RE: Government ponders E10 petrol for 2021
Discussion
jsf said:
Doesn't add much power but you can see decent torque improvements with more alcohol.
I make my own E20 fuel mix when competing in sprints that allow unlimited fuels, using methanol rather than ethanol. I cant justify expensive race fuel and this is the cheapest good alternative.
Lets me add upto 6 degrees more ignition mid range which adds about 65 ftlb torque (from 435 to 500) and 20 BHP on a 2.1 litre.
I run a pretty high compression ratio so the Methanol makes a significant difference.
Need more alcohol - I get 80hp gain over 99RON on a 2.5T 10:1 engine. 10% Methanol, 40% Ethanol allowing MBT everywhere. For cheap race fuel Ethanol is fantastic.I make my own E20 fuel mix when competing in sprints that allow unlimited fuels, using methanol rather than ethanol. I cant justify expensive race fuel and this is the cheapest good alternative.
Lets me add upto 6 degrees more ignition mid range which adds about 65 ftlb torque (from 435 to 500) and 20 BHP on a 2.1 litre.
I run a pretty high compression ratio so the Methanol makes a significant difference.
We (as in society) need to just over it and adapt, change is coming if we like it or not. Increased biofuel fractions help keep us in combustion vehicles for longer and help with emissions. If your >15yr old banger 'might' have an issue on E10 then tough, take the opportunity to run something a bit newer before we are forced electric!
The US were running cars in the 80s on 85 Methanol, China manage it, Brazil on 25%-100% Ethanol for years. The concerns of alcohol are well known and can be mitigated with updated fuel systems, lines and seals available, and for those with real classics then no doubt the market will provide fuel options at a premium cost.
Injectors and turbo flow are maxed out, so more alcohol isn't an option without spending a chunk more money. It was good enough to win the championship despite being 200BHP down on the competition. It was all about the mid range torque and response for me and is my daily driver, so a 700BHP package would have been rubbish 99% of the time.
unsprung said:
airsport1 said:
the ability to manufacture locally using locally supplied crops that also produce animal feed for local use.
That one item, alone, could bring about a major (positive) shift in domestic agriculture -- supporting overall employment, helping to minimise farm subsidies and, possibly, leading to a decently-sized export crop. Toss in the ability to cultivate know-how in processes and related technologies, and there could be quite a lot more to this than just crops and ethanol.
Wheat crops suffered from the wet winter.
Has the balance between fuel required to grow, transport and process the crops compared to the fuel produced improved drastically? A few years ago it wasn't really worth it.
Isobutanol solves some of the ethanol issues by being less corrosive and having 98% of petrol energy density.
How does the ban on ICE vehicles effect this, who's going to invest in fuel development when everyone can only buy new electric vehicles?
Ed. said:
unsprung said:
airsport1 said:
the ability to manufacture locally using locally supplied crops that also produce animal feed for local use.
That one item, alone, could bring about a major (positive) shift in domestic agriculture -- supporting overall employment, helping to minimise farm subsidies and, possibly, leading to a decently-sized export crop. Toss in the ability to cultivate know-how in processes and related technologies, and there could be quite a lot more to this than just crops and ethanol.
Wheat crops suffered from the wet winter.
Has the balance between fuel required to grow, transport and process the crops compared to the fuel produced improved drastically? A few years ago it wasn't really worth it.
Ross_T_Boss said:
The US were running cars in the 80s on 85 Methanol, China manage it, Brazil on 25%-100% Ethanol for years. The concerns of alcohol are well known and can be mitigated with updated fuel systems, lines and seals available, and for those with real classics then no doubt the market will provide fuel options at a premium cost.
And there are 3 countries known for their trailblazing environmental policies and clean airmstrbkr said:
Ah okay, I see the point now but that particular fiesta happens to run on E10 just fine, so the government is not singling out cars such as that 1997 Fiesta. However apparently they are saying a 2003-2007 Mondeo is just about ready to be scrapped!
Only the rare SCi model, of which 290 remain on the roads, it was the future once...Edited by mstrbkr on Wednesday 4th March 17:46
saw this story on BBC news yesterday and added a post to another forum about it (https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=140&t=1761467&i=20). As some have mentioned, there is an issue the govt is overlooking - while manufacturers have been asked and provided info on compatible ENGINES, no-one has asked about the fuel lines. My personal experience is that the current E5 fuel is eating rubber fuel hoses. I've had to replace all my classic fuel hoses for ethanol resistant specific ones due to this. The 'old' rubber hoses were all less than 5 years old and were all noticeably degraded on removal. While it may be true that E5 will still be sold, according to the govt blurb, only a the largest filling stations which may not be near you...Link on my other post to the consultation if you think it is worth contributing.
whytheory said:
Only the rare SCi model, of which 290 remain on the roads, it was the future once...
Ah direct fuel injection. There is a running theme here then as some (maybe all?) of the VW engines that won't run on E10 are also direct injected.Edited by mstrbkr on Thursday 5th March 09:17
mstrbkr said:
speedhunter1992 said:
As I read this article, the ad on the page informed me I can have a brand new KIA Picanto for £139/month with 0% APR. Annual road tax for one of these is £145. Fuel consumption on WLTP is listed at 50.4mpg for the 1.25-litre version so, with unleaded at £1.30/litre for argument's sake, fuel cost for 6,000 miles (annual mileage I do in my main car) is £703.55, or £58.63/month. Total so far: £209.71. And that's not including the deposit or insurance or servicing. My main car is a 1997 Fiesta, also with a 1.25-litre engine. It only does an average of 39mpg these days (although that's only 2mpg less than the quoted combined figure) but last year it cost me £155/month to run, all-in. That's £165 VED, insurance, fuel (Shell V-Power), servicing, repairs and an MOT. Old cars no longer being economically viable? I don't think so!
The advert you saw on this page bears no relation to the subject of the article. It's served to you personally based on your browsing data/cookies. It wasn't put there by PH and wasn't seen by all who are reading this news story. Not sure what this has to do with E10!speedhunter1992 said:
I'm aware of that. It was just a coincidence that a new, small "economical" car should be advertised to me as I read an article in which the government are claimed to be of the opinion that old cars are not economically viable to run. So I decided to point out, using that ad as an example, that new cars are necessarily any more economically viable.
Yes, sorry about that. Mouth before brain 
S3Swiss said:
While it may be true that E5 will still be sold, according to the govt blurb, only a the largest filling stations which may not be near you...Link on my other post to the consultation if you think it is worth contributing.
Almost all Tesco that I have seen sell M99 and every Shell will seek V Power, so E5 should be widely available unless that changes.airsport1 said:
Saving in CO2 emissions for most of the petrol fleet, the ability to dual supply fuels that support cars that were not made to take higher ethanol blends using existing infrastructure, the ability to manufacture locally using locally supplied crops that also produce animal feed for local use. I am struggling to understand why we have not done this ages ago.
volume-for-volume, ethanol pollutes less. You fail to recognise that you burn 30% more ethanol to travel the same distance as compared to pure petrol. The increased volume of fuel burned increases total exhaust emission.
They're misrepresenting the facts and hoping that we're too stupid to notice.
bobo79 said:
Rover engined Lotuses would fall foul of this. What are the work around?
They won’t. Any car sold in the U.K. from 2002 onwards had to comply with ethanol. Lotus made no changes from previous model years to the 2002 model year.
Land Rover state all K series Freelanders are compatible.
My own Elise has done approx 10,000 miles on the continent on E5 and sometimes E10 without issue.
It’ll be fine!
Slightly off topic I wonder what a Ford Escort Mk3 emissions would be today.... goggle seems to suggest 46mpg and 162g/km on co2.. back in the days of carbs and mechanical fuel injection, no catalysts.
I just fear that were doing things without actually knowing the fuel effect. Personally I think the adblue on my latest car makes it more pollutant than the old car without. Certainly didn't cough when unloading the boot. In fact just another tax till the next big thing.
I just fear that were doing things without actually knowing the fuel effect. Personally I think the adblue on my latest car makes it more pollutant than the old car without. Certainly didn't cough when unloading the boot. In fact just another tax till the next big thing.
Edited by PisstNBroke on Thursday 5th March 13:32
PisstNBroke said:
Personally I think the adblue on my latest car makes it more pollutant than the old car without. Certainly didn't cough when unloading the boot. In fact just another tax till the next big thing.
I used to wonder this every time I saw the huge piles of massive plastic adblue containers at the car dealership that the stuff gets shipped in - all usually just thrown away. Then there's all the manufacturing side of the stuff, all the adblue system in the cars to manufacture (NOx Sensors failing for fun and getting thrown away after replacement), additional plastic for adblue tanks and hoses...Edited by PisstNBroke on Thursday 5th March 13:32
As for E10, glad to see the IQ is OK, at least. I still think that in more cases than not, running and maintaining an older car is more 'green' than buying a new eco-box every few years.
Olas said:
volume-for-volume, ethanol pollutes less. You fail to recognise that you burn 30% more ethanol to travel the same distance as compared to pure petrol. The increased volume of fuel burned increases total exhaust emission.
They're misrepresenting the facts and hoping that we're too stupid to notice.
"Using ethanol as a vehicle fuel has measurable GHG emissions benefits when considering the life cycle steps required for gasoline."They're misrepresenting the facts and hoping that we're too stupid to notice.
"Depending on the feedstock, emissions reductions of cellulosic ethanol compared to conventional gasoline range from 51% to 88%..."
https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/flexible_fuel_emi...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff