy would you use it then?
If your going to use ethanol fuel, only use good branded fuels like shell or BP... United don't blend their ethanol fuel correctly, so it separates in your tank, totally screws your engine... Just some advice :D
That's the thing. In other countries, they use renewable resources or nuclear power to produce electricity. Over here, we're still coal-powered, so it makes no sense saying that ethanol produces less carbon monoxide/carbon dioxide when it clearly does produce more of those gases during production. I reckon it's misleading.Quote:
Originally Posted by cutchorama
I just feels it takes the pollution less on the responsibility of the end consumer and more on the oil companies producing it. It is still not clearly defined if producing ethanol uses more fossil fuels or not though BUT it is evident the more ethanol produced gains scales of production. That is why brasil is able to produce so much ethanol and not incur this supposed negative energy. Even if the energy balance were negative, the production involves mostly domestic fuels such as natural gas and coal so the need for non-Australian petroleum would be reduced. This means alot of the fuels from middle-east price fixing oil companies would be less valuable because we are using Queensland coal.
I just read this from RAA too:
"Until recently, ethanol was an attractive fuel-extender because it was exempt from fuel excise, giving ethanol a 38cpl tax advantage over petrol. The government now applies a 38cpl tax on to ethanol." Ethanol is not a tax incentive, it is now taxed the same in Australia as petrol.
Ahh, I see, so there is no more tax exemption on ethanol.
Natural gas and coal are still non-renewable resources. Coal produces more carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide when combusted to produce electricity. From an environmental standpoint, the benefits of 10% of ethanol is negated by the burning of coal.
Of course, if they used natural gas in the production of ethanol, then that would be better.
Guys,
I wasn't advocating that I would use Ethanol loaded fuel I was just asking if you guys knew what the official Honda viewpoint was?
I have used both 95 and 98 Octane fuels from both Shell and Caltex and like Tony I'm not sure there was a noticeable difference. I certainly don't want to use anything less than 95 Octane and I'm not scrimping for the savings of a few cents. It was more the fact that I certainly would not consider using Ethanol loaded fuel even if only 10% if Honda had a recommendation against it due to potential longer term engine issues. I will simply stick to Caltex and use 95 most of the time with an occasional 98 tankfull.
Cheers :wave:
It's actually stated on Honda Australia's website under "Owners" and then clicking on "Fuel". http://www.honda.com.au/wps/wcm/conn...e/Owners/Fuel/Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Star
If I were you, if you can't tell a difference, just use 95 octane. Using the occasional tankful of 98 is not enough to clean out your engine. :)
It also says on the fuel flap on the inside you can use up to
E10 fuel.
I used to mix Toluene (methylbenzene) at 25% by volume with ULP in the days when PULP wasn't available in Darwin. It would boost the octane rating to about 98 RON. I'd use it in my Mazda GT-X for track days. The stuff is highly toxic though. It is known in the State of California to cause cancer so I don't recommend it. It probably is no longer available to the public because it's an ingredient of TNT.
Toluene is used as an anti-knock/octane booster in petrol. Of course it'll work in your car. :)
This is from yesterday's papers.. not that its related, but interesting reading. Chinese call it "tai lik yuen" aka power or strong pill.
Mothball additive in tanks gives fuel for thought
Email Print Normal font Large font Gerard Ryle
August 8, 2007
Page 1 of 2 | Single page
Advertisement
AdvertisementTo contact the reporter: gryle@smh.com.au
ONE of the secret ingredients in a fuel pill that has helped underpin multimillion-dollar sponsorships in three sporting codes can be revealed - and it's the same compound used in mothballs.
The pills, which promise to improve fuel consumption and reduce harmful emissions when added to a tank of fuel, are marketed by Firepower, sponsor of the Sydney Kings basketball team, the South Sydney Rabbitohs rugby league team and the Western Force rugby union team in Perth.
Investigations by the Herald have led to three inquiries into Firepower, which is estimated to have raised between $10 million and $100 million from about 1200 investors, including many sports stars.
Now independent university tests carried out for the Herald reveal what goes into the company's most high-profile product, the Firepower Pill.
One of the main ingredients in the Western Force-branded pill is a naphthalene compound, a toxin with the familiar smell once found in sock drawers.
Naphthalene mothballs have been used by car enthusiasts as a homemade octane booster for decades. The practice was common enough that the television program Mythbusters gave it a try in 2004. But scientists warn that too many mothballs will load up an engine with carbon deposits and lead to poor performance.
The Texas attorney-general last year shut down a company called BioPerformance that was selling naphthalene-based fuel pills to US consumers. It had promised the pills would cut fuel consumption and emissions. Tests by the Texas regulator found this was untrue and BioPerformance eventually agreed to repay consumers $US7 million ($8.1 million).
A spokesman for Firepower would not comment yesterday other than to say it no longer used the naphthalene compound.
The pills tested were obtained in February. But the tests revealed another controversial ingredient - a metallic compound called ferrocene. It is also well known to the fuel industry and has been used, mainly in Russia and China, as an octane booster to replace lead.
The International Organisation for Standardisation, which sets the global standards for fuel, recommends ferrocene not be used in fuel as it causes iron deposits to build up on spark plugs over distances as little as 5000 kilometres, causing misfiring engines and bad acceleration.
im still confused so does that mean i can like go buy mothballs and dump some balls down my petrol tank ?:confused:
The mothball trick was an old trick. Might have worked with older lead petrol, but probably not with today's unleaded.
With a bit of research, Ethanol is actually not bad at all.
Ethanol is manufactured meaning oil companies would not make money from it. Not only does it produce more power (100 RON), is better for our environtment but it is alot cheaper too.
As a matter of fact, cars in brazil run on 100% ethanol. Some cars around the wold including this ford taurus in NEW YORK run on 100% ethanol. Countries that cannot afford oil rely on these manufactured type oils or electric cars. This also means oil companies would not be getting the profit.
Oil cartels do not have control over these manufactured oils. This is a threat to their business. And like every other product that has threatened their business, they spend alot of money to discredit it.
myth busted.
mothball theory was on myth busters for those who seen it.
I agree. Yet to see anyones car stuff up due to use of ethanol. All E-Mechanics on here think they know everything.
lol @:
1. the mustache on that guy from myth busters
2. the term "E-Mechanics"
I hate the idea oil companies can just buy out and boycott more efficient and productive fuels. What ever happened to the electric car? There was some doco called "who killed the electric car?" I should really watch.
^ you got torrents?
you can actgually download it there :)
My copy should be finished by now... thanks for reminding me!
some interesting 'facts' http://www.friendsofethanol.com/facts.html
U need to be careful when using E10 in a 95RON engine, most E10 is under 95RON, so it could causing pinging or even engine damage.
Do what I do, get half a tank of E10 mixed with half 98RON lol
Whats Etanol anyway?
Why are E10 95 RON fuels below the actual 95 RON rating? If they were, they wouldn't be labelled 95 RON.Quote:
Originally Posted by EuroDude
Why waste your time mixing half and half? Just go full 98 or full non-ethanol 95.
BTW, check out the Sydney Euro meet thread in Upcoming events.
He means ethanol,typo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntzu
Wouldn't you be better getting the PULP (95) ??Quote:
Originally Posted by EuroDude
The amount you save from combing the 2 would be about the same :S
couple of dollars is not going to make much difference.
will prob lose out on some power too.
think of the big picture.
rofl suntzuQuote:
Originally Posted by Suntzu
Lol. Talking about stating the obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony1234
i was being a smart arse as usual is all.;)
From the Mobil site:Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
"The octane in Mobil E10 Unleaded is typically above 93 RON"
The Euro engine needs at least 95RON.
Why do I mix?
- to ensure the fuel is at least 95RON
- the car runs smooth on ethanol
- the cleaning agents in 98RON are better than 95RON
- Overall cheaper than plain 95RON
I heart my fuel card.
Go use BP's 95 RON ethanol blend. That is advertised as a 95 RON.Quote:
Originally Posted by EuroDude