E10 E5 Fuel

[david]

I have a 2003 Alphard

Friend of mine tells me that using E10 will cause huge problems because of high ethanol content.

It's getting dificult to find E5 fuel on the Island.

Are the warnings about using E10 on an older petrol vehicle justified?

Could I use E10 with an additive of some sort?

Sure this has been discussed before but my mate has really put the wind up me with his horror stories!

Thanks, Dave.

[Voodoo101]

Hi Dave

 

I have a 2009 Vellfire, so some of this might not be true for you. I was told when I bought mine to use E5 only, so I did some research. This is what I found. I am no expert so this if for information only, make your own decision.

 

E10 has more ethanol so it can cause problems in older cars, by older the research I have found states cars pre 2000. The problems it can cause is rotting of rubber fuel hoses and welds in carburettors. As Alphards / Vellfires are fuel injected this last one does not matter. There is also reports that because it ethanol does not burn, there is lower MPG, however I never found any actual scientific figures for this at all, only conjecture. 

 

Toyota UK will not state whether imported cars from Japan are safe to use E10. They do state that European cars produced since January 1998 are compatible with the exception of the Toyota Avensis 2.0 litre with the 1AZ-FSE engine and the 2.4 litre with the 2AZ-FSE up to 2008. I have no idea of the engine that is in your car is one of these. I assume that Toyota design engines and fit them in different cars. My last car was a Mercedes with a Renault engine, so for cost cutting this may be the case.

 

On the flip side, I found an article saying the Japanese government has been looking into adding extra ethanol in fuel over there since 2000, even stating that they want to get to far more then 10%, and the logic in me is saying that companies like Toyota, who build cars to last, would build cars with this in mind.

 

There is also a video on Youtube of somebody with an Alphard running on E10. They show that the car can be jerky when you first change, however the ECU learns and settles to smooth driving. I just changed a battery and had the same problem for a while, so this seems to make sense.

 

Now my own experience, like I said I have a 2009 Vellfire which came to the UK in 2019, however I only purchased it a month ago. I ran it on E5 at first and it seemed a but jumpy at the start then smoothed out. I have no idea what the previous owner ran it on. I was low on fuel and the only garage close had E10, no E5 so had no choice. The car was jerky for a while then ran smooth. I have seen no difference in fuel consumption, if anything it runs better of E10, maybe the ethanol is cleaning the injectors. With the cost of living and the limit of getting E5, I have decided to run E10. Only time will tell if there is a major problem, however many drivers run on E10 now and I have seen no horror stories of people having problems.

 

With regards to an additive, there is one available, as to where you get it, what it's called and if it is any good I cant tell you.

 

Unfortionaly nobody can make the decision for you. It is your car and you have to make the choice. There will be people on here that will say only use E5. There was somebody on a Facebook page blaming E10 for stopping the gears changing, and said running E5 will fix the gearbox.

Edited August 26, 2022 by Voodoo101

[Rojie]

16 minutes ago, Voodoo101 said:

Hi Dave

 

I have a 2009 Vellfire, so some of this might not be true for you. I was told when I bought mine to use E5 only, so I did some research. This is what I found. I am no expert so this if for information only, make your own decision.

 

E10 has more ethanol so it can cause problems in older cars, by older the research I have found states cars pre 2000. The problems it can cause is rotting of rubber fuel hoses and welds in carburettors. As Alphards / Vellfires are fuel injected this last one does not matter. There is also reports that because it ethanol does not burn, there is lower MPG, however I never found any actual scientific figures for this at all, only conjecture. 

 

Toyota UK will not state whether imported cars from Japan are safe to use E10. They do state that European cars produced since January 1998 are compatible with the exception of the Toyota Avensis 2.0 litre with the 1AZ-FSE engine and the 2.4 litre with the 2AZ-FSE up to 2008. I have no idea of the engine that is in your car is one of these. I assume that Toyota design engines and fit them in different cars. My last car was a Mercedes with a Renault engine, so for cost cutting this may be the case.

 

On the flip side, I found an article saying the Japanese government has been looking into adding extra ethanol in fuel over there since 2000, even stating that they want to get to far more then 10%, and the logic in me is saying that companies like Toyota, who build cars to last, would build cars with this in mind.

 

There is also a video on Youtube of somebody with an Alphard running on E10. They show that the car can be jerky when you first change, however the ECU learns and settles to smooth driving. I just changed a battery and had the same problem for a while, so this seems to make sense.

 

Now my own experience, like I said I have a 2009 Vellfire which came to the UK in 2019, however I only purchased it a month ago. I ran it on E5 at first and it seemed a but jumpy at the start then smoothed out. I have no idea what the previous owner ran it on. I was low on fuel and the only garage close had E10, no E5 so had no choice. The car was jerky for a while then ran smooth. I have seen no difference in fuel consumption, if anything it runs better of E10, maybe the ethanol is cleaning the injectors. With the cost of living and the limit of getting E5, I have decided to run E10. Only time will tell if there is a major problem, however many drivers run on E10 now and I have seen no horror stories of people having problems.

 

With regards to an additive, there is one available, as to where you get it, what it's called and if it is any good I cant tell you.

 

Unfortionaly nobody can make the decision for you. It is your car and you have to make the choice. There will be people on here that will say only use E5. There was somebody on a Facebook page blaming E10 for stopping the gears changing, and said running E5 will fix the gearbox.

 

To paraphrase Craig you pays your money......

 

I have not come across any horror stories (yet) either.

 

There is no ethanol in most E5 in the UK. It depends which refinery produced the E5.

You can check the Major supplier websites, BP, Exxon, etc;, for more info.

What do I use ? E5 when available, otherwise E10!

 

If leaving the fuel in the van unused for a long time, over winter perhaps, E5 is much better as it 'keeps' longer without any degradation.

There are reports affirming that fuel economy is better with E5

 

It is mainly the E5 refined in the West Country that contains Ethanol.

[Bazzer1955]

E5 burns better than E10 as the octane level is much higher, higher octane means better burning, better burning means better mpg. My Octavia vrs runs like s**t on E10.So out of habit I only use Tesco Momentum or Shell V Power in our Alphard  as the both of these have a 99 Octane rating.

[david]

Thanks Guys, really helpful info. Since it's in my nature to avoid any kind of decision making  I will do as Rojie does and use E5 when available and E10 when not!

[Voodoo101]

On 8/27/2022 at 7:01 PM, Bazzer1955 said:

E5 burns better than E10 as the octane level is much higher, higher octane means better burning, better burning means better mpg. My Octavia vrs runs like s**t on E10.So out of habit I only use Tesco Momentum or Shell V Power in our Alphard  as the both of these have a 99 Octane rating.

 

This theory does not seem to stand up in real life use. I have been looking for any scientific proof and could not find any, so did my own test, but had no difference. I fear that it is like the old standard v premium fuel adverts, that motoring shows tested on rolling roads and found no difference. 

[Rojie]

13 hours ago, Voodoo101 said:

 

This theory does not seem to stand up in real life use. I have been looking for any scientific proof and could not find any, so did my own test, but had no difference. I fear that it is like the old standard v premium fuel adverts, that motoring shows tested on rolling roads and found no difference. 

 

This is a long running debte.

 

Teekay initiated a thread which invites owners to share their (real life) consumption data (petrol I mean).

 

Some have recorded better mileage with E5, even when the additional cost if factored in.

 

Perhaps you could add your findings to the tread to 'balance' the opinion.

[Voodoo101]

2 hours ago, Rojie said:

 

This is a long running debte.

 

Teekay initiated a thread which invites owners to share their (real life) consumption data (petrol I mean).

 

Some have recorded better mileage with E5, even when the additional cost if factored in.

 

Perhaps you could add your findings to the tread to 'balance' the opinion.

I already have, but threads like this won't show the difference. There are lot of factors that come into play about fuel usage. Driving styles, road condition, temperature, road layout, traffic, engine condition, tyre pressures, wheel size, additives used, windows or air conditioning, weight, body style. The only way this debate would be settled is if there was independent test done with the same vehicle on rolling road with proper scientific tests.

 

[Rojie]

15 minutes ago, Voodoo101 said:

I already have, but threads like this won't show the difference. There are lot of factors that come into play about fuel usage. Driving styles, road condition, temperature, road layout, traffic, engine condition, tyre pressures, wheel size, additives used, windows or air conditioning, weight, body style. The only way this debate would be settled is if there was independent test done with the same vehicle on rolling road with proper scientific tests.

 

 

Hi Craig,

 

I agree, but most of the factors you list regarding driving style also affect the long term reliability of the engine and transmission.

As a rough guide, both measures are meaningful.

[Bazzer1955]

19 hours ago, Voodoo101 said:

 

This theory does not seem to stand up in real life use. I have been looking for any scientific proof and could not find any, so did my own test, but had no difference. I fear that it is like the old standard v premium fuel adverts, that motoring shows tested on rolling roads and found no difference. 

Sorry fella I totally disagree, how can it be a "theory" when my vrs ran like a dog with e10 fuel but ran perfectly with Tesco Momentum which is 99 octane over exactly the same route day in and day out, with no additional additives ?

[Voodoo101]

1 hour ago, Bazzer1955 said:

Sorry fella I totally disagree, how can it be a "theory" when my vrs ran like a dog with e10 fuel but ran perfectly with Tesco Momentum which is 99 octane over exactly the same route day in and day out, with no additional additives ?

 

Well like everything. For every person who thinks you get more mpg, you will find somebody who thinks you don't. Maybe you did not give your ECU chance to make adjustments. Maybe you had a bad tank of fuel. Maybe it's was the placebo effect. 

 

I found this though from Australia.

E10 vs 98 Ultra-Premium

There is a popular myth that higher octane fuel like 98 UPULP will give ordinary cars more performance and better economy. Unless your car has been specifically tuned to run solely on 98RON UPULP this is simply not true, and any gains in efficiency would come from the improved cleaning ability of 98 removing built-up gunk inside your engine that was already hurting your fuel economy.

 

Or this from the UK

 

It should be perfectly fine to use a higher-octane fuel than the manufacturer recommends for your car – though it’s unlikely to offer any discernible benefit.

 

Or this

 

 

6. Using premium unnecessarily

If you use high octane fuel in an engine designed for low octane fuel, the engine will adapt up, slightly. The knock sensor will allow a small increase in ignition advance and there will be a slight increase in power. Slight.

Certainly this adaptation will not produce as much additional economy/power as there would be if they increased the compression ratio and optimised for premium.

[Bazzer1955]

 

ok

Edited September 2, 2022 by Bazzer1955
Can't be bothered

[Voodoo101]

On 9/2/2022 at 5:57 PM, Bazzer1955 said:

 

ok

Wasn't arguing, just pointing out the otherside of the discussion so people can make a choice instead of just hearing scaremonger tactics of how bad it is. There are also people saying that it is not bad. People can decide on what they want to do once they get the full information. 

 

Without proper evidence, it is all just hearsay either way.

[Chris.ac]

setting aside the argument about mpg or power, in Japan, the 2 fuel grades are 91 and 98, arguably, this is the reason they use the premium fuel as recommended, whereas in the UK regular is often 95RON.

 

Just spare a thought for our USA cousins, their RON values are barely in the 90s

[cerbrus2]

Right.... and ill put this in laymens terms.

 

The Higher the octane level, the higher the compression needed to Ignite the fuel. Meaning, the fuel is less likley to ignite on the upstroke of the piston, thus resulting in pre detination, or engine knock etc. High octane fuel has very very little effect on BHP. If your are feeling a difference with it, then im sorry to say, but that is just a placibo, or as Bazzer1955 stated his VRS runs like crap on it, I would suggest running Colder Plugs in your car, as like most VRS its probably had an "ebay chip tune" 

 

The octane rating of E10 is 95 ron, exactly the same as the "old regular unleaded". 

 

Only downsides to ethenol is its ability to eat rubber. I have an a4 with a 1.8t and runs on c85 race fuel, which has no petrol in it at all. 77% Ethenol. and 33% oxygenates. I have to change injector seals every 6 months or so, or I start to get that lovely Corn juice smell inside the car. Octane rating has nothing to do with BHP. 

 

Personaly I have absolutly no worries about having 10% ethenol in the fuel. Its better for the enviroment. And most of the Horror stories of "I have a mate, who knows a bloke, who spoke to a bloke in a pub, that he used E10, and all the rubber hoses in his car evaporated" they are warning people off of E10 in cars older than 2000, becuase they have rubber fuel lines and seals that are over 20 years old, and the sudden change of chemicals may require them to be replaced.

 

 

[Geralt]

13 hours ago, cerbrus2 said:

Right.... and ill put this in laymens terms.

 

The Higher the octane level, the higher the compression needed to Ignite the fuel. Meaning, the fuel is less likley to ignite on the upstroke of the piston, thus resulting in pre detination, or engine knock etc. High octane fuel has very very little effect on BHP. If your are feeling a difference with it, then im sorry to say, but that is just a placibo, or as Bazzer1955 stated his VRS runs like crap on it, I would suggest running Colder Plugs in your car, as like most VRS its probably had an "ebay chip tune" 

 

The octane rating of E10 is 95 ron, exactly the same as the "old regular unleaded". 

 

Only downsides to ethenol is its ability to eat rubber. I have an a4 with a 1.8t and runs on c85 race fuel, which has no petrol in it at all. 77% Ethenol. and 33% oxygenates. I have to change injector seals every 6 months or so, or I start to get that lovely Corn juice smell inside the car. Octane rating has nothing to do with BHP. 

 

Personaly I have absolutly no worries about having 10% ethenol in the fuel. Its better for the enviroment. And most of the Horror stories of "I have a mate, who knows a bloke, who spoke to a bloke in a pub, that he used E10, and all the rubber hoses in his car evaporated" they are warning people off of E10 in cars older than 2000, becuase they have rubber fuel lines and seals that are over 20 years old, and the sudden change of chemicals may require them to be replaced.

 

 

Totally agree.

 

The driver moves the pedal to achieve a particular vehicle speed. This is turned into a torque demand calculation. Any engine ECU in the last 20 odd years modifies the injection time (among other parameters) to meet the torque output required for the demanded speed. In the case of a lower energy density fuel (e.g. E10) the injection time per stroke will simply be increased to achieve the same torque as a higher energy density fuel, all other things being equal. For the average driver, performance should be no different but it will consume more fuel per stroke and thus lower MPG.

 

Rubber risk notwithstanding (if it even exists on these engines), the key metric when financially comparing the two fuels is pence per mile not MPG. Each individual can only calculate that for themselves.

[Teekay]

I use to always use shell V power in one Honda, and tried E10, lead to check engine light for cat. It was supposed to be ok as per honda uk website but - Being compatible and being safe / best are not same

 

I had done mpg calculations in past on v-power and normal fuel and it was different, engine exhaust smelled worse with E10 and slight shake in engine in one Volvo disappeared with with use of V-power

 

Using shell v-power once couple of months might help with the detergents etc clean up the engine/system? If not driving 5 figure miles, the difference of cost might be not worth it. I say E5 might be better option - I would be happy to play safe. 

[Bazzer1955]

"ebay chip tune" ??????????

Maybe you know my car better than me.

Funny the net is awash with peeps saying the same as me about E10 , must all be suffering from placebo effect, could be an epidemic coming 🤢👍

[Clutha]

Isn’t it strange that a method of reducing emissions results in an increase in fuel consumption?

My Suzuki Vitara 1600 consumption deteriorated by 3mpg after an Esso fill up.

A pal who worked in the lab at Grangemouth refinery says he not convinced the ethanol % is accurate.

Yamaha stated that their elderly bike engines were ok with E10. 
Thank goodness, mine are 21 & 19 years old 😂

[Chris.ac]

21 hours ago, Clutha said:

Isn’t it strange that a method of reducing emissions results in an increase in fuel consumption?

My Suzuki Vitara 1600 consumption deteriorated by 3mpg after an Esso fill up.

A pal who worked in the lab at Grangemouth refinery says he not convinced the ethanol % is accurate.

Yamaha stated that their elderly bike engines were ok with E10. 
Thank goodness, mine are 21 & 19 years old 😂

Well, here's the thing, the quoted mpg or km/l as quoted by Toyota are worse than what is achievable here in the UK, because they are based off of their e20 fuel, so we get a small bonus by virtue of using e10/e5. 

Happy days, lol. 

 

 

[Clutha]

Wow, where is E20 used?

 

If E10 can damage old seals (Viton?) one would expect a higher % would be worse.

 

We got problems offshore with gas compression pipe seals, wrong spec supplied. Not good when it’s pumping at 350+bar 😳

Edited April 3, 2023 by Clutha
Typo

[Chris.ac]

1 minute ago, Clutha said:

Wow, where is E10 used?

 

If E10 can damage old seals (Viton?) one would expect a higher % would be worse.

 

We got problems offshore with gas compression pipe seals, wrong spec supplied. Not good when it’s pumping at 350+bar 😳

E10 in UK regular Ron fuel. 

Toyota designed and specced the engines and seals that are perfectly fine with this from early 2000s, at least on the JDM models, euro built engines are a different beast 

[Clutha]

1 hour ago, Chris.ac said:

E10 in UK regular Ron fuel. 

Toyota designed and specced the engines and seals that are perfectly fine with this from early 2000s, at least on the JDM models, euro built engines are a different beast 

 

[Clutha]

Typo corrected! E20 inserted 🤫

[Bazzer1955]

I don't understand why people don't just use E 5, more mpg, a better running vehicle, E 10 does not give as much mpg therefore the cheaper price is irrelevant, and we still get people saying that the E 10 vs E 5  scaremongering.......weird world we live in