Can I use the new E10 petrol ?

Where I am overhere in Aus, the cost of the premium is that much more that the extra efficiency doesn't make it cost effective.
Both my 1150GS and 1100S have learnt to run on standard / normal / regular (s'pose like two 2* back in the day).

Years ago, I used to use Shell fuel, because the shopping dockets gave it discount.
On a hot day, accelerating hard, there would be popping and pinging and such.
As I talked about it with others and researched, I learnt more about it and then stopped using it - prefing to use BP fuel instead.
Was at Uluru (Ayres Rock) and got talking with an 1100GS rider who acutally worked at the refinary where the Shell petrol was made.
He said that Shell petrol was not good for air cooled engines and he didnt use shell fuel either.

My GS and S are the older ones with no knock sensors - maybe that would have made a difference.
 
For oilheads and a practice I have observed is to avoid E10. I'm in France by the way. Permanently. Except for when I'm riding to other places...

From https://motoconseil.fr/quelle-essence-pour-la-bmw-r1100-rt/ and google translated....

"The Lead Free 95-E10 (SP95-E10), arrived in France in 2009, and frankly it’s not a gift. Its price is generally inexpensive, however you should be wary of it. And even if your BMW R1100 RT is compatible, it is better to avoid it because its effects on the engine are not pleasant. First, there is oxidation due to the high level of ethanol which is corrosive over time. So all metals that gasoline comes in contact with will pay the price. From the tank, to the cylinder, injections ... Also, he usually dilates and warms the rubbers, not great for gasoline hoses and engine block gaskets. Then, it increases consumption, and this can go up to 20 to 25%. So if you have some in your BMW R1100 RT, it is better to purge it or dilute it with SP98. Finally, if you want to keep your BMW R1100 RT in good condition, choose the SP95, it is a reliable fuel for everyday us5. For sports use, the SP98 will also do the job but a lot of rumors lead to the SP98 being better valued for these uses. On the other hand, if you're in the mood to ruin your BMW R1100 RT, the SP95-E10 seems like the perfect sickness to give your engine."

I have a 135,000km plus engine that runs well and has not seen E10 except for an emergency on one occasion. Full leaded, as it were, gives better economy too. Is that because it has better calorific value? I don't know.
 
A study conducted by VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland indicates that there is practically no difference between commercial petrol grades 95E10 and 98E5 sold in Finland as regards fuel consumption in normal driving. The finding is based on driving tests conducted by VTT using six used cars of different make under laboratory conditions.

It has been frequently claimed in public that fuel consumption is significantly higher with 95E10 petrol than with its predecessor 95E or the 98E5 petrol currently on the market. The suspected higher consumption has deterred drivers of cars whose manufacturers recommend E10 from actually using it.

"The point of this study was to highlight how fuel consumption should actually be measured to give comparable results. Measuring fuel consumption very accurately is not as simple as it seems, because other factors affect consumption besides the fuel itself. In laboratory conditions, we can eliminate these other factors," says Juhani Laurikko, a Principal Scientist at VTT.

The VTT measurements show that the cars tested used an average of 10.30 litres of 95E10 per 100 km, as opposed to 10.23 litres of 98E5 per 100 km. The difference was 0.07 in favour of 98E5 on average, meaning that using 95E10 petrol, which has a higher ethanol content, increases consumption by 0.7%. Normalising measurement results of each individual test run with observed slight scatter in actual total work done over the driving cycle yields to somewhat higher overall difference, 1.0%.

An estimation of calorific values based on approximate fuel composition came out at 1.1% in favour of E5, which is highly consistent with the aforementioned 1.0% difference in consumption. Fuel consumption depends mainly on the calorific value of the fuel, i.e. its energy content per unit of volume or mass.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110606075634.htm
That's interesting. It does kind of remind me of VW...and subsequently the rest of them!

But it does not match my own experience. I'm practically commuting to Italy so I have regular fill up points along the way - I ride the tank range each time (around 350 miles), don't stop in between, so the stop points are well known. My luggage is fairly constant, but there weather isn't and that can/does have some impact. But there are some fuel stops I pass and remember using - because I'd used E10...they are long gone by the time I actually full up...

So I'm unclear how this report reflects real world performance.

On a long trip you get a good illustration of the difference. Yes, I care about the environment, I guess I'm just unclear if there's a false economy going on here? Regardless, I will definitely switch to electric the moment the infrastructure and systems/methods are sorted. But that's some way off for our motos...

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
 
I drive a diesel car, 25 miles each way to work, fuel consumption on, (what appears to me) to be identical driving conditions, no traffic jams, driving the same style, mpg can vary 10% on a daily basis, according to the dash readout.
 
A study conducted by VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland indicates that there is practically no difference between commercial petrol grades 95E10 and 98E5 sold in Finland as regards fuel consumption in normal driving. The finding is based on driving tests conducted by VTT using six used cars of different make under laboratory conditions.

It has been frequently claimed in public that fuel consumption is significantly higher with 95E10 petrol than with its predecessor 95E or the 98E5 petrol currently on the market. The suspected higher consumption has deterred drivers of cars whose manufacturers recommend E10 from actually using it.

"The point of this study was to highlight how fuel consumption should actually be measured to give comparable results. Measuring fuel consumption very accurately is not as simple as it seems, because other factors affect consumption besides the fuel itself. In laboratory conditions, we can eliminate these other factors," says Juhani Laurikko, a Principal Scientist at VTT.

The VTT measurements show that the cars tested used an average of 10.30 litres of 95E10 per 100 km, as opposed to 10.23 litres of 98E5 per 100 km. The difference was 0.07 in favour of 98E5 on average, meaning that using 95E10 petrol, which has a higher ethanol content, increases consumption by 0.7%. Normalising measurement results of each individual test run with observed slight scatter in actual total work done over the driving cycle yields to somewhat higher overall difference, 1.0%.

An estimation of calorific values based on approximate fuel composition came out at 1.1% in favour of E5, which is highly consistent with the aforementioned 1.0% difference in consumption. Fuel consumption depends mainly on the calorific value of the fuel, i.e. its energy content per unit of volume or mass.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110606075634.htm


I'm not bothered about the fuel consumption, I am bothered about the claims that it doesn't store well and will fuck the fuel system up within a few months if left!?!?!?

Is it as bad a people are making out? or will a full tank (17L) store ok for six months without gumming things up?

thanks
 
I topped up my RT today at my regular petrol station, Tesco, I always choose the cheapest, 133.9 per litre, never had any problems, and I haven’t a clue what E it is, it doesn’t say on the receipt :D
 

Attachments

  • 17E2F3FB-FF03-4D45-9860-2C101421DBCD.jpg
    17E2F3FB-FF03-4D45-9860-2C101421DBCD.jpg
    258.6 KB · Views: 308
West coast:blast

I was pointing out that my fuel consumption varies even though I seem to drive the same, the diesel comment was an aside:rolleyes:
 
I drive a diesel car, 25 miles each way to work, fuel consumption on, (what appears to me) to be identical driving conditions, no traffic jams, driving the same style, mpg can vary 10% on a daily basis, according to the dash readout.

Similar results here with my car over a 50 mile journey - some days I get 62mpg, other days I struggle to get 55mpg but I have had 66mpg - typically I get 60mpg.

One of the effects of increased ethanol is more water is attracted into the fuel as ethanol is hygroscopic. This water is the problem for storing fuel over a period of time - best to flush it out of the system before putting the bike under cover for winter.
 
This water is the problem for storing fuel over a period of time - best to flush it out of the system before putting the bike under cover for winter.

Can you not just use E5 super unleaded for a few tanks then fill to brim before storing?

(for up to six months)
 
Can you not just use E5 super unleaded for a few tanks then fill to brim before storing?

(for up to six months)

The E5 is also hygroscopic but will attract less water.

Alternatively there is Aspen 4 petrol that has no ethanol in it. https://aspenfuel.co.uk/products/aspen-fuel/#a4. I have no idea what octane it is so fill the tank with it and then drain it off in spring, put in some fresh E5 and use thew drained off Aspen 4 in the lawnmower.

It is easier just to keep riding through the whole year.
 
I've heard there's issues with E10 for bikes with plastic tanks.
I believe it has an adverse effect causing the tank to swell as does E5 95.

I know my bike is prone to it (DucatI MS 2008) and always fill up with the highest octane available.
 
I've heard there's issues with E10 for bikes with plastic tanks.
I believe it has an adverse effect causing the tank to swell as does E5 95.

I know my bike is prone to it (DucatI MS 2008) and always fill up with the highest octane available.

That's been an issue for many years.I have a Ducati Monster S4RS and it has suffered from the tank expansion issue.If you Google it there are countless pages on the ethanol in the petrol issue.In the States the Ducati peeps were going to take Ducati to court,not sure what happened about that.
 
3f38d83db44563208294699d068917db.jpg
 


Back
Top Bottom