19 minutes ago, brettikivi said:

let's do the math on this:

 

Maths vs clickbaiting headlines.

 

Which one to believe......

Edited 26 February, 20215 yr by wyx087

@brettikivi  Tesco at least had testing done comparing their 95 and 99 and a competitor.

Emissions or efficient running being what it might show,  but then everyone that drives their petrol car now and after September in the UK can do the test of their use or fuel and price paid per tank and miles driven.

6ca06d648b9541e78fa838fece4a1a23 (1) (7).pdf 388380a097b04fe693a8c27db8bb4974 (1).pdf

I've been using E10 since I bought my car in June last year.

 

It's sold at all petrol stations here in Germany and is around 5 or 6 cents per litre cheaper.

 

I didn't notice a significant change in fuel economy under normal driving conditions. But when you're driving a little harder or faster it definitely uses more. I think just because of the slightly lower energy content.

 

But bare in mind it's up to 10% ethanol and in reality it's been shown to have much less.

 

I've stopped using it now though due to concerns over damage.

 

A university in Germany has done a long term study on it and they've so far found that the higher ethanol content damages the active charcoal filter. I'm concerned that it may damage other components.

 

The minimal savings just doesn't warrant it so gone back to normal E5.

 

On 26/02/2021 at 22:55, Phil-E said:

I've been using E10 since I bought my car in June last year.

 

It's sold at all petrol stations here in Germany and is around 5 or 6 cents per litre cheaper.

 

I didn't notice a significant change in fuel economy under normal driving conditions. But when you're driving a little harder or faster it definitely uses more. I think just because of the slightly lower energy content.

 

But bare in mind it's up to 10% ethanol and in reality it's been shown to have much less.

 

I've stopped using it now though due to concerns over damage.

 

A university in Germany has done a long term study on it and they've so far found that the higher ethanol content damages the active charcoal filter. I'm concerned that it may damage other components.

 

The minimal savings just doesn't warrant it so gone back to normal E5.

 

So what are you using now. Have you gone back to E5 super which presumably is more expensive.

Yeah back to E5. And actually so far it's doing better on fuel than usual.

 

So the price difference just isn't enough to balance out the higher fuel consumption and potential harm caused.

Just filled my Kodiaq 2.0 TSI up with Sainsbury’s fuel and surprised to see pump was marked E10, I was aware it was being introduced in September in the UK and of course the car is marked suitable for E10.

 

I keep a log of my fuel consumption so we’ll see how it goes, but interesting about the active charcoal filter, I’ve also seen a webpage (Google translated from German) that suggested the possible higher water content may affect the life of the engine oil too resulting in more frequent oil changes.

 

Edited 2 July, 20214 yr by Greenliner1
Typo

I had a "oh stuff it" moment the other day. Needed a 10l top-up and seeing how how the prices are at the moment I just stuck E10 in again.

 

I do fixed interval servicing myself anyway so I don't think that will be a problem.

 

Will be interesting to see if it makes any noticeable difference for you.

I had an E10 related question so I thought I’d put it in this thread! 
I was wondering if anyone knew if E10 was ok in Fabia MK1?
I’ve recently got a 52 plate 1.4 8v and I believe they have the same 1.3 Felicia OHV engine just re-bored to make it 1.4. And it says E10 it’s not suitable for the Felicia engine. So was unsure whether it would be suitable for the fabia? 
Would really like to save my wallet the pain of buying the supreme E5 stuff 😭😂

Have you looked it up on the government site?

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

 

For example the 1.4 in the VW fox is fine, so I’d base your information on the engine code rather than assuming it’s a bored out Felicia engine. 👍
 

The 1.3 is listed until 2001 and at 40-50KW (54-67bhp)

 

Edit:

 

What I’m getting at is it might be ancillary parts or the engine that’s the issue.

Edited 1 September, 20214 yr by cheezemonkhai

54 minutes ago, cheezemonkhai said:

 

 

 

 

For example the 1.4 in the VW fox is fine, so I’d base your information on the engine code rather than assuming it’s a bored out Felicia engine. 👍
 

 

 

 

The mk I 1.4 8v mpi does have a version of the Felicia pushrod engine whereas the 1.416v has the VAG DOHC engine as does the VW fox.

 

One thing I've noticed though is most VW engines that can't have E10 are the fsi engines. This was also fitted to the Octavia up to about 2008 but is not listed as an E10 incompatible engine.

 

Are any 2021 vRS owners using regular 95 RON unleaded?  Curious to know if the change to E10 has affected the car in anyway.  Or are most vRS owners strictly using premium fuels?

1 minute ago, liveseytowers said:

Are any 2021 vRS owners using regular 95 RON unleaded?  Curious to know if the change to E10 has affected the car in anyway.  Or are most vRS owners strictly using premium fuels?

E10 has been available in Europe for much longer than here. I think the roll out started back in 2009. Don't think some countries even have E5 98 Premium unleaded and it doesn't stop them buying the VRS. I'm running E10 in my 1.4TSI and haven't really noticed any drop in MPG or performance. Did a 300 mile round trip last week and averaged 50.1MPG.

9 hours ago, bigjohn said:

 

The mk I 1.4 8v mpi does have a version of the Felicia pushrod engine whereas the 1.416v has the VAG DOHC engine as does the VW fox.

 

One thing I've noticed though is most VW engines that can't have E10 are the fsi engines. This was also fitted to the Octavia up to about 2008 but is not listed as an E10 incompatible engine.

 

Sorry, I should have been clearer.

What I was trying (and failing) to convey was don’t make assumptions based on another similar engine.

It could be an ancillary or anything else besides the base engine that’s the cause of an issue

 

Like you, I did notice the early fsi engines on the VW cars listed, but not others and thought it odd.

 

 

Surely if someone is running an older car they are unsure of and worry about fuel pipes or seals and using E10 or that lay their car up for longer periods of time and corrosion is a concern with the engine then £2.50 extra per tank fill with Super Unleaded must be money well spent buying E5. 

Just found this:

 

https://www.acea.auto/files/130329_revised_ALL_ACEA_SAAB_JAMA_E10_COMPATIBILITY.pdf

 

Via here:

 

https://www.acea.auto/publication/vehicle-compatibility-with-new-e10-b7-fuel-standards/

 

It states for the 1.3 OHC engine there is a retrofit so it can use e10 and to contact the dealer. 
I’d suggest contacting a dealer to see if it’s already on the 1.4 or if it can be purchased 👍

 

 

FWIW the 1.4 in at least some versions of the fox is an 8v (bkr)
 

 

I think my chainsaw and lawnmower are both going to be staying with E5, despite both being very recent engines. Negligible fuel cost increase.

I won't have any worries about the 2003-2005 fleet of cars in the family though, any negative effects seem to me to be likely to be very slow-acting and therefore probably safely ignored.

 

4 minutes ago, Wino said:

I think my chainsaw and lawnmower are both going to be staying with E5, despite both being very recent engines. Negligible fuel cost increase.

I won't have any worries about the 2003-2005 fleet of cars in the family though, any negative effects seem to me to be likely to be very slow-acting and therefore probably safely ignored.

 

 

Really depends on how badly worn existing non E10 resistant components are. For cars that age, parts will have already worn. Add E10 fuel and the corrosion of parts including seals, gaskets, hoses, pipes and rubbers will be accelerated. With Early 2000's cars some are OK others not, so perhaps worth checking. Really depends how long you intend to keeps the cars as well. 

1 minute ago, FrankNicklin said:

seals, gaskets, hoses, pipes and rubbers

All sound like replaceable items to be honest, if you're not afraid of getting hands dirty.

 

The Chancellor in the UK might come up with another scrappage scheme.   The only way there might be a lowering of emissions might be if more older cars go off the road permently.    The thing is that the over 2 decade old petrol cars often get as good or better fuel economy than euro 4,5 or 6 engine cars.  They might be doing less mileage annually and are better cared for and maintained. 

Scrappage schemes are primarily about boosting economies, not lowering emissions; though they might not be marketed that way.

 

 

Edited 2 September, 20214 yr by Wino

27 minutes ago, Wino said:

All sound like replaceable items to be honest, if you're not afraid of getting hands dirty.

 

They are, but depends on if you fancy doing it on a regular basis.

Doubtful in my mind that any such regularity would occur.

 

See this post for example, from @juanse_2691

https://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/496959-e10-fuel-and-2003-20l-fabia-mpi/?do=findComment&comment=5576655

 

Edited 2 September, 20214 yr by Wino

42 minutes ago, Wino said:

any negative effects seem to me to be likely to be very slow-acting and therefore probably safely ignored.

Well, if you think that an underbonnet fuel fire is "slow-acting and therefore probably safely ignored"...

@Wino  This time it might end up boosting Diesel car Sales, new already built and used and not EV's & Semi Electric ICE cars.

The Chancellors father in law has a lot to gain with boosting new car sales and so has Boris's favoured lender Lord David Brownlow.

7 minutes ago, KenONeill said:

Well, if you think that an underbonnet fuel fire is "slow-acting and therefore probably safely ignored"...

I wouldn't get overexcited about the doom and gloom / drama queen merchants, for reasons relating to the post from our Columbian friend with long term E10 experience linked above.