Are petrol stations having a laugh?
- Thread starter tenofspades
- Start date
That is an issue with e10 fuel. It doesnt like to be stood for long periods of time so no good for using in cars you dont use regularly.
If E5 and E10 was sold side by side for 95 RON, no one would buy E10. Thats the incentive, use E10 which is cheaper than E5.
Going back to your links to articles, the government source you previously used for you 5% claim of car parc is stating 1% worse fuel economy. Where is this 3% claim from?
People said the same about E5 too. Just scare mongering, just like a fuel tank is full of dirt and so you shouldnt run the tank low.
Various motoring sites. In fact in real world testing What Car found some cars do 10% less mpg and actually put more co2 out. Its only offset by the fact that 10% of the fuel is grown.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/new-e10-fuel-could-reduce-cars-economy-10-cent
Of course the Govt is going to claim that its only 1% and you wont notice it.
Where are you seeing that E10 is cheaper the E5? Thats my point. Petrol stations havent lowered the price of petrol since moving from E5 to E10 so the consumer certainly isnt seeing any cost savings and perhaps 10% worse fuel economy. Hence where is the carrot?
Man of Honour
Simon is saying that e10 will be cheaper compared to e5 super and that's the incentive.
But so far I havent seen any petrol station doing it cheaper. All that is happening is e5 95 ron is getting re classified as "super unleaded" at a higher premium price which technically makes e10 cheaper but only because they have put the price of e5 up. super unleaded used to be 97-99 ron not just e5 95 ron.
Soldato
E10 in the 3 petrol stations I've checked today is certainly not cheaper, infact, in 2 of them I'm sure it's a couple of pence more expensive than a few weeks ago. Swings and roundabouts because it fluctuates so quickly but from what I've seen petrol prices are up right now than over a months ago... so for me, we haven't seen any reduction in price for a poorer fuel.
That auto car is E10 vs ‘pure unleaded’ and from 2014! I guess that’s some special E0 then ? Where did they manage to find that?
shock as more fuel burnt also means more co2 is created
If 5% of the fuel is now 33% less energy than before then I’m sure you don’t need a degree in maths to realise 10% drop is silly talk.
Last edited:
No one has said it will be cheaper. I purely stated why a special E5 95ron fuel isn’t available, unlike the last issue for old cars when LRP was made available. I guess removing lead from fuel was also an attack on the motorist too
Thanks. I was wondering if my typing was the issue
No one has said it will be cheaper. I purely stated why a special E5 95ron fuel isn’t available, unlike the last issue for old cars when LRP was made available. I guess removing lead from fuel was also an attack on the motorist too
No you implied the incentive was that E10 was going to be cheaper. It isnt. The "incentive" is that all E5 fuel will be more expensive. That is not an incentive. Thats a stick. And E5 95 Ron will still be available. The Govt has reclassified that as super unleaded. I bet it wont be at old E5 95 Ron prices though...............
It disingenuous to claim otherwise.
My point is that they could have made it an incentive but dropping the duty to encourage people to use it and offset some of their mpg loses, especially for those not so well off.
Last edited:
How can a petrol station reclassify E5 95 as 'super unleaded'? The specification for super requires the minimum octane rating to be 97.
Soldato
I wasn't saying anyone did tbh, I was just commenting in general when people were mentioning prices. For me, if you deploy a worse quality product you would expect a cheaper price for said product and I'm not seeing stations reducing prices for what is a poorer quality fuel. You shouldn't get a replacement fuel that's worse, more costly to the consumer YET charge the same and force that 5% of the population to spend even more because they need super unleaded. Wasn't really pointing this at anyoneNo one has said it will be cheaper. I purely stated why a special E5 95ron fuel isn’t available, unlike the last issue for old cars when LRP was made available. I guess removing lead from fuel was also an attack on the motorist too
Just an observation It was just a badly worded Govt document. They meant people would have to buy 97 ron super unleaded not that 95 ron would be classified as super unleaded.
interesting to see the Dft has said super unleaded will only be available for 5 more years.............
0.2 per litre cheaper but even by govt figures 1.6% less fuel economy so everybody will have to pay more for their motoring even if their car takes e10
Its estimated that the Treasury will get fuel duty increase by £13million-a-month, or £156million-a-year from the 1.6% worse mpg.............
Diesels kick out NOX which is way worse as a greenhouse gas than Co2. Also cancer causing particles which linger at ground level and concentrate inside buildings. If the tax system included NoX many diesels would go in to the top tax bracket.
Not to mention most cars optimised for "super" need 97+. 95 cannot be super.
You get a few more MPG with super and it keeps much longer, plus extra cleaning additives so it kinda pays for itself. There is no real incentive to buy E10 unless it's cheaper than current E5 95, enough of a drop to cover the losses. Otherwise it's a false economy.
Last edited:
They said they will review it in 5years to see if needs to stay as E5.
0.2 what? pence? 1.6% now? i thought it was 10% a while ago?
In those numbers there are other factors more likely to affect the treasury, like more working at home. A 1% increase in consumption is not the 10% people are claiming people can change their driving habits and get 10% better consumption, lets not blame the fuel.
Anything to back up this claim of NOx being 'way worse' than Co2?
Pretty well proven science? Plants can deal with some Co2, nothing can deal ith NOX.