Are any of you noticing a fuel economy impact running E10?

Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2002
Posts
3,726
Location
UK
I know there has been loads of stuff in the press recently about E10 causing drops in economy but i've pretty much ignored it and not paid attention to MPG for months as i've really only done the odd run to the shop in my wifes car which has been running on the stuff since it appeared, had a bit of running around in the wife's car today however and it definitely seems quite a bit worse when I actually paid attention to the trip computer to what it used to be capable of.

It's an Octavia 2.0 FSI, Worksop to Pinxton via the M1 at at 65MPH resulted in a readout of 32 MPG, the same journey in reverse got a marginally better 34 MPG.

Spent about 45 mins in town too, 16 MPG.

Running around town used to average 23ish and motorway trips used to result in 40 - 43 MPG.

Anyone else seeing similar issues running this new E10 or is my wife's car simply broken?
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Jun 2012
Posts
10,211
There is a at most 2% difference.

I don't believe anything anyone claims.

I've seen people claim their car does 50% less miles.

Bunch of muppets
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
19,355
Location
South Manchester
I'm seeing a small but consistent drop on a Toyota hybrid on E10. 3 mpg ish compared to the same time last year.

As Simon has mentioned above the weather is a factor - hybrid disproportionally suffers from the cold as it has to run the combustion engine for longer to warm up and provide cabin heat. I'll get 10mpg more in the summer..
 
Associate
Joined
17 Apr 2020
Posts
2
I'm seeing a small but consistent drop on a Toyota hybrid on E10. 3 mpg ish compared to the same time last year.

I think I’m seeing a similar drop with my Auris hybrid. Tempted to put it on a diet of Shell V power for a while to see if it makes any difference.
 
Associate
Joined
17 Apr 2020
Posts
2
Yeah, same car. I did consider sticking a tank of Esso 99 in last time, but at 13p/litre more I passed.

For me, I reckon I’ve lost 6% MPG so paying 10% extra for V Power doesn’t make sense in pure cost terms. Thinking about it, I’d probably have do it for a year for it to be a reliable comparison. On balance, would cost me maybe 4% extra - do I want to spend £32 extra this year to satisfy my curiosity? Are the extra cleaning agents in Vpower worth that much?
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
43,264
Location
Co Durham
There is a at most 2% difference.

I don't believe anything anyone claims.

I've seen people claim their car does 50% less miles.

Bunch of muppets

Although 50% is just rubbish, certain cars when tested by what car lost 10% of their mpg on E10.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2006
Posts
22,169
I've been using it in my Abarth daily and noticed a drop (according to the car's reading).
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
25,655
Location
Oxon
I've had my car 8 years, and I've noticed a drop, so ive gone to E5 and its improved again, certainly not worth the risk using it (fuel consumption and engine problems etc)
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
43,264
Location
Co Durham
I don't believe it.

Lab engine tests showed under 2%

Lab engine tests aren't real world. And I doubt every model of car including older cars has been lab tested?

In their "real world tests" it was the Lancia Sandero which lost 11.5% of its mpg and the Hyundai i30 lost 9.8%

Perhaps newer Lancia's are better as this was a 2015 car. Perhaps manufacturers have made modifications to take account of E10 since they new it was coming?

Doesn't help you if you own an affected used car and lose 11.5% of your mpg though
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Nov 2006
Posts
21,692
Location
London
The people claiming it has lost loads clearly don't understand what E5 and E10 fuel actually is. 95% of the fuel is exactly the same.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
8 Nov 2006
Posts
21,692
Location
London
Lab engine tests aren't real world. And I doubt every model of car including older cars has been lab tested?

In their "real world tests" it was the Lancia Sandero which lost 11.5% of its mpg and the Hyundai i30 lost 9.8%

Perhaps newer Lancia's are better as this was a 2015 car. Perhaps manufacturers have made modifications to take account of E10 since they new it was coming?

Doesn't help you if you own an affected used car and lose 11.5% of your mpg though

Care to link this as I can't find it on what car? Switching 5% of the fuel to ethanol instead makes the cars become 10% less efficient. Right...

So what you are saying is that it'd be better to remove half of the ethanol and make it "E5" and you'll get more range. Even better, the emissions would be less as you aren't burning that 5% ethanol.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
19,355
Location
South Manchester
Lab engine tests aren't real world. And I doubt every model of car including older cars has been lab tested?

In their "real world tests" it was the Lancia Sandero which lost 11.5% of its mpg and the Hyundai i30 lost 9.8%

Perhaps newer Lancia's are better as this was a 2015 car. Perhaps manufacturers have made modifications to take account of E10 since they new it was coming?

Doesn't help you if you own an affected used car and lose 11.5% of your mpg though

Great News! It's the Dacia Sandero....
 
Top Bottom