Has Anyone Used E10 in a 95 RON Engine

[Diesel_vert]

Point taken. I have advised the parents to continue using standard PULP.

Thanks for the advice.

Generally, the best way to minimise overall running costs over the long term is to adhere to the manufacturer's requirements.

The manufacturer gives you a few options in regards to fuel choice, so your parents could try filling up with premium unleaded (95 RON) for a month, then fill up with super unleaded (98 RON) the next month, and so on. They can then calculate which fuel is better value.

The margin of error decreases the longer they perform the experiment.

put good fuel in it.

Good fuel is fuel that is suitable or compatible with the engine.

...

In regards to general upkeep, maintenance and servicing costs, going above and beyond the manufacturer's requirements does not necessarily equate to lower running costs. It will depend on how the operator uses their machinery and the conditions it is used in.

Ladies and gentlemen, start your calculators.

[Amalgam]

This E10 95 RON seems like a trap for the less well informed.

At face value, it appears to meet all of the manufacturers the requirements, yet there is the subtle difference of a RON enhanced ULP and true PULP.

Thanks for sharing the wisdom of the forum.

[Diesel_vert]

This E10 95 RON seems like a trap for the less well informed.

At face value, it appears to meet all of the manufacturers the requirements, yet there is the subtle difference of a RON enhanced ULP and true PULP.

Thanks for sharing the wisdom of the forum.

I think the vehicle manufacturers try not to overload the consumer with technical information, so they only state the minimum RON the vehicle requires. In reality though, it's a bit more complicated than that.

The major fuel companies like BP, Caltex, Mobil & Shell all advertise their regular unleaded E10 as 91 RON, even though the typical RON figure lies between 93-95.

If you ask the fuel companies, I bet they won't recommend using regular unleaded E10 for vehicles that require premium unleaded, because they know regular unleaded E10 has a MON (motor octane number) between 81-83. This is below the required standard for premium unleaded, which specifies a minimum MON of 85 - both here and in Europe - and is what the engineers base their decisions on when designing the vehicle.

United Petroleum though, advertise their 'Unleaded E10' product as having a RON of 95 - which may well be the case - but it's not a bona fide premium unleaded fuel, as strictly defined by European and Australian fuel standards. I think it's concerning that some fuel companies or retailers don't make this abundantly clear.


I have nothing against ethanol blended fuels in general - the only reason I don't recommend using regular unleaded E10 is because it has a MON figure below what is specified for vehicles that require premium unleaded.

[Sunny43.5]

I won,t go into tech details but I was told by someone in the fuel industry that there is at best minimum testing of fuel ron quality ie meeting standards and levels stated . He claimed only one company regularly tested the fuel others rarely did , this would explain why my T5 petrol van reacts to different companies fuel .If I run one companies fuel the van is fine then I fill from another company same RON and I get an engine warning light strange that one . The light goes out if filled from the other company again .

[Diesel_vert]

In the case of regular unleaded or regular unleaded E10, all they have to ensure is that the RON doesn't fall below 91, which is pretty easy because the ethanol content raises the RON by 2-4 points, and the MON by 1-2 points.

Fuel companies are by no means required to guarantee it will have a RON higher than 91. What they basically say is, "typically 93 or 94 RON, but always 91 RON or higher".

United Petroleum, however, goes a step further and actually states their 'Unleaded E10' fuel is 95 RON, but I don't see how they can guarantee that. It amounts to false advertising IMO.

And even if is guaranteed to have a RON of 95, it will only have a MON between 81-83, so it still isn't recommended for vehicles that require premium unleaded (especially turbocharged engines).

[ido09s]

I have used E10 in my Tiguan by accident once and found it ran fine. Sure i didnt go giving it a hard time, but there was no sign of rough running or any warning lights that came up on the dash. Given VW dont recommend it i wouldnt do it again, but if the sticker said i could use it i would use it all the time

I do find it strange though that everyone comments on the usage of it that probably outweighs the savings. I ran my 2007 Civic only on E10 and found it went extremely well and had exceptional fuel economy. I tried running half a dozen tanks of 95, to make sure the ECU adjusted, and found it was a waste of time as the fuel economy was no better and it didnt feel to go any better either so just kept using E10. This model Civic is ok with E10 per the fuel flap sticker

[Diesel_vert]

I have used E10 in my Tiguan by accident once and found it ran fine. Sure i didnt go giving it a hard time, but there was no sign of rough running or any warning lights that came up on the dash. Given VW dont recommend it i wouldnt do it again, but if the sticker said i could use it i would use it all the time

I do find it strange though that everyone comments on the usage of it that probably outweighs the savings. I ran my 2007 Civic only on E10 and found it went extremely well and had exceptional fuel economy. I tried running half a dozen tanks of 95, to make sure the ECU adjusted, and found it was a waste of time as the fuel economy was no better and it didnt feel to go any better either so just kept using E10. This model Civic is ok with E10 per the fuel flap sticker

The manufacturer (Volkswagen AG) states that E10 is suitable, but you need to use premium unleaded E10, not regular unleaded E10.

The situation in Australia regarding the use of ethanol blends is unclear and confusing at the moment.

The manufacturer (Volkswagen AG) states that E10 is suitable for all models (with few exceptions). Likewise, the Australian subsidiary (Volkswagen Group Australia) has indicated to the FCAI (Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries) that E10 suitable as well.

However, Volkswagen Group Australia then state on their own website that E10 is not recommended (but doesn't state it isn't suitable). It sends contradictory and confusing messages to the consumer. If VGA thinks it isn't suitable, they should make it absolutely crystal clear and prohibit its use.

[wai]

The situation in Australia regarding the use of ethanol blends is unclear and confusing at the moment.

It certainly is.

In NSW. there is a mandated substitution with bio-fuel required. Basically, the oil companies must ensure that a minimum percentage of bio-fuel is shipped from their depots. This sees SULP blended with 10% ethanol. If the mandated percentage is not met, then there are fines of $100,000 that can be applied.

While there are some fuels being sold that are PULP with 10% ethanol, the major oil companies are currently only offering E10 based on SULP only.

With the mandated substitution, if not enough SULP with ethanol is not sold, then service stations can shut down PULP pumps to force motorists to use E10. Failing that, they can start blending PULP with ethanol.

The other issue is that in NSW, E10 is only available in the major metropolitan areas. It is not available in regional centres or rural areas. As a result, you cannot have your vehicle tuned to use E10 if you are then going to travel to areas where it is not available.

There are major issues with E10, and it is even uncertain as to whether we can produce enough E10 should motorists embrace it. Further, the whole notion of E10 was to help cane farmers, however by far the greatest amount of ethanol is produced by distilling wheat. Cane based E10 barely keeps pace with those using E10 in Brisbane.

The NSW government HAD to keep the mandated level despite all the advice they received because the previous government had made commitments to the distillers. They were going to ban SULP, but this was abandoned following an outcry, however the mandated percentage is still something the oil companies must meet.

[Amalgam]

The local United stocks ULP 91 RON, E10 95 RON, P100 PULP 100 RON.

When I asked where the PULP 95 RON was, I was told that E10 95 RON was the replacement and United was phasing out PULP both 95 & 98 RON.

I filled up elsewhere.

[Diesel_vert]

It certainly is...

...

I was more referring to the situation (confusion) created by Volkswagen Group Australia in regards to their stance on E10 blends.

The VW consumer needs to know whether their vehicles are suitable for E10 in the first instance, before we actually get into discussing the pros and cons of E10 blends, and/or the politics.

The local United stocks ULP 91 RON, E10 95 RON, P100 PULP 100 RON.

When I asked where the PULP 95 RON was, I was told that E10 95 RON was the replacement and United was phasing out PULP both 95 & 98 RON.

I filled up elsewhere.

Assuming that E10 is suitable (as per the manufacturer), you can fill up with premium unleaded E10, which United Petroleum sell under the name of 'Premium 98 with ethanol', though I'll leave it up to you and your parents on whether it's worth it.