Not Another E10 Thread!

[Texas]

I came across this ( finger on the pulse reporting on E10!) article in the Telegraph today ( not that I am an avid reader) but I am trying to get to the basis of the statement in the middle paragraph, namely ‘ unfounded’ anyone anything to add on this?

 

[Moleman]

4 minutes ago, Texas said:

I came across this ( finger on the pulse reporting on E10!) article in the Telegraph today ( not that I am an avid reader) but I am trying to get to the basis of the statement in the middle paragraph, namely ‘ unfounded’ anyone anything to add on this?

 

Never seen that mentioned anywhere before in the press.  I think someone (Linas P) mentioned a similar point on a different forum.

[Texas]

Author was a Paul Hudson, motoring editor for the Telegraph.

link here. https://apple.news/A2hOVv5M-QuyKXzHMkX1amA

[Linas.P]

55 minutes ago, Moleman said:

Never seen that mentioned anywhere before in the press.  I think someone (Linas P) mentioned a similar point on a different forum.

lol - yes it sounds close to my point of view. I do personally believe that using E10 (10% of ethanol) in place of E5 (5% of ethanol) on modern cars is safe. So it would be right to say that for majority of people "the fears are unfounded". I can only back-it up with anecdotal evidence like my personal experience running E10 and E85 in my IS250 for tens of thousands of miles without issues, despite Lexus claiming it is not suitable fuel. 

However, this article specifically mentions classic cars and that is where I disagree - ethanol can and will damage certain classic cars if they have parts which could be damaged by ethanol. And the way it is articulated I think the statements is wrong or at very least misleading. Because it states that "fears are unfounded specifically for certain or particularly classic" cars - no that is wrong, "fears" are very much "founded" and rather factual, to the point where they are not even "fears", but rather facts. However, it is also true that they would be damaged regardless if E10 or E5 is used, so perhaps moot point. 

[H3XME]

I have tested this as i do 42 miles a day and 40 of it on the motorway. Full tank of e10 is cheaper, but i get less miles out of the tank.. so i stick to the more expensive and better e5 (tesco 99momentum) but it actually works out better as i can do more miles. Price of fuel considered, it still works out better to buy the more expensive fuel, but i guess it very much depends on your driving

[Cypry 1]

I have just started a trial of E5 petrol to see if there is any difference in MPG and will then cost it out against E10.

[Linas.P]

4 hours ago, Cypry 1 said:

I have just started a trial of E5 petrol to see if there is any difference in MPG and will then cost it out against E10.

I can save you some time - there is, but it is small and on hybrid you may not be able to notice it at all. Simple fact is that ethanol is less power dense (30% less power in the same volume), this means that E5 is about 1.5% less fuel efficient than pure petrol and E10 is about 3% less efficient. However, that said most Lexus cars have "smart" ECU which adjusts based on fuel meaning you may get less power despite getting very similar MPG. In my experience the difference between E5 and E10 is very small 1% at best, where the difference was noticeable was between real petrol and E85 (but that is 85% ethanol), with E85 fuel consumption was as much as 10% worse and at the same time car peak power was noticeably lower.