E10 Fuel In NX

[malcolmw]

We put the first E10 fuel in our NX yesterday. It took 42 litres so the previous E5 fuel should not dilute the new load vey much. We are keeping a close eye on the mpg and any changes to the driveability. we will post our results later on.

Has anyone else used E10 yet?

[royoftherovers]

Just now, malcolmw said:

We put the first E10 fuel in our NX yesterday. It took 42 litres so the previous E5 fuel should not dilute the new load vey much. We are keeping a close eye on the mpg and any changes to the driveability. we will post our results later on.

Has anyone else used E10 yet?

Very interesting Malc. I filled up Mrs Roy`s Mazda 2 this morning with 36.07 litres of E10 and I`m watching how it uses the fuel too!

[as13]

I've just filled up too today with the E10. This coming week I'm expecting to do a round trip of 400miles. North Oxfordshire to the Dales, then up to York, a stop off in Doncaster then home M-Th.

I'm currently showing 37.0mpg so we'll see which way the mpg goes?

[peniole]

Based on prior experience with E10 outside of the UK, you will see a dip in fuel efficiency (2.4L naturally aspirated Honda Accord). I'm not sure how they're calculating the reduced carbon emissions. I have a sinking feeling they're calculating per litre of burnt fuel and not taking into account reduced MPG. The latter may completely negate the benefits if you're just burning more fuel for the same distance. I sincerely hope I'm wrong and you won't see the dip I saw with newer engine technology.

[paulrnx]

I’ve posted elsewhere. I’ve recently read a report that e10 fuel will cause an approximate 1% reduction in engine performance. I doubt anyone would notice this. Europe has been using e10 fuel for quite a while.

[Tel]

My new NX was doing c.42 mpg v.38mpg on E5 on my 2019 NX..

On E10, I am getting barely 40 on urban roads & 38 on motorway trips.

Perfomance has not been affected.

I feel for all those members whose cars are not designed for E10 as it is said to harm the catalytic converters due to the change in exit temperature 

Tel

[paulrnx]

I’m going to continue my experiment with V-Power. Definitely had a 2mpg increase over two fill ups which equates to about 5% which is about half the price difference. Factor in the cleaning additives and I think it might be worth it for me. After all I take care with what food I eat so why not similar with the car. I’ll do two more fill ups with V-Power and review then.

[C Mclean]

Just noticed the other week when washing the car, on the inside of the fuel filler flap there is a sticker indicating that it’s okay to use E5 or E10.

[paulrnx]

5 hours ago, C Mclean said:

Just noticed the other week when washing the car, on the inside of the fuel filler flap there is a sticker indicating that it’s okay to use E5 or E10.

It is. The same cars are sold throughout Europe and Europe has been selling and using e10 fuel for some time now. 

[LordByronUK]

Oh boy, even worse fuel economy for the NX, that's not good! I'm so not convinced by E10 fuel if it means people fill up more, just don't get how that's any better overall for the environment.

[Al D-Much]

E10 is approx. 33% less energy efficient than E5.

So expect more fill ups, higher annual fuel bills, potential starting issues if the car has been stood for a while.
And I bet the price per litre goes up, even though there's less petrol in our petrol

[paulrnx]

11 hours ago, Al D-Much said:

E10 is approx. 33% less energy efficient than E5.

So expect more fill ups, higher annual fuel bills, potential starting issues if the car has been stood for a while.
And I bet the price per litre goes up, even though there's less petrol in our petrol

Hi. That’s not quite true. It is Bio-ethanol that is 33% less efficient than pure petrol. 5% more bio-ethanol between e5 and e10 fuel then. 33% of that extra 5% is less efficient so you end up with about a 1.6% reduction in efficiency between e5 and e10 fuel. It’s only the extra 5% of bio-ethanol that is 33% less efficient. By my reckoning e10 fuel is therefore about 3.3% less efficient than e0 or whatever fuel was called when it had no bio-ethanol.

[RichieinScotland]

I did notice my local (ish) Shell garage has V-Power, rated at 99 0ctane now. Car seems to run well on that 🙂

 

[royoftherovers]

43 minutes ago, RichieinScotland said:

I did notice my local (ish) Shell garage has V-Power, rated at 99 0ctane now. Car seems to run well on that 🙂

 

It will run very well on that Richard.

[joelfigueira]

On 8/7/2021 at 5:02 PM, peniole said:

Based on prior experience with E10 outside of the UK, you will see a dip in fuel efficiency (2.4L naturally aspirated Honda Accord). I'm not sure how they're calculating the reduced carbon emissions. I have a sinking feeling they're calculating per litre of burnt fuel and not taking into account reduced MPG. The latter may completely negate the benefits if you're just burning more fuel for the same distance. I sincerely hope I'm wrong and you won't see the dip I saw with newer engine technology.

So would it be better to use premium fuel?

[royoftherovers]

Use premium fuels for every 1 in 4 fill-ups and you will be just fine.

3 fills will be cheaper and the fourth will keep your engine clean.

[Rosella]

I wonder what Honest John from the telegraph newspaper thinks is E10 fuel. Will have to spend some time on his website 

[royoftherovers]

8 minutes ago, Rosella said:

I wonder what Honest John from the telegraph newspaper thinks is E10 fuel. Will have to spend some time on his website 

HJ has been dropped by the DT.

[Rosella]

Not much info on his website either 

[peniole]

13 hours ago, joelfigueira said:

So would it be better to use premium fuel?

I have, given the MPG gap the price difference isn't as wide when you factor in ~10% difference in MPG. Note that difference was on that older engine, 32 vs 29MPG (US gallon at the time). I would expect the difference to be closer to 5% in newer engines that are designed for bioethanol additives but I haven't experimented, and have just stuck with premium ever since avoiding E as much as possible. Even premium in Germany can have up to E5.

[royoftherovers]

10 hours ago, Rosella said:

Not much info on his website either 

It is not his website anymore. It just exists under his good name.

[paulrnx]

HJ walked the walk and talked the talk as far as I was concerned. Not now of course.

[malcolmw]

Just refuelled the NX today with our second tankful of E10.

There is no noticeable difference to the running of the car versus E5 fuel. We have achieved 38.4 mpg on the first tankful of E10 which is pretty typical of our general economy on E5. Of course, the economy achieved depends on journey patterns and a lot of other factors but it seems to be much the same.

We will see how it goes over a longer period.

[Mincey]

On 8/7/2021 at 7:23 PM, paulrnx said:

I’ve posted elsewhere. I’ve recently read a report that e10 fuel will cause an approximate 1% reduction in engine performance. I doubt anyone would notice this. Europe has been using e10 fuel for quite a while.

I drive an IS300h. I can't afford a 1% reduction in engine performance.... 

[peniole]

well here's an eye opener Q&A from https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/104126/e10-petrol-explained-uk-prices-checker-tool-and-it-ok-your-car

"

Q: Does E10 reduce tailpipe CO2? 

A:  There may be a slight reduction, but this is likely to be offset by any increase in fuel consumption. The real CO2 savings come from the crops grown for the fuel.

"

I'm still not convinced that those crops are carbon negative. While they fix co2 into green mass, is that really enough to more than offset the co2 expended in farming and production of bioE?