E10 petrol: What is it and can my car run it?

[Anglian]

Try Esso Synergy Supreme+ 99. It doesn't have any Ethanol in it except when sold in a few places (see Esso web site). My father and I run four cars that range from 28 years old to more recent. All run better on this zero ethanol petrol. There's a slight increase in economy and the overall performance is a bit better. However, in our older cars I think the absence of any ethanol is the key factor in making them smoother and more responsive. It's not available at all Esso petrol stations but where I fill-up it's only 3p a litre more than E10 95Ron, which is nothing when you consider the overall benefits. I've asked at other Esso stations if they will consider supplying it. I'm on a one man crusade to spread the word on this fuel (I don't work for Esso). Friends have switched over and are reporting that they sense there is a benefit in using it with smoother running engines that are a bit more lively.

 

Shell claim up to a 4% increase in performance over their 95 Ron, when when using their premium fuel – V Power. I imagine the test figures would be the same for the Esso fuel.

[DIW]

I had a recent missive from Discount MG Rover Spares (dmgrs<dot>co<dot>uk) regarding E10 in Rover and MG petrol engines from 1996. I had already come to the same conclusions based on the same engines used in Land Rovers of similar age, but it was nice to have it confirmed. (No connection except as a customer):

 

We've all seen the uproar the move to E10 petrol seems to have caused - so we thought we'd clear things up a little. 

It's worthy of note that while we've done a lot of research on the topic, the information below is put together purely as a 'helping hand' and your own judgment should be used.

It's no secret that MG Rover were a pioneering company and liked to 'push the envelope' when it came to technological advances - and the good news is that this approach was taken when it came to Ethanol-containing fuels too. 
Europe moved to E10 petrol many years ago, and with their finger on the pulse as usual MG Rover (along with Land Rover) made sure that all vehicles from 1996 onwards were compatible with E10. 
Land Rover have formally confirmed this on the Government website - however with MG Rover long gone there's no official way for the Government to confirm this and publish the information online. 

The good news is that Land Rover used the K Series and KV6 engine from 1996 in the Freelander - along with a very similar fuel system and many shared components. 
This, along with one of the ex-chief engineers for MG Rover confirming the compatibility of the new fuel when the UK launch was confirmed, means that any MG Rover from 1996 onwards will be absolutely fine to run on E10.

Any MG Rover made before 1996 is a trickier topic - while there weren't many changes made to the fuel system before and after this date, it's possible that the seals used aren't designed to be Ethanol-resistant.
We would recommend sticking with either E5 (Super unleaded will continue to be E5) or using a fuel-stabilising additive designed to help older cars run on E10 when filling.

Again, the information above is put together from the data available to us - but we are confident any MG Rover from 1996 onwards will be fine using E10.

I hope the above is helpful to someone.

I looked on their website to see if the message is posted there but I didn't find it amongst the guides.

 

 

[spamcan61]

1 hour ago, Sussex Yard said:

I actually phoned up Suzuki HQ & they checked with my reg/VIN number.

From there they could tell what carbs are in the bike & if it would work. Took less than 10 mins. Low & behold my little relic is fine with E10!!!

 

Might be worth anyone who owns a pre-2000 car/bike (carbed or FI) phoning up their local expert or manufacturer HQ just to confirm.

You can check most 'mainstream' vehicles via gov.uk but I imagine it gets trickier pre 2000:-

 

https://www.gov.uk/check-vehicle-e10-petrol

 

I just assumed my Avensis was E10 friendly being post 2000, then checked the above link after the fact and nearly had a coronary as Avensis not E10 friendly, then realised it was only referring to the 2.0 and 2.4 engines, not my puny 1.8. phew!

[alastairq]

1 hour ago, Anglian said:

However, in our older cars I think the absence of any ethanol is the key factor in making them smoother and more responsive.

On the contrary.

With older engine designs, there's a phenomenon known as cyclic variability which hampers 'good' running on modern petrol [all modern petrol differs greatly from the stuff sold up until the 70's or 80's]

The tests conducted by Manchester University as I've linked below, showed that old designs of engine run better on fuel which minimises the [adverse] effects of cyclic variability...The fuels concerned are the likes of the premium grades of petrol, and, surprisingly, E10 fuel.

We have had E5  for a decade or more, so many of the storage issues, and adverse effects on old style gasket & rubber materials ought to have been sorted by now, by owners.

 

https://www.veloce.co.uk/store/Classic-Engines-Modern-Fuel-The-Problems-the-Solutions-p151478624

The above is the full chapter & verse on all the findings as per Manchester Uni.....essential to understand what the linked website talks about.

 

https://classicenginesmodernfuel.org.uk/Clubs/ModernFuel/Book.aspx?DYN_MENU_MainMenu=1000001

 

Anyway, in the above, all is explained as to why on certain fuels, older engine designs run 'better' under normal traffic conditions....than they do on more commonly sold, basic fuels. Especially when compared to how they ran when they were 'new'...

Nought to do with ethanol, more to do with the fact today's fuel has little in common with fuel of the past, in terms of ingredients.

Edited August 24, 2021 by alastairq

[Nick C]

On 24/08/2021 at 12:23, Sussex Yard said:

I actually phoned up Suzuki HQ & they checked with my reg/VIN number.

From there they could tell what carbs are in the bike & if it would work. Took less than 10 mins. Low & behold my little relic is fine with E10!!!

 

Might be worth anyone who owns a pre-2000 car/bike (carbed or FI) phoning up their local expert or manufacturer HQ just to confirm.

Suzuki actually have a list on their website:

 

https://cars.suzuki.co.uk/contact-us/

 

Which is useful as we've got an '04 Ignis, which according to it's handbook only supports up to 5% ethanol, but that list says it is compatible with E10. 

[Phil Traxson]

Nice if you have a choice. Here in Porthmadog the 3 local, and others not too distant, have gone E10 with no Premium Grade E5 pumps. My nearest appears to be Bettws y Coed or way down the A55 close to Penmaenmawr or Llandudno (all are Shell stations). The fuel consumption on my  Suzuki based Trike has gone from "not great" to "rubbish" on the change although apart from this, so far, performance seems to be much the same. With only a 3.5 gallon tank my visits were pretty frequent anyway!!

Edit to say that I have found a supplier of E5 in Criccieth, on the main street too, only 3 miles away. Missed it because I usually use the promenade to pass through as it's not clogged with lorries and caravans (also no point in having a posey machine if I don't show it off!) 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Phil Traxson

[tigerburnie]

I have used the new fuel for a round trip of almost a thousand miles last week, I felt that we used less fuel for the trip, based on the very un scientific basis that the cost of fuel per litre has risen, but the cost of the journey was almost the same as my last trip down. Noticed no ill effects on the cars performance either.

[alastairq]

My local garage changed last week, displaying E10..but I suspect they may still be getting rid of the 'old' E5 in the tank still? 

[The wording of the labelling is..''up to E whatever '', which doesn't necessarily mean the fuel actually has that high percentage of ethanol.}

 

I usually only put around 20 pension-quids worth in anyway...[with modern petrol's ability to flash off at less than 30-odd degrees of temperature...losing between 15 & 20 % of volume due to low temp volatility of head end components.....I reckon, the less I pay for, to suit my immediate needs, the better?

 

Anyway, has anybody noticed whether the cheapo E10 petrol actually smells different to the old E5?

 

Or did I have something stuck up my nose, last time I filled up?

[Reorte]

31 minutes ago, alastairq said:

My local garage changed last week, displaying E10..but I suspect they may still be getting rid of the 'old' E5 in the tank still?

Wonder if that's why I saw a bit of a queue at the nearest petrol station last week? Didn't occur to me at the time but it could be people after whatever was in the tank still.

 

Not needed to fill my car up yet.

[phil-b259]

On 24/08/2021 at 13:04, Anglian said:

Try Esso Synergy Supreme+ 99. It doesn't have any Ethanol in it except when sold in a few places (see Esso web site). My father and I run four cars that range from 28 years old to more recent. All run better on this zero ethanol petrol. There's a slight increase in economy and the overall performance is a bit better. However, in our older cars I think the absence of any ethanol is the key factor in making them smoother and more responsive. It's not available at all Esso petrol stations but where I fill-up it's only 3p a litre more than E10 95Ron, which is nothing when you consider the overall benefits. I've asked at other Esso stations if they will consider supplying it. I'm on a one man crusade to spread the word on this fuel (I don't work for Esso). Friends have switched over and are reporting that they sense there is a benefit in using it with smoother running engines that are a bit more lively.

 

Shell claim up to a 4% increase in performance over their 95 Ron, when when using their premium fuel – V Power. I imagine the test figures would be the same for the Esso fuel.

 

You totally miss the point!

 

The reason E10 is now being pushed is the desire to emit less Co2 - ethanol can be produced from plants and technically is a 'renewable' fuel unlike oil derived fuels.

 

It doesn't matter 'how much better' zero ethanol fuel makes your car run or how many extra miles you do - the use of such oil based fuel is a contributor to climate change and consequently it needs to be reduced as much as possible.

 

E10 is a small step towards that - and one that will hopefully be replicated in time with an E15 grade etc....

 

 

 

 

[alastairq]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

t doesn't matter 'how much better' zero ethanol fuel makes your car run or how many extra miles you do - the use of such oil based fuel is a contributor to climate change and consequently it needs to be reduced as much as possible.

 

E10 is a small step towards that - and one that will hopefully be replicated in time with an E15 grade etc....

 

 

  ..................until we end up as in the USA, with E85.

 Also [I think I linked and mentioned this?]  your quote from Anglian mentions something that might be subjective in view..but isn't backed up by the Manchester University tests I mentioned...and that was, whilst old designs of engine performed better on some of today's ''super''  petrols[E5 or less]....due to their reducing the effect on running, of cyclic variation [basically, the hopping about that goes on, relative to the position of the pistons, by the actual explosion, or burn, of the fuel, made worse by modern petrol, known about for over a hundred years by engineers, sorted these days by ECUs].....which is sadly mostly apparent at the revs most drivers commonly use, IE below 3000 revs, for traffic reasons.

In addition [and ranked 3rd or so in the Test rankings of fuels] E10 also had the same effect on running at lower revs, as the premium fuels!  {They went to France and purchased several gallons of E10 form a forecourt, since none was generally, publicly, available in the Uk at the time of the tests.}

 

Indeed, an old trick for old [designs of] engine was to mix a percentage of paraffin in with the petrol, to reduce the cyclic variation.....this was shown to have a marginal effect only, in the Tests.....

 

I noted one report from a ''classic'' car owner, when filling with E10, that the engine started burping and farting afterwards? My first thoughts were, aside from dirt in the fuel system, that the fuel mixture was now too lean!!  Ethanol is known to have that effect on fuel mixtures...so if the mixture was set at stock, ex-factory [running on the fuel available at the time, to boot!!], then it will be 'out' when using today's fuel...and certainly 'out' when adding more ethanol.

 

Quite why folk don't think they ought to need to fiddle with fuel mixtures just because the poor souls elsewhere need to reduce the effects of global warming, I don't know!

If using an SU carb [or similar] then adjusting the mixture is straightforwardly simple.

If running fixed jets carbs, not so easy...unless one has a selection of model railway small drill bits, to slowly enlarge jet & emulsion sizes until the engine runs properly on E10.....?

  I'd be looking for an old-school rolling road operator, who has the requisite knowledge [and various jet sizes]....available, to run up a mixture & timing check, for E10 fuel.    Even if I was running a 1950's Ford Pop!

Factory settings from the 1940's simply won't do any more.

Folk started spending money [unwarranted for the most part, in my view] like water on hardened valve seats once we lost unleaded fuel.....[and risked them dropping out too??}    Now we'll see the panic stricken old car owners flocking for  the anti-ethanol magic potions galore.....instead of doing their research, and studying a bit more about what it is they own & drive??

 

Ethanol is here to stay.

So we need to stop pissflittering around and cope with it.

Edited September 6, 2021 by alastairq

[uax6]

Both my minors are quite happy running on E10, I've changed the hoses to R9 ones, and the one washer (!) in the carb that also needs changing. 

The fuel pumps should be ok, but a new spare will be bought just in case. 

The big question I have is what should I use as a seal on my jerry cans? Some have a flat bit of rubber that they close onto, what can i replace that with?

 

Andy G

[Bulleidboy100]

I shall continue to fill my wife's Volvo V40 1.8i Sport with E5 for as long as it is available. This is a 2004 model (bought from new) and is hardly ever used, 2019/20 annual mileage 309miles, 2020/21 =499miles. I read that E10 might not be good if a car lies idle for long periods - in our case it could be months. Local Shell station has pumps giving both E5 and E10.

[admiles]

21 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

You totally miss the point!

 

The reason E10 is now being pushed is the desire to emit less Co2 - ethanol can be produced from plants and technically is a 'renewable' fuel unlike oil derived fuels.

 

It doesn't matter 'how much better' zero ethanol fuel makes your car run or how many extra miles you do - the use of such oil based fuel is a contributor to climate change and consequently it needs to be reduced as much as possible.

 

E10 is a small step towards that - and one that will hopefully be replicated in time with an E15 grade etc....

 

 

 

 

All of which is fine unless it damages your vehicle or renders it useless. I guess it's the usual case of "if it doesn't affect me it's ok".

[admiles]

20 hours ago, alastairq said:

 

 

 

Ethanol is here to stay.

So we need to stop pissflittering around and cope with it.

 

Ok. Provide me with a new fuel tank and injectors for my three bikes, which are all unable to use E10 and above. 

[Nick C]

21 hours ago, alastairq said:

Quite why folk don't think they ought to need to fiddle with fuel mixtures just because the poor souls elsewhere need to reduce the effects of global warming, I don't know!

If using an SU carb [or similar] then adjusting the mixture is straightforwardly simple.

If running fixed jets carbs, not so easy...unless one has a selection of model railway small drill bits, to slowly enlarge jet & emulsion sizes until the engine runs properly on E10.....?

  I'd be looking for an old-school rolling road operator, who has the requisite knowledge [and various jet sizes]....available, to run up a mixture & timing check, for E10 fuel.    Even if I was running a 1950's Ford Pop!

Factory settings from the 1940's simply won't do any more.

Folk started spending money [unwarranted for the most part, in my view] like water on hardened valve seats once we lost unleaded fuel.....[and risked them dropping out too??}    Now we'll see the panic stricken old car owners flocking for  the anti-ethanol magic potions galore.....instead of doing their research, and studying a bit more about what it is they own & drive??

I think the problem isn't so much classic cars from the 60s and 70, which will just need a few hoses and gaskets changing (if they've not been done already), and the carbs tweaked. It's more of a problem with vehicles from the 80s and 90's, that started using a lot more plastics in the fuel systems - such as the tanks on @admiles bikes. That's somewhat harder to solve, but fairly easy to mitigate by keeping E5 available.

 

It's particularly important as many such vehicles are driven by the poorest in society, who can't afford to just go out and buy something newer - which is also why age-related low emissions zones are such a bad idea. 

[phil-b259]

41 minutes ago, admiles said:

All of which is fine unless it damages your vehicle or renders it useless. I guess it's the usual case of "if it doesn't affect me it's ok".

 

As has been demonstrated the vast majority of vehicles sold over the past 10 - 15 years will be perfectly fine with E10 fuel as manufacturers have known this move away from oil was coming. Some manufacturers have come forward saying even 20 year old cars are fine (Basically anything with electronic fuel injection should be fine as the engine can self compensate for the altered mix - the main issue is seals, gaskets and flexible pipes, some of which - made well over a decade ago - can potentially start to rot when exposed to high levels of ethanol).

 

I make no apologies for reiterating HUMAN POLLUTION IS DRIVING CLIMATE CHANGE and people need to stop sticking their heads in the sand over this. As a certain supermarkets catch phrase says 'every little helps' in this regard.

 

Fast forward another 5 years and yet more older vehicles will have come off the road and I would expect a move to E15 being relatively painless too.

 

If you chose to keep an old and more polluting car then you must expect to pay for the permillage - I fail to see what is so 'special' about motor vehicles compared to other 'Heritage' machinery where the use of outdated technology means running costs are high precisely because they cause harm to the environment and fuel is expensive.

 

As with coal for steam locomotives, 100% oil based fuels will continue to be available if you are really desperate to keep an old banger on the road or are a motor vehicle enthusiast looking to 'preserve' a particular vehicle.

 

 

[phil-b259]

49 minutes ago, Nick C said:

I think the problem isn't so much classic cars from the 60s and 70, which will just need a few hoses and gaskets changing (if they've not been done already), and the carbs tweaked. It's more of a problem with vehicles from the 80s and 90's, that started using a lot more plastics in the fuel systems - such as the tanks on @admiles bikes. That's somewhat harder to solve, but fairly easy to mitigate by keeping E5 available.

 

It's particularly important as many such vehicles are driven by the poorest in society, who can't afford to just go out and buy something newer - which is also why age-related low emissions zones are such a bad idea. 

 

E5 will cost more though - as with other tax rates this is to try and encourage the most polluting vehicles to be got rid of. As such low income earners will still be hit (just as Boris's plan to provide extra funding for social care by hiking national insurance has far more of an impact on the poor than the middle - high income earners) by the change and short of the Government giving them a grant towards a new vehicle there is not a lot that can be done about it.

 

When it comes to low emission zones it depends where you are. In places like London with a generally excellent public transport network and where poor air quality has been listed by a coroner as the cause of death for a child, seeking to ban older more polluting vehicles from the streets is an EXCELLENT IDEA. Where they fall down is in places where public transport provision is poor - but I'm not aware of this being an issue in places they have been introduced so far.

 

What people need to remember is the ability to drive a motor chicle is NOT a basic human right! Its a privilege which requires the owner / driver to abide by rules (be it obeying speed limits, having the vehicle insured or not emitting more than a certain level of pollution) to keep others safe.

Edited September 7, 2021 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, admiles said:

 

Ok. Provide me with a new fuel tank and injectors for my three bikes, which are all unable to use E10 and above. 

 

Nope.

 

Its your choice (within reason*) to keep using a polluting bike that is contributing more to climate change than others so its your responsibility to replace what is necessary / get a new one / pay extra (and thus hopefully use it less).

 

The change to E10 is not something drawn up on a whim - motor manufacturers have known this was the way things would head for over a decade and as such the majority of vehicles on the road will cope with no problems.

 

* There is a valid point about say a low income worker whose job involve anti-social hours or where public transport is not a viable option being hit disproportionality hard by the measure)

[PenrithBeacon]

I've now had two refills with E10 and fuel economy is definitely less than with E5. But the cost at the pump seems to be the same!

 

[Nick C]

24 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

What people need to remember is the ability to drive a motor chicle is NOT a basic human right! Its a privilege which requires the owner / driver to abide by rules (be it obeying speed limits, having the vehicle insured or not emitting more than a certain level of pollution) to keep others safe.

 

17 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

* There is a valid point about say a low income worker whose job involve anti-social hours or where public transport is not a viable option being hit disproportionality hard by the measure)

 

I'll just rebut your first point there with your second... The number of people running cars that will be affected by this because they choose to is fairly small, and they won't generally be doing much milage, so can afford to pay more for the fuel. It's those who drive older cars because they can't afford anything newer who will be hardest hit, and they're generally the ones who need them most, due to being unable to use public transport to get to work. I'll quote an example from this BBC article on proposals for tolls on the M4 in South Wales:

Quote

Councillor Sam Trask, chairman of Rhondda Cynon Taf Conservatives, was one of those asked to complete the survey.

"I drive a nine-year-old diesel car and, were I able to afford one, I'd already be driving a less-polluting car. I feel that if the Welsh government are going to charge me to use a road that I normally use twice a day to go back and forth to work, then they're actually going to put that aspiration even further out of reach and I'm going to be even less likely to be able to afford a better car."

 

I'll certainly agree that something needs to be done - but taxing the poorest isn't the answer. Instead it needs someone to think of the system as a whole - improve public transport (especially in areas outside the cities) - this doesn't just mean more of it (which obviously costs money), but also more co-ordination, so that, for example, someone can feasibly get the bus to the station and know it will connect with the train, or indeed that they are able to use public transport both to get to work and to come back. Increase remote working (i.e. don't force people back to the office) for those who can, to reduce the numbers of people commuting, and thus congestion - this in turn makes it easier for those who do have to commute. Make sure there are safe walking routes for kids to get to school, and buses for those over 3 miles, and then ban the 'school run' - and enforce it - judging by the traffic levels round here on schooldays that alone would make a huge difference.

 

And if you still want to tax particular vehicles in cities - make it SUVs. There is no need for them in a city, and they cause more congestion, and more pollution, than a sensible-sized car. 

[spamcan61]

On 06/09/2021 at 14:24, tigerburnie said:

I have used the new fuel for a round trip of almost a thousand miles last week, I felt that we used less fuel for the trip, based on the very un scientific basis that the cost of fuel per litre has risen, but the cost of the journey was almost the same as my last trip down. Noticed no ill effects on the cars performance either.

I've covered about 800 miles over the last 3 weeks on E10, trip computer showing around 42 mpg per tank compared with typical 40 mpg on E5. Obviously not super scientific given varying ambient temperature and traffic levels, but certainly no major change in fuel economy.

[admiles]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Nope.

 

Its your choice (within reason*) to keep using a polluting bike that is contributing more to climate change than others so its your responsibility to replace what is necessary / get a new one / pay extra (and thus hopefully use it less).

 

The change to E10 is not something drawn up on a whim - motor manufacturers have known this was the way things would head for over a decade and as such the majority of vehicles on the road will cope with no problems.

 

* There is a valid point about say a low income worker whose job involve anti-social hours or where public transport is not a viable option being hit disproportionality hard by the measure)

 

And your response backs up perfectly what I said earlier to a tee.  I had absolutely zero choice as you put it. This change has been pushed on to us after the bikes have been purchased not before.  

 

If it were you facing losing many thousands of pounds of treasured possessions that you've carefully maintained for many years I suspect you'd feel different.

Edited September 7, 2021 by admiles

[phil-b259]

5 minutes ago, Nick C said:

 

 

I'll just rebut your first point there with your second... The number of people running cars that will be affected by this because they choose to is fairly small, and they won't generally be doing much milage, so can afford to pay more for the fuel. It's those who drive older cars because they can't afford anything newer who will be hardest hit, and they're generally the ones who need them most, due to being unable to use public transport to get to work. I'll quote an example from this BBC article on proposals for tolls on the M4 in South Wales:

 

 

This is the nub of the issue - BUT how exactly do you propose to somehow protect low income people who really do demand on their cars while at the same time increasing costs for the well off who could switch to a less polluting mode / method of transport?

 

Improvements to public transport as welcome as they are can only take you so far - radial journeys in the suburbs are harder to cater for than journeys to a central hub while shift work or part time working patterns also make public transport less viable.

 

To achieve true modal shift you also need to make motoring a much much more expensive option and public transport cheaper as the ability to travel in your own private space, furnished (for want of a better word) to your individual tastes and going exactly the way you want is ALWAYS going to appeal more than other modes. That is obviously not going to go down well with the middle income voter base that has the most influence over which party ends up in power...

 

Hence why the Governments key strategy for tacking climate change is not to make people use their cars less (freezing fuel duty while increasing rail fares at inflation + 1% being an obvious giveaway) - its to lower and then remove the CO2 (and other atmospheric pollutants) by tweaking the fuel mix and then pushing electric / battery / hydrogen as the long term solution.

 

 

[alastairq]

3 hours ago, Bulleidboy100 said:

I read that E10 might not be good if a car lies idle for long periods - in our case it could be months. Local Shell station has pumps giving both E5 and E10.

 Won't be much worse than leaving E5 in the tank really.   That's the problem with all modern petrols freely available. They have a very short shelf life.