2 minutes ago, Ttaskmaster said:

Exactly. My bike will probably never get ridden again, as the carb diaphragms will just be ruined by E10.

 

 

1 minute ago, e-Roottoot said:

Run it on Super Unleaded then as many have done for years with motorcycles.

 

Indeed, this sort of use case is exactly why E5 is sticking around for a few more years.

It will eventually no doubt be phased out entirely, but you've got a few more years yet before E5 will be vanishing.

People need to check how much ethanol in the fuel.   I love it and the more the better.  I wish i could run a car on the road on Pure Alcohol. 

I just re-started one of my bikes it's been locked up and covered since last May and very pleased to say it started first time on the button, thanks to keeping it on the battery charger and filling it with Superposh unleaded (despite E5 on the pump) before putting it away. 

Edited 25 February, 20215 yr by TDIum

10 minutes ago, e-Roottoot said:

I wish i could run a car on the road on Pure Alcohol. 

 

There used to be vehicles in South America, namely Brazil, that did so. The Beetle being a case in point.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1092181_a-brief-history-of-ethanol-in-brazil

Areas with Super Unleaded with Ethanol are probably getting that because it is Greenergy or Royal Dutch Shell supplying it.

The Winter Spec fuel bought since Mid October might have less or no Ethanol so that it is less hygroscopic. 

Late March and it will be spring / summer spec fuel being delivered again to filling stations.

 

@Westbury63

There are threads on the  South American VW Up! (Skoda Citigo ) with different fronts, more power & larger fuel tanks.

They had the TSI first.

Edited 25 February, 20215 yr by e-Roottoot

2 hours ago, e-Roottoot said:

 

@PetrolDave

It would be handy if you said what car and what year of car that was.

Added details to original post (2015 Octavia Elegance 1.4TSI estate) - also shown in the left hand pane on all my posts

Left hand sides of posts may not show on the phone when reading Briskoda, and then assumptions are the mother of all **** ***.

49 minutes ago, Westbury63 said:

 

There used to be vehicles in South America, namely Brazil, that did so. The Beetle being a case in point.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1092181_a-brief-history-of-ethanol-in-brazil

When I worked at an automotive consultancy we developed some engine tunes for Brazilian E80 fuel, so one of the pumps we had on-site was for E80 fuel.

1 minute ago, e-Roottoot said:

Left hand sides of posts may not show on the phone when reading Briskoda

I never read Briskoda on my phone

While charging my car and reading scare stories about E10 from the UK press that like scare stories i am on the phone.

That is while reading that it will increase the cost to all car drivers from lazy journalists.

30 minutes ago, PetrolDave said:

When I worked at an automotive consultancy we developed some engine tunes for Brazilian E80 fuel, so one of the pumps we had on-site was for E80 fuel.

 

A very different market to ours. From an engineering perspective, is it a problem with o rings and fuel lines etc or engine internals ??

 

 

@e-Roottoot

 

I didn't know that, thanks. Sounds like I've got some reading to do!

 

I had a Citigo for 18 months, really economical car in which I once acheived 81 MPG 

 

11 minutes ago, Westbury63 said:

 

A very different market to ours. From an engineering perspective, is it a problem with o rings and fuel lines etc or engine internals ??

 

 

@e-Roottoot

 

I didn't know that, thanks. Sounds like I've got some reading to do!

 

I had a Citigo for 18 months, really economical car in which I once acheived 81 MPG 

 

Downhill with a strong tailwind.

4 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

Downhill with a strong tailwind.

 

Downhill, in Suffolk?  On level roads and on a warm day which helps.  

 

One for the hypermilers here.

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/453741-700-mile-tank-range-citigo

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/414309-600mile-tank-range-possible-in-citigo

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/364603-500mile-tank-range-possible-in-citigo

 

 

Edited 25 February, 20215 yr by e-Roottoot

1 hour ago, e-Roottoot said:

One for the hypermilers here.

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/453741-700-mile-tank-range-citigo

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/414309-600mile-tank-range-possible-in-citigo

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/364603-500mile-tank-range-possible-in-citigo

 

 

Sorry fella, I'm the first to go off on a tangent !! Having had a look of some of those posts, I'm an amature at being a hypermiler.

@Westbury63really they were for @shyVRS245who likes to get many miles out of not many litres of petrol or diesel.

He might accept the Citigo challenge sometime and see how they can sip fuel.

16 minutes ago, e-Roottoot said:

@Westbury63really they were for @shyVRS245who likes to get many miles out of not many litres of petrol or diesel.

He might accept the Citigo challenge sometime and see how they can sip fuel.

I have been given a Citigo and a 1.0TSi Fabia as courtesy cars before and the Fabia was far nicer to drive. The Citigo reminded me of our Picanto with it's flimsy construction so not something I would ever buy.

1 hour ago, e-Roottoot said:

One for the hypermilers here.

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/453741-700-mile-tank-range-citigo

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/414309-600mile-tank-range-possible-in-citigo

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/364603-500mile-tank-range-possible-in-citigo

 

 

My 719 miles in a 360bhp Superb is more impressive.

Not really that impressive as you can 'coast longer' with the heavier car & likely there was less than a quarter of  the available bhp used to hypermile .

The Citigo never got to have a TSI engine like the Up! did.  If anyone gets near 800 miles out of their 1.0TSI Fabia with 45 litres plus fuel space then that is good going.

Edited 25 February, 20215 yr by e-Roottoot

E10 all the time here. No issues, filled a 1.4TSI the other week, or the other rental the week before that. 5.5l/100 without trying. Or over 45000km in the previous 1.0TSI or 28000 kms in this one ... or the 1.4 TSI Superb I had last year for 1500kms. All my economy numbers are on E10. It's either that or pay another however-many-it-is-rightnow cents per litre for E5 98. 

 

 

 

 

Edited 25 February, 20215 yr by brettikivi
bleh, wrong grade quoted

6 hours ago, shyVRS245 said:

I have been given a Citigo and a 1.0TSi Fabia as courtesy cars before and the Fabia was far nicer to drive. The Citigo reminded me of our Picanto with it's flimsy construction so not something I would ever buy.

 

I agree, the Citigo is a much less complex machine and all the better for it. The analogue simplicity was a major attraction and part of its charm, although I did treat myself to the posh one with heated seats and air con!!

re: consumption changes: https://www.zemo.org.uk/assets/other/E10 in Finland.pdf <-- this has a bunch of numbers on slide 12. The implication is 1% change. 

 

 - Bret

That 1% is the difference with 95 E10 & 98 E 5,     So not the difference with 95 E5 to 95 E10.

 

People could check what the difference of 95 E5 is from using 97 or 99 E5 as is available now in the UK.

 

I see that UK press were saying those that can not use 95 E10 could use Super Unleaded and that could be a 14 pence a litre more or £7 a tank.

 

Actually Sainsbury or Tesco Super Unleaded can be 5 pence a litre more than their 95 Unleaded so maybe £2.25 pence a tank extra with a 45 litre fill up

& no more expensive than Unleaded not bought at some non supermarket filling stations.

Shell, Gulf, BP Super Unleaded might be 14 pence a litre more than their 95 ron or supermarkets.

let's do the math on this: 

 

Currently, I hit 5.2l/100. Litres per hundred km is a linear relationship. 

 

If I get 5% higher consumption numbers, then I'm looking at 5.2+(5.2*0.05), so 5.46l/100.

If it were 10%, that's 5.2+0.52. 5.7l/100.

I get around 800km to a tank... 8 * 0.52 = 4.16 litres more fuel used, so around €6 on a tank if the fuel is €1.50 per litre (which it approximately is).

I get more variance than that from day to day, with the same trip, on the same road, at around the same time.

 

Price per km: assuming 5.2l /100 vs 5.7l/100. 

5.2 liters @ 1.5 each --> 7.8€ for 100km, so 8c/km

5.7 liters @ 1.5 each --> 8.55€ for 100km, so 8,5c/km. 

 

A 0.5c per km increase is minimal.

 

"people could check", yes, they could. But scientific tests are going to be thin on the ground. Back in the day, there were tests done by What Car claiming 10% worse numbers (though the numbers don't seem to have been published). The consumer institute here did some pooh-poohing; yes, there could be a mild increase in consumption, but only in relation to the different energy content of ethanol vs petrol. From a logical standpoint, if Ethanol contains half the energy of Petrol, you've reduced the energy content by a *maximum* of 2.5%. That it's 40% means that number is slightly higher, but it's still not 10. Having dragged Excel out, the specific energy content should be around 96.9% of E5 (90*100)+(10*40) vs (95*100)+(5*40). 

 

 It used to be that 98 was around 2c/l more expensive than 95. Now it's around 7 to 9 c / l.

My Superb diesel is currently looking at 1,600km per tank from 66 litres which is 24km per litre. Cost £1.169 per litre. Much cheaper than a 1.0 litre petrol. That also includes a little blast upto 180kph.