The Lemon Fool

E10 is not suitable for most cars made before 2011.
So if you run such a car, you will need to buy E5, which costs extra.
If you run a classic car, you will have troubles, but you'll already know about that as it's been widely trailed by car clubs.

And even if your car is compatible, its fuel consumption will be worse. Between 2% and 11% worse, according to a What Car road test. Small-engined cars will be more affected.

Telegraph article here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/advice/e10-petrol-what-new-green-fuel-suitable-compatible-car-2021/

...the Government seems to have kowtowed to the fuel retailing and ethanol industries and forced E10 fuel to be the standard grade. In the process it has ignored evidence from individuals and (and in some cases from motoring organisations) that such a move will hit poorer folk who can't afford to simply buy a new car. It's a pattern of behaviour that's becoming more common, as the decades-old presumption that old cars shouldn't be required to do no more than when they were new is thrown out of the window.

The fact is, whether your car is compatible or non-compatible, E10 is going to cost you more and there's been little debate or discussion about this – a fact which the Department for Transport seems to be entirely happy with.

If you object to the impact on older cars and the effect on the less well-off, write to your MP.
For classic cars in particular, the govt has only guaranteed the availability of E5 until 2026. After that, unless we complain, they may throw us to the dogs.

V8

88V8 wrote:If you object to the impact on older cars and the effect on the less well-off, write to your MP.
For classic cars in particular, the govt has only guaranteed the availability of E5 until 2026. After that, unless we complain, they may throw us to the dogs.

V8

I recommend that the first thing that you do is stop reading the Telegraph.

I would view that any claim that "E10 is not suitable for most cars made before 2011" must be viewed as suspect. Especially when placed against the counter claim

All classic cars can run on E10, all will need some changes to be made, with some needing more than others, but some effects can be mitigated by increased maintenance and sensible storage.

https://hawkclassics.co.uk/e10-conversion

I wonder what the government have to say on the subject.

Almost all (95%) petrol-powered vehicles on the road today can use E10 petrol and all cars built since 2011 are compatible.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/e10-petrol-explained

Seriously we went through this when they decided that it might be a good idea to remove lead from petrol. That was a harder problem given that cylinder heads needed work rather than simply replacing pipes and seals.

PS, my 2009 I30 must be unusual, as it's compatible with E10.

a visit to the government (INDEPENDENT???) web site which enables checking compatability....

my 2007 Mitsubishi....1 ltr engine

page shows ALL mitsubishis are OK


so web site or Telegraph???..........well its too late now as filled up 2 weeks ago....so will watch for 'signs'

88V8 wrote:If you run a classic car, you will have troubles,

What are these archly referred-to "troubles"? I never see them spelled out.

A chemist friend of mine reckons the higher ethanol content of E10 means the combustion will be hotter. That's about it. He also suggests that as E5 also contains ethanol, just less of it, the 'deteriorates seals' claim is wrong. Any seal good for E5 should therefore be good for E10 too.

Presumably there is more to it than all this.

mutantpoodle wrote:a visit to the government (INDEPENDENT???) web site which enables checking compatability....
my 2007 Mitsubishi....1 ltr engine
page shows ALL mitsubishis are OK

I think you should check with a main agent, as the motoring mags have found many errors in the Govt site.

Mike4 wrote:

88V8 wrote:If you run a classic car, you will have troubles,

What are these archly referred-to "troubles"? I never see them spelled out.
A chemist friend of mine reckons the higher ethanol content of E10 means the combustion will be hotter. That's about it. He also suggests that as E5 also contains ethanol, just less of it, the 'deteriorates seals' claim is wrong. Any seal good for E5 should therefore be good for E10 too.

I bought a new Edelbrock carb three years ago, came from the US where they've had ethanol fuel a long time and are well familiar with its issues. It came with a tag saying 'Not guaranteed with E85'.
We don't have E85 yet, but the idea that more of something must be OK because less of that something was OK, is just wrong.

My original point, being on this Board where members may be expected to run older cars, was the hidden increase in running costs for them, that the govt is keen to downplay. The extra cost of E95 and anti-ethanol additives and stabilisers.

As regards Classics, ethanol is aggressive to hoses, seals, diaphragms, gaskets, soldered components such as floats or pipe unions or the manifolds of Hobsons units, and the metals found in fuel pumps filter housings carbs and mechanical injection systems, and fuel tanks whether of GRP, steel or alloy. Ethanol is hygroscopic, and its acidic qualities are amplified when cars are left standing as classics often are. Ideally one should totally drain the fuel system when not in use, which is a pain and often impractical.
One can use a fuel stabiliser, another cost.

In more modern cars it may first make its presence felt by an indefinable petrol smell where there was none before, yet with no perceptible leaks. This is because it percolates through what used to be standard fuel hose.

Urbandreamer wrote:I would view that any claim that "E10 is not suitable for most cars made before 2011" must be viewed as suspect. Especially when placed against the counter claim

All classic cars can run on E10, all will need some changes to be made, with some needing more than others, but some effects can be mitigated by increased maintenance and sensible storage.

https://hawkclassics.co.uk/e10-conversion

I wonder what the government have to say on the subject.

Almost all (95%) petrol-powered vehicles on the road today can use E10 petrol and all cars built since 2011 are compatible.

Seriously we went through this when they decided that it might be a good idea to remove lead from petrol. That was a harder problem given that cylinder heads needed work rather than simply replacing pipes and seals.

The govt is of course keen to play down any issues. And btw the linked article has appeared in many motoring mags where it would have been picked apart if it were wrong....

Replacing pipes is not so easy if they're soldered copper pipes. It's not just fuel hose (which we had replaced on our Pug 205). And as regards other seals, it's easy to assume that viton seals and resistant gaskets are available for everything, well I wish. Have you ever seen the number of gaskets in the rebuild kit for a four-barrel?

Leaded fuel, yes the main problem there was valve seat recession and a possible need for hardened inserts. My Rover V8 didn't need as it had hardened inserts from new, my Rambler may do eventually depending on mileage and speed. The hammering effect is less at low speeds.

V8

hmmm
then all considered I shall just buy the more expensive petrol in case!

my little car doesnt do main dealers...it hardly ever goes to a garage of any desciption!!

My 1997 Toyota has just been through its first tank of E10. OK so far.

Mike4 wrote:

88V8 wrote:If you run a classic car, you will have troubles,

What are these archly referred-to "troubles"? I never see them spelled out.

A chemist friend of mine reckons the higher ethanol content of E10 means the combustion will be hotter. That's about it. He also suggests that as E5 also contains ethanol, just less of it, the 'deteriorates seals' claim is wrong. Any seal good for E5 should therefore be good for E10 too.

Presumably there is more to it than all this.

E5 has..... 5% renewable ethanol, E10 has 10%

My cars have been running fine since E10 appeared in August (if I remember right) but they are both under 10 years old when I usually swap them.

88V8 wrote:
I bought a new Edelbrock carb three years ago, came from the US where they've had ethanol fuel a long time and are well familiar with its issues. It came with a tag saying 'Not guaranteed with E85'.
We don't have E85 yet, but the idea that more of something must be OK because less of that something was OK, is just wrong.

V8

To be fair, E85 is the extreme end of the spectrum, and IIRC is 50-85% Ethanol. I thought it was mainly used as a race fuel as it has a RON rating similar to Avgas, but much lower energy content than regular petrol so you need a lot more (hence buying fancy high flow carburetors )

Paul

... the age of Mk1 and Mk2 MX5s, and the fact all the components in the fuel system are service items that will need renewing at some point in the car’s life, mean you may well be replacing them anyway as part of your ongoing servicing.

Oh nice! So with E10, we'd need to replace the fuel lines, fuel pump (inside the fuel tank?), injectors, inlet manifold, fuel pressure regulators, etc? I know the fuel filter is a service item, so that's fine. But the rest seems a bit harsh.