3 ms·
Germany somewhat recently added a required E10 fuel mix (10% ethanol), cheaper than normal super, and uptake has been slower than expected (certainly going by c
by revelation 11y ago
Germany somewhat recently added a required E10 fuel mix (10% ethanol), cheaper than normal super, and uptake has been slower than expected (certainly going by compatible cars).
A lot of people, as it turns out, are not particularly bright.
(Now, ethanol is less energy dense than gasoline; right now the gap is 2 cents between E10 and E5, so you might make the calculation if you actually get more energy per buck from E5. It's another story for fuel consumption, though.)
- GauntletWizard 11y agoE10 fuel is about 3% [1] less efficient than more pure gasoline, and much harder on car engines, even ones designed for it (unsourced, but so my gearhead friends have told me) So, no, maybe consumers are making the smart choice. [1] http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=27&t=10 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=27&t=10
- revelation 11y agoI've mentioned the theoretical energy density, and notice that this is what the EIA uses to derive the 3% efficiency loss. This is a highly theoretical value; combustion engines are very complex beasts and theoretical energy density is a poor predictor of their efficiency, but what is known is that higher octane ratings are beneficial for fuel efficiency. Since ethanol has a high (>=100) octane rating, it might actually improve fuel consumption despite being less energy dense. Also, E15 and higher fuel blends have been in widespread use in the US for 10+ years now. I don't think car engines die quicker in the US.
- bri3d 11y agohttp://feerc.ornl.gov/pdfs/pub_int_blends_rpt1_updated.pdf http://feerc.ornl.gov/pdfs/pub_int_blends_rpt1_updated.pdf Here are some fairly extensive test cycles applied to real-world engines, which found that the effect closely mirrors the theoretical reduction in energy density (3-4% for E10, ~7% for E20). Higher octane ratings are not generally beneficial for fuel efficiency unless the engine has been designed for them (compression ratio, cam profile, timing, tune). Dropping higher-octane fuel into an engine designed for a lower-octane fuel will generally not affect economy.
- cplease 11y ago> and much harder on car engines, even ones designed for it (unsourced, but so my gearhead friends have told me) Bollocks. The energy content is slightly lower, but there is zero harm to automobile engines. Your unsourced "gearhead" friends share a common misconception and prejudice against ethanol. There is absolutely no issue with E10 fuel in cars with model years as far back as the '90s, or even earlier. Very old classic cars may have issues with some fuel line components, but even there E10 will not wreck the engine. As a fuel E10 is extensively tested on gasoline autos. Two-stroke engines are another matter. And 2001 and newer autos can run E15.
- bri3d 11y agoE10 has a very noticeable negative effect on fuel economy and a poor reputation because it would cause fuel system issues in older cars. There's even a reasonably-sized group of people in the US who seek out non-E10 fuel even though E10 has been the standard here for some time. I don't think avoiding inexpensive E10 is nearly as silly as putting more-expensive higher-octane fuel in cars that don't require it.
- abruzzi 11y agoA bunch of motorcycles made before the beginning of E10 have fuel tanks that are made of a material that swells and deforms with E10 gas in it. If you have a 90s or early 2000s Ducati, E10 can make it impossible to remount the tank after removal (which has to be done for lots of service.). I stay away from E10 when I can because several of my bikes have 'plastic' tanks, and I worry what could happen to them. Replacement tanks are not cheap.
- PebblesHD 11y agoI run my Yamaha on 98 (Australia) whenever it is available, but having looked, it would suffer from the same deformations. Good heads up!