Have just spent a small fortune having service work done on my tug prior to trip to Darwin and the Gulf country, following my discussion with the mechanics (3) all agreed that there are some expensive costs to running with E10 petrol as it attracts moisture (water) and causes damage to fuel tanks and fuel system as well as the Platinum plugs that I run and if like me running mostly on LPG the petrol can sit in the tank for extended periods of time.
They have recommended running on petrol that does not contain methanol and not having more than half tank when not essential, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts especially when one of the major motoring organisations is promoting it in this months magazine.
brian said
02:45 PM Mar 14, 2014
Absolutely correct about its hygroscopic tendencies.
Added to its ability to destroy various types of seals, it is really just not worth the couple of cents per litre that you save to chance using it.
Not recommended for boat usage due to it absorbing moisture which could see you stranded, and not recommended for 2 strokes period, plus the other disadvantages, why the heck are we even persisting with this stuff other than to ease some politicians' green conciences.
native pepper said
03:06 PM Mar 14, 2014
aussietraveller wrote:
Have just spent a small fortune having service work done on my tug prior to trip to Darwin and the Gulf country, following my discussion with the mechanics (3) all agreed that there are some expensive costs to running with E10 petrol as it attracts moisture (water) and causes damage to fuel tanks and fuel system as well as the Platinum plugs that I run and if like me running mostly on LPG the petrol can sit in the tank for extended periods of time.
They have recommended running on petrol that does not contain methanol and not having more than half tank when not essential, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts especially when one of the major motoring organisations is promoting it in this months magazine.
It's ethanol which is in the petrol, not methanol which is very different. Ethanol is not harmful but methanol is extremely dangerous to use and handle. I work with it and you don't want to get anywhere near the fumes, or have hem i an enclosed area if you want to keep your health.
The reason they are using ethanol is because they are trying to preserve fossil fuels, but it's the wrong approach and unless you have an engine designed for ethanol, it will cause lots of problems. In the next couple of years, fuel will become very expensive and scarce. We passed peak oil at the end of last century, now it is winding down and the reserves they are quoting are either in shale or so hard to extract, the cost is prohibitive. That's why oil companies are selling their refineries, no further use and they want to get rid of them before they have to clean up the disastrous mess they have created.
Aus-Kiwi said
04:17 PM Mar 14, 2014
Yes I wouldn't intirly blame E10 .. It's basically mentholated spirits. If anything it helps clean your fuel lines . Stall fuel tends to gum up when it's not circulating . Some systems start on fuel to prevent this. Even bore E10 came out this was a problem.. Now every fuel problem is blamed on E10.. All my cars are either supercharged or turbo and they have tuning ability to run on it.. I usually fill E10 and 95 on opposing fuel fills.. I wouldn't leave E10 in tank for long. I would run it to clean system though!! Due to its cleaning properties it can clean varnish off lines etc , blocking filters.. So I guess use it often or not at all!,
Friar Park said
04:44 PM Mar 14, 2014
I have a '94 ED falcon wagon had it since Feb 1993 never run it on anything other than United 91 plus (Ethanol additive) never had a problem. Sorry if that's contradictory to other theories, but that is fact.
-- Edited by Friar Park on Friday 14th of March 2014 04:46:03 PM
Aus-Kiwi said
05:31 PM Mar 14, 2014
E10 is around 94 octane .
-- Edited by Aus-Kiwi on Friday 14th of March 2014 05:32:18 PM
Cloak said
06:20 PM Mar 14, 2014
Same here Friar I've used E10 from United on all my cars for the last 10 - 12 years.
Currently running a tank of 91RON through the EF to see what happens, so far exactly the same.
Then again I'm in Melbourne so the E10 supply chain is very short, may not sit around long enough anywhere to absorb the H2O they talk about.
Perhaps it's a problem in the outback or up north?
KevKim37 said
10:53 PM Mar 14, 2014
I know of two Toyota Camry's one a 1997 and the other a 2000 that have been running on E10 for approx 6 to 7 years without a problem. These vehicles are serviced regularly
and have better Fuel economy all round with No Loss of Power or Performance. The spark plugs used have been Platinums and Std type showing NO signs of Excessive wear and
Run cleaner than when we used to run Unleaded Fuel.
Cheers Kev.
Fried Rice said
01:27 PM Mar 15, 2014
Google search on E10/Car makers will inform which models might use E10. I had a 2007 Mazda 626 which was approved, Felicity's 323 (2003) is not. I believe later models are.
Of course manufacturer's approval is more meaningful.
Fried Rice.
peterblack said
05:06 AM Mar 16, 2014
I bought anew i30 wagon in October 12 and kia cerato july 13 and they said u can use e10 buy don't so wat does that mean who is right when driving out west in a 93 Toyota corolla some towns had e10 we used that and she is still going ok I think
-- Edited by peterblack on Sunday 16th of March 2014 05:07:02 AM
oldbobsbus said
08:17 AM Mar 16, 2014
Friar Park wrote:
I have a '94 ED falcon wagon had it since Feb 1993 never run it on anything other than United 91 plus (Ethanol additive) never had a problem. Sorry if that's contradictory to other theories, but that is fact.
-- Edited by Friar Park on Friday 14th of March 2014 04:46:03 PM
How didya get a 94 wagon in Feb 93..
Friar Park said
12:25 PM Mar 16, 2014
Yeah your right Bob, seniors moment should have been 2003
Have just spent a small fortune having service work done on my tug prior to trip to Darwin and the Gulf country, following my discussion with the mechanics (3) all agreed that there are some expensive costs to running with E10 petrol as it attracts moisture (water) and causes damage to fuel tanks and fuel system as well as the Platinum plugs that I run and if like me running mostly on LPG the petrol can sit in the tank for extended periods of time.
They have recommended running on petrol that does not contain methanol and not having more than half tank when not essential, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts especially when one of the major motoring organisations is promoting it in this months magazine.
Absolutely correct about its hygroscopic tendencies.
Added to its ability to destroy various types of seals, it is really just not worth the couple of cents per litre that you save to chance using it.
Not recommended for boat usage due to it absorbing moisture which could see you stranded, and not recommended for 2 strokes period, plus the other disadvantages, why the heck are we even persisting with this stuff other than to ease some politicians' green conciences.
It's ethanol which is in the petrol, not methanol which is very different. Ethanol is not harmful but methanol is extremely dangerous to use and handle. I work with it and you don't want to get anywhere near the fumes, or have hem i an enclosed area if you want to keep your health.
The reason they are using ethanol is because they are trying to preserve fossil fuels, but it's the wrong approach and unless you have an engine designed for ethanol, it will cause lots of problems. In the next couple of years, fuel will become very expensive and scarce. We passed peak oil at the end of last century, now it is winding down and the reserves they are quoting are either in shale or so hard to extract, the cost is prohibitive. That's why oil companies are selling their refineries, no further use and they want to get rid of them before they have to clean up the disastrous mess they have created.
I have a '94 ED falcon wagon had it since Feb 1993 never run it on anything other than United 91 plus (Ethanol additive) never had a problem. Sorry if that's contradictory to other theories, but that is fact.
-- Edited by Friar Park on Friday 14th of March 2014 04:46:03 PM
E10 is around 94 octane .
-- Edited by Aus-Kiwi on Friday 14th of March 2014 05:32:18 PM
Currently running a tank of 91RON through the EF to see what happens, so far exactly the same.
Then again I'm in Melbourne so the E10 supply chain is very short, may not sit around long enough anywhere to absorb the H2O they talk about.
Perhaps it's a problem in the outback or up north?
I know of two Toyota Camry's one a 1997 and the other a 2000 that have been running on E10 for approx 6 to 7 years without a problem. These vehicles are serviced regularly
and have better Fuel economy all round with No Loss of Power or Performance. The spark plugs used have been Platinums and Std type showing NO signs of Excessive wear and
Run cleaner than when we used to run Unleaded Fuel.
Cheers Kev.
Google search on E10/Car makers will inform which models might use E10. I had a 2007 Mazda 626 which was approved, Felicity's 323 (2003) is not. I believe later models are.
Of course manufacturer's approval is more meaningful.
Fried Rice.
I bought anew i30 wagon in October 12 and kia cerato july 13 and they said u can use e10 buy don't
so wat does that mean who is right
when driving out west in a 93 Toyota corolla some towns had e10 we used that and she is still going ok I think
-- Edited by peterblack on Sunday 16th of March 2014 05:07:02 AM
How didya get a 94 wagon in Feb 93..
Yeah your right Bob, seniors moment should have been 2003
Friar