E10

[NoShoes]

would running E10 in my 2005 forester hurt the motor at all

 

[idw]

Nope. check the price difference, you use more e10 than 91, so sometimes it's not actually any cheaper.

 

[Ratbag]

I avoid E10. Not just for Id's perfectly valid reason.

ATM, I can't remember where the thread on this is ...

 

[duncanm]

Yeh - E10 is generally a bit .. meh.

Unfortunately, it gives the fuel co's and stations an opportunity to allow lots of water into the mix -- alcohol and water are very soluble in each other.

It shouldn't hurt anything - but I always found my NA 2.5 ran better when it wasn't on E10.

 

[Ratbag]

^ Thanks, Duncan.

It was the water absorption issue with E10 that I was trying so unsuccessfully to remember earlier ...

 

[tuckerbag]

Thats why if you have little water in the tank, methylated spirit should help.

 

[Kevin]

I always use 95 Craig. Of course 95 & 98 are the only other choice now it seems.

 

[Robbks]

E10 is fine if you have a tuneable ECU that you can compensate for the different stoichiometric value of the fuel. (the Air Fuel ratio it takes for a "complete" burn of a particluar fuel)
i.e Normal petrol is 14.7:1, E10 is lower at 14.1 (5% difference)

The ECU reads how much left over oxygen is in the exhaust gas via the o2 sensor.
It calculates then how much extra or less fuel to inject based on that residual oxygen value.

E10 or other blends have extra oxygen within the fuel,
so for the same injection quantity, the ECU sees extra oxygen in the exhaust gas, thinks the engine is running lean and pumps in more fuel to compensate.
so you use more fuel on E10.

you can trick the ECU if you have a wideband oxygen sensor, controller and gauge installed, as most of them will provide a "narrow-band" output to go to your ECU aswell.
You can then change the scaling of the o2 output based on the fuel used and it's Stoichiometric value, allowing the ECU to compensate correctly.

Under these cases your E10 is worth using asd it's got higher octane for a lower price.

But really, it's stuff all in the grand scheme of things. $5 a tank different between rubbish 91 Octane or E10 with unknown additives compared to good 95 or 98.

 

[Ratbag]

All well and good, Rob, right up to your comments about 91 RON being "rubbish".

I will not bother rehashing the old and mostly mythological arguments about this subject again here.

Suffice it to say that N/A Subie engines are designed to run on 91 RON fuel, and, crappy fuel from a dodgy outlet aside (in which case ALL their fuel is likely to be impure ... ), Australia's 91 RON fuel is high quality per international benchmarks.

Further, whenever I have tested this theory in any of our 8 Japanese vehicles over a 30+ year period, there has been zero effect on power, economy, or anything else - smoothness, etc. - whether running 91, 95 or 98 RON. I adjusted the static ignition timing and tuning for those cars where that could be done, or was required.

BTW, I assume that you are aware the 95 is usually a blend of 98 and 91 ... :iconwink:.

 

[Robbks]

Regardless, 91 is choc full of sulphur, which stinks when burned (Sulphur Dioxide or Rotten-Egg Gas)

95 or better for all of my NA Subies has always given better mileage and throttle response and logged higher overall ignition timing used due to minimising the knock events.

 

[Tigger]

We noticed a definite difference in our 2004 N16 1.8L Nissan Pulsar when running on 98 compared with 95 (we never ran anything less than that) - so much better throttle response on the 98 and definitely better kms per tank. As for my Subarus, I only have one petrol one (the other is diesel) and we only ever run 98 but if we are out in the 'sticks' on a 4WD trip where 98 isn't available, we always add octane booster.

 

[Ratbag]

^ Rob, according to this white paper, Australian fuels were required to comply with Euro 5 emissions by 1 Nov 2013 and Euro 6 by 1 Jul 2017. Full compliance is spread over around 12 months in each case.

See the relevant document here:

https://www.environment.gov.au/syst...50/files/review-fuel-sulfur-limits-petrol.pdf

The matter, and compliance with these standards by Australian fuels, is far more complex than you have alluded to thusly far. Suffice it to say that according to the above document, sulphur levels have been progressively reduced in Australian fuels over the last 15+ years.

All oxides of sulphur and hydrogen are required to be removed from exhaust gases by the catalytic converter, and these have been mandatory since a long time ago on passenger vehicles (When exactly were these made mandatory? My '93 Impreza and '94 Camry both had these.).

Our green friends would have us believe that everything Australia does is sub-standard in these matters, but I think that we can rest assured that this is also the case in every other place in the world where they are permitted to even voice such opinions ...

As usual, it is a matter of winnowing out the wheat from the chaff, and that can be a daunting task, as the above 144 page document amply demonstrates ... :iconwink: :lol:.