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

Caporegime
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
25,056
Location
Berks / Moscow
Sure.. Sure.. True.. True..

Except I know my car and the difference was night and day, other cars may be different but a 211ps 2.0tfsi quattro TT does NOT like this slurp.
This thread isn’t about washing machines. My 414ps 4litre V8 doesn’t seem to mind the tank full I just put in
 
Permabanned
Joined
28 Nov 2012
Posts
70
So your car has a misfire, definitely the fuel then.

It was fixed by filling up with 98 Ron (even though my cars designed for 95)
Luckily, that was very easy as with the E10 the fuel went much quicker than normal!

YMMV.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Sep 2003
Posts
15,358
Location
Norwich
I love it when someone who has been a member of the forum for 9 years clocking up less than 20 posts suddenly activates and talks like someone from 15 years ago! *popcorn.gif*
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Apr 2014
Posts
4,929
Location
Sunny Sussex
I know my car. The difference was night and day, I'm not going to argue with any derp that disagrees as I've physically had the experience.
Also my engine idles like **** on it, I actually thought I had a misfire until I remembered, ah yeah, that new fuel!

People blindly believing lab results because some **** in a suit said something is something is genuinely full retard.

As we know, you NEVER go full retard.

Lol your posts are funny

Big chips perhaps?
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Sep 2003
Posts
15,358
Location
Norwich
Oooo. Who
Just spotted this RiZzah guy has been signed up since 2012 but only had 19 posts (when I first looked). Adding in the "derp" and "Sure.. Sure.. True.. True.." etc. I thought someone had skipped the past decade simply to rattle a few cages on a motoring forum :p
 
Permabanned
Joined
28 Nov 2012
Posts
70
My 414ps 4litre V8 doesn’t seem to mind the tank full I just put in

Only 414ps? Damn that must drive like a ******* winnebago with all that weight!
Is it sitting on the front or rear axle though?

The answer to this question will prove how much of a tool you are.

(P.S - Id smoke jouuu)
 
Permabanned
Joined
28 Nov 2012
Posts
70
how olds the car ?

2014. 8J MK2 not 8S MK3.

Everyones going to get different results in this but my engine runs like **** on it. Its not ******** just because some lab experiment designed to make everything look ok came back looking ok.

ok?
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Apr 2009
Posts
22,732
Hard to take anyone seriously who's claiming with a straight face that a fuel which is about 2 or 3% less energy dense has caused a near enough 20% reduction in economy figures. Even accounting for an appropriately capable engine perhaps running more efficiently on a higher octane fuel, that's just way beyond believable.
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
25,056
Location
Berks / Moscow
Only 414ps? Damn that must drive like a ******* winnebago with all that weight!
Is it sitting on the front or rear axle though?

The answer to this question will prove how much of a tool you are.

(P.S - Id smoke jouuu)
Erm. Answer is a pipe wrench ?
 
Permabanned
Joined
28 Nov 2012
Posts
70
Hard to take anyone seriously who's claiming with a straight face that a fuel which is about 2 or 3% less energy dense has caused a near enough 20% reduction in economy figures. Even accounting for an appropriately capable engine perhaps running more efficiently on a higher octane fuel, that's just way beyond believable.

I'm not the only one reporting it and what do I have to gain?

Running great on 98 RON. Go figure.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Mar 2004
Posts
11,891
Location
SE England
There's negligible difference between the two in my Swift, in similar conditions, on the economy front. The calculated MPG often hovers around 40; I did some 300 miles recently on a tank of 95, turned around and did the same distance on 97. Worked out as 38.97mpg on 95 and 38.19mpg on 97. That's been repeated since, approximately, too.

It has historically returned its best on super, though, and I did recently get a batch of 95 that it was particularly unhappy on – plenty of low-speed knock. It is quite sensitive to fuel quality, mind, but I think it was probably just the fuel from that particular station. It hasn't exhibited such significant issues on subsequent tanks. Regardless, I prefer to opt for the best fuel available; I've just had to use 95 a few times due to availability issues.

The Corvette isn't troubled by it and returns similar economy on 95 as it does on anything better, and runs just as hard on either. But then that's just a simple naturally aspirated engine with an unremarkable compression ratio. Again, I'll usually stick the best available in it if possible, though. Every little helps...
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
5 Apr 2009
Posts
22,732
I'm not the only one reporting it and what do I have to gain?

Running great on 98 RON. Go figure.

50 million cigarette smokers can't be wrong! :p

As for what you have to gain, who knows other than you? I'd love to hear some genuine logic and reasoning as to how 2 or 3% less energy in your fuel has caused a 20% decline in your economy alone.
 
Permabanned
Joined
28 Nov 2012
Posts
70
As for what you have to gain, who knows other than you? I'd love to hear some genuine logic and reasoning as to how 2 or 3% less energy in your fuel has caused a 20% decline in your economy alone.

You assume the lab results are accurate, and not skewed or aligned in such a way as to push the real agenda here in helping the EU reach climate targets they will fail to meet anyway.
I mean, apparently E10 is a European SUCCESS story you know?

Whats cigs gotta do with this? As in 50 million people smoke so it must be good? Is that your logic? You can do better surely. DERP
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Apr 2009
Posts
22,732
You assume the lab results are accurate, and not skewed or aligned in such a way as to push the real agenda here in helping the EU reach climate targets they will fail to meet anyway.
I mean, apparently E10 is a European SUCCESS story you know?

Whats cigs gotta do with this? As in 50 million people smoke so it must be good? Is that your logic? You can do better surely. DERP

Cigarettes being the famous Simpson's joke taking the **** out of people who use logic like "I'm not the only one" and assume it validates whatever point they're (usually badly) making. I'm surprised you couldn't figure that out yourself.

Besides, I haven't mentioned lab results, i'm asking you to provide some sort of logic to explain how 2 or 3% less energy results in 20% less economy. Can you?

If that is all that is different with this fuel, then why will some cars absolutely not run on it?

Riddle me that, bitch!

Because of material incompatibility that will degrade hoses etc. over time, not because the engine won't run.
 
Top Bottom