I was advised to put only E5/super in the 1996 Honda Del Sol, which costs £1.60/litre as against about £1.45/l for the homeopathic E10 stuff.
No big deal really. I get at least 10% more miles per gallon out of the E5/super than I used to do out of the E5/normal (which is no longer available at local petrol stations), and an unknown amount more than if I used E10 (which I don't dare), so in terms of pence-per-mile, it comes out about the same.
I suspect that the whole thing is just greenwashing by the car manufacturers to trick us into buying new cars.
Bonus conspiracy theory - the fuel shortages/panic buying that we had at the end of September was triggered by the switch from E5 to E10.
Once I dipt into the future
10 hours ago
9 comments:
E10 is definitely less economical
With no change in driving style/distances, my average on normal E5 was 60mpg
After the change to E10 it dropped to 45mpg. Thinking I was just reliving my boy-racer days, I’ve been really careful. Now my average is 50mpg.
Anecdotal evidence obviously, but a real world example.
D, that's a terrible fall in mpg, from 60 to 50 could be about right. I'm using E10 in another car and will monitor the situation.
Is E10 mineral diesel with biodiesel added?
Using Shell as the example, we have always used their V Power premium fuel. The diesel version is a synthetic fuel which is much more consistent quality and burns faster making for a smoother response. I reckon you get better MPG but I have not actually measured by how much.
We used the petrol version of V Power - plus a valve lubricant additive - in the historic (1963 car) racer from the late 1990's. Definitely worth it. Mrs Lola uses it in her Jag E Pace on my instruction.
The E!0 stuff is technically, shite, IMHO. And because you get worse MPG you must produce more CO2 (if that was even an issue, which it is not). Methanol has a lower energy density then petrol.
In passing, someone has to stop all tis madness before were are all impoverished.
Lola
"And because you get worse MPG you must produce more CO2"
Possibly not. The lower energy density of ethanol is because there is less carbon in it compared to octane, which has no oxygen molecules in it and a higher ratio of carbon to hydrogen atoms, C2H6O compared to C8H18 and because, as a liquid, it is less dense.
"In passing, someone has to stop all tis madness before were are all impoverished."
Not all of us, which is why it is not going to stop any time soon, sadly.
L, you are the expert, it's V-Power or similar for me in future.
B, in Peter Hitchens recent column he pointed out that some people thought Communism was a good idea and put it into practice in some countries. That impoverished people but people kept going with it anyway (and still are in Vietnam and Cuba, I believe). The Greens wouldn't be any different, and it will take serious unrest to dislodge them again.
Mark, as far as I can see, ideally under communism, everyone would have the same wealth. However, what tends to happen in practice is that the rich and powerful say "sod that for a game of soldiers" and nick all the money from the less rich and powerful, so only the really poor end up better off, which is fine if you are one of the very rich or very poor, but not great if you are somewhere in between.
B, which is clearly far worse. Far better if we are all somewhere in the middle, no really poor and no super-wealthy.
B. Of course. Re CO2 - but I did say possibly worse, on the basis that drivers end up pushing their engines harder.
MW. re V Power Petrol. In real world racing testing over many years We decided that V Power Petrol was the best of the premium fuels. But, that was in particular engines. Mid 1960's small capacity pre-crossflow Fords that had been got at by Cosworth, rev limits 8,500 to 11,000, and power band 4,000 to 10,300 ish. With 12.5+:1 CR and very aggressive cam timing and hence very sensitive to pre-ignition.
Today Mrs L's Jag does does feel sweeter on that particular jungle juice, but I have not done any real sums.
Post a Comment