- This topic has 9 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 11 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
- Topic
- Replies
Nothing special just comparing 12 months on E10 and then 8 months on E5 we have note zero difference fuel consumption or smoothness except the price.
Unfortunately I have suffered a brain injury and occasionally I get confused and often say the wrong thing.
I figured the extra price for E5 wouldn’t make much difference and at least balance out with E10 anyway, so always used E10. I do put E5 in the mower and strimmer though.
The Suzuki is just over 21 months into it least, for the first 12 months or so we ran on E10 fuel, towing down to the New Forest 180 miles each way 360 miles weather good traffic good no major hold up on 3 occasions approximately 45 litre, the first outgoing journey 25 miles in EV so 360 – 25 =335 divide by 45 litres (9.9 gallons) =33.8 mpg.
Same journey in May this year conditions virtually identical using E5 petrol approximately 45 litres no difference but the price.
Unfortunately I have suffered a brain injury and occasionally I get confused and often say the wrong thing.
I am curious, is that a surprising result to you? Genuine question. I know the “E10 ruined my fuel economy” crowd is reasonably strong around here.
Just as a general PSA: if you compare three petrol types (“pure”, E5 and E10), you’ll notice rather quickly that there’s no noticeable difference between them. If we take pure petrol as the yardstick at 100% energy density, then E5 is 98.3%, and E10 is 96.7%. In other words, if you run a 100% accurate test between “pure” petrol and E10 (the worse of the two ethanol fuels), you’ll notice a 3.3% difference. Meaning that if pure petrol does exactly 50mpg, E10 will do 49.3mpg, E5 will do 49.64mpg.
And that’s all there is to it. People argue back and forth, you just need to look at the energy density. Yes, E10 carries marginally less energy per litre, but people here were suggesting they lost 10, 15, sometimes even 20% of their economy by switching fuels (usually more than they’d lose switching to even E85).
Now. As for using E5 vs E10, honestly.. The differences are so marginal, just go with whatever makes the car go broom. The vast majority of people will not notice a difference of any kind, be it the tiniest increase in fuel consumption on E10, the tiniest amount of fossil fuels avoided with E10, the tiniest amount of better lubrication on E5, etc.
The one thing that can (but won’t) make a difference is the knock resistance. For the vast majority of people here 95RON (E10) will do just fine – in higher performing engines, E5 (97RON) or higher (“premium fuels” like V-Power, Momentum etc – all the 99RON stuff) might lead to a small increase in power/efficiency. I don’t think there’s any high compression engines on the scheme though, hence won’t make a difference.
That all said, we only refuel once every 8-12 weeks, so we splurge on the “good stuff” (Momentum, usually) – despite almost certainly just being a “feel-good” choice. Makes me feel better, and we love the car so might as well. Kezo certainly is correct though, assuming you don’t need high octane fuel, the premium for E5 completely negates the theoretical “range advantage” (swings way the other way in fact) over E10. As a general rule of thumb, if your car can run 400 miles per refuel, then switching from E10 to E5 grants you around an extra 7ish miles of range. Now consider that E5 is what, 5-10p dearer than E10, over an entire fuel tank – lets say 35l – you pay £2-£4 extra for E5/7 miles extra. You’ll always get way more by getting £2-£4 extra of E10 (numbers not accurate, but ballparks).
Prior: SEAT Ateca Xcellence Lux 1.5 TSI DSG MY19, VW Golf GTE PHEV DSG MY23
Current: Hyundai Ioniq 6 Ultimate
Next: we'll see what's available in 2028.The Toyota RAV4/Suzuki Accross ICE unit uses the Atkinson Cycle (it has been designed to use even a lower grade of fuel than E10) rather than the more common Otto cycle, it design to simulate the original Atkinson engine, the Atkinson cycle opens the inlet valves much later than Otto cycle despite being a 2500cc it only draws 1600cc/1700cc on the inlet cycle, the exhaust cycle is a conventional Otto cycle thus giving a cleaner burn for the next cycle.
As a comparison our previous Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV 2400cc ice unit use a variable valve timing using both the Atkinson and Otto cycle, using E10 as opposed E5 on that vehicle made a 2 mpg difference.
Excuse my grammar I have a brain injury.
Unfortunately I have suffered a brain injury and occasionally I get confused and often say the wrong thing.
Any thoughts on shell V MAX which they say is very good but expensive.
Shell V Power max is 99 RON, which contains up to 3 times more detergents and friction enhancers than standard 95 RON E5 & E10 petrol and is similar Texaco Supreme.
It’s made for high compression engines however, the extra cleaning detergents in fuels like V Power, might be beneficial to some injection types but, not direct injection engines which are becoming more popular, because the detergent in the fuel doesn’t pass over the valves, which over time leads carbon buildup and oily sludge can form on the intake valves.
As pointed out and explaned in more detail by @Rene , after you take into consideration higher costs over standard petrol, the difference is negligable, plus all modern cars are designed to run on at least 95 RON E10 and older classics E5.
Half a tank of each gives you E7.5 and a lower octane level (ron) than super unleaded and is cheaper and most cars just don’t need 97+ ron. My Suzuki used to run smoother on E7.5 than it did on E10 and gives a bit more get up and go.
I didn’t see any point filling up with just e5 97/99 ron. Although, put that in my older Honda civic sport and drive it so the vtec kicks in and you then notice a huge difference. For day to day stop start driving E10 is ok. E5 95 ron removal from the uk market is another forced upon us government policy that makes no difference only costs more for drivers, however you look at it.
EX30 SMER Ultra
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.