E10 petrol mpg, anyone noticed a difference?
Discussion
ChocolateFrog said:
Well it will be worse, that's just a fact.
Yes but it shouldn't really be noticeably worse. The energy density of E10 is, what, 1% lower than that of E5? So if your car does 30mpg on E5 it should do 29.7mpg on E10 if it's burning it as efficiently. Unfortunately it seems that some cars don't burn it anywhere near as efficiently. pits said:
My E46 330ci has dropped from 34mpg down to 28mpg and definitely feels lethargic, but I haven't run it on E5 for ages, but the only available now is super which should run better anyway. but I have noticed it, as has my brother in his C70 that has dropped as well.
I've gone the other way and only use super unleaded now and have noticed a slight increase in economypits said:
My E46 330ci has dropped from 34mpg down to 28mpg and definitely feels lethargic, but I haven't run it on E5 for ages, but the only available now is super which should run better anyway. but I have noticed it, as has my brother in his C70 that has dropped as well.
Not much of a suprise. Using 95 octane in a situation where you can't get 97+ is acceptable on occasion but a BMW M54 REQUIRES high octane fuel to operate properly. Otherwise what's the point in Double VANOS, a variable inlet manifold and all the other technology that engine has. I had an M54 in my E39 and it ran like crap on 95RON and that was long before 10% ethanol. No point in running around with retarded timing all the time....Not completely test conditions but I do the same A road and dual carriageway 35 miles to work outside of rush hour with very little other mileage in myVolvo c30 T5, so not really designed to hypermile.. And try to use cruise as much as possible so the journeys are pretty identical. All fuel comes from my local Ilminster Shell garage.
On E5 95 I managed a pretty steady 34.4 over the year. E10 95 seemed to drop it back to 33.8, which would sort of make sense. So I’m now doing a V-Power trial (A bit nerdy and SWMBO rolls her eyes) and currently getting 35.8 but need a few more tank fulls to average that figure out.
Whether it is worth the premium is another question. However certainly the E10 bit appears to be a backwards step for engine efficiency. Greta would be disappointed.
On E5 95 I managed a pretty steady 34.4 over the year. E10 95 seemed to drop it back to 33.8, which would sort of make sense. So I’m now doing a V-Power trial (A bit nerdy and SWMBO rolls her eyes) and currently getting 35.8 but need a few more tank fulls to average that figure out.
Whether it is worth the premium is another question. However certainly the E10 bit appears to be a backwards step for engine efficiency. Greta would be disappointed.
Osso ou completely psychological but after 4 tanks of E10 I went back to VPower E5. On E10 I had worse mpg and the car sounded harsher.
It can run both but for me feels better on the E5 VPower which I used to run before. Could be just the additives of BPower compared to the more regular fuel and nothing to do with the thank content.
It can run both but for me feels better on the E5 VPower which I used to run before. Could be just the additives of BPower compared to the more regular fuel and nothing to do with the thank content.
kambites said:
Yes but it shouldn't really be noticeably worse. The energy density of E10 is, what, 1% lower than that of E5? So if your car does 30mpg on E5 it should do 29.7mpg on E10 if it's burning it as efficiently. Unfortunately it seems that some cars don't burn it anywhere near as efficiently.
Ethanol at 5% in petrol requires 2% more fuel injected to hit target AFR than pure petrol. Ethanol at 10% in petrol requires 4% more fuel injected than pure petrol.So going from worst case E5 to worse case E10 should see a 2% drop in MPG, assuming everything else stays equal.
The reality will depend on how active your ECU is and the base mapping, a good ECU will advance the ignition to compensate for the slower burn rate of the ethanol, if it isn't good enough to do that, then the efficiency of the engine will drop, so you are likely to burn more fuel for the same torque output.
hedges88 said:
pits said:
My E46 330ci has dropped from 34mpg down to 28mpg and definitely feels lethargic, but I haven't run it on E5 for ages, but the only available now is super which should run better anyway. but I have noticed it, as has my brother in his C70 that has dropped as well.
Not much of a suprise. Using 95 octane in a situation where you can't get 97+ is acceptable on occasion but a BMW M54 REQUIRES high octane fuel to operate properly. Otherwise what's the point in Double VANOS, a variable inlet manifold and all the other technology that engine has. I had an M54 in my E39 and it ran like crap on 95RON and that was long before 10% ethanol. No point in running around with retarded timing all the time....Vanos doesn't work, it has done 205k miles, it's an M54 you should be surprised it even has oil in it,
pits said:
I have put 110k miles on the car, always on 95 ron, on a run it does 40+mpg around town it has always averaged 33-36mpg, it is still as quick as it has ever been at 205k miles, my previous 4 E39's ran fine on it as well, get the quoted figures for mpg out of them, higher ethanol content, now it is lethargic and mpg has dropped.
Vanos doesn't work, it has done 205k miles, it's an M54 you should be surprised it even has oil in it,
M54s use oil like a rotaryVanos doesn't work, it has done 205k miles, it's an M54 you should be surprised it even has oil in it,
And yes VANOS seals etc do go wrong. Doesn't change the fact that if you use high octane fuel the engine can work at it's best. Long term use of 95 octane means that the engine isn't running optimally which then has knock on effectsMr Tidy said:
Both of my BMWs recommend at least 98 RON whenever possible, so neither has had to suffer E10 yet as my nearest filling station has Tesco Momentum 99 RON!
Well done for following the instructions.All of these stupid Daily Express articles about how E10 has ruined their car etc, the majority are VAG group car owners with FSI engines that should have been running premium the whole time anyway
My Dad has a ‘05 Astra, & he noticed the difference from day one, especially when he’s towing his caravan.
As he puts it... “It’s got no guts in it”.
Yet his brother hasn’t noticed any difference in his Suzuki... but he always has to have the opposite answer.
( So... probably it has affected him too)
( NB: How long before we are putting something ‘extra’ in the tank)
As he puts it... “It’s got no guts in it”.
Yet his brother hasn’t noticed any difference in his Suzuki... but he always has to have the opposite answer.
( So... probably it has affected him too)
( NB: How long before we are putting something ‘extra’ in the tank)
Edited by Milkyway on Tuesday 28th December 18:05
hedges88 said:
Not much of a suprise. Using 95 octane in a situation where you can't get 97+ is acceptable on occasion but a BMW M54 REQUIRES high octane fuel to operate properly. Otherwise what's the point in Double VANOS, a variable inlet manifold and all the other technology that engine has. I had an M54 in my E39 and it ran like crap on 95RON and that was long before 10% ethanol. No point in running around with retarded timing all the time....
what's the poi6 in a road engi6 that doesn't run on normal fuel
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff