Shell pulls ethanol pumps from Victoria

[joolz]

Originally Posted by Fiesta God

Every single test carried out proves that when comparing cost/litres/kms travelled, E10 does nothing to save you money.

It's less efficient than petrol and the reduction in efficiency is not offset by the cheaper price.

I recall when e10 was first introduced and it was atleast 4cpl cheaper than 91 unleaded. Now most servos in Melbourne its 1 or maybe 2cpl cheaper than unleaded. So for what you may possibly save IMO its just not worth using it especially in my FG XR6.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by joolz

I recall when e10 was first introduced and it was atleast 4cpl cheaper than 91 unleaded. Now most servos in Melbourne its 1 or maybe 2cpl cheaper than unleaded. So for what you may possibly save IMO its just not worth using it especially in my FG XR6.

Well when you can get 95ron E10 for a cheaper price then 95ron regular it can make it worth it.

[Brute6]

Originally Posted by joolz

I recall when e10 was first introduced and it was atleast 4cpl cheaper than 91 unleaded. Now most servos in Melbourne its 1 or maybe 2cpl cheaper than unleaded. So for what you may possibly save IMO its just not worth using it especially in my FG XR6.

I was going to bring that up also. Here is Geelong its 1.5cpl cheaper? Whats the point of that? It burns quicker, but pretty much costs the same......?

[EDManual]

I would rather pay 100% of the price of unleaded and only get 90% of the product than topping up the 90% with 10% ethanol!

[Jesmol]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Holdens decision to go E85 was stupid. Spending that much money tuning their engines for E85 that maybe 1% of the population have access too, and expecting other manufacturers to follow suit so it forces servos to stock it, seems to me that Holden have such big heads they think everyone will do what they do, cause they are so much better than all the others.

Actually you couldn't be more wrong. They needed to redevelop the entire fuel pump system anyway for SIDI introduction. So there was no additional cost to make this happen. So for the sum total of zero dollars they've now introduced a "greener" option.

Holden already made an Ethanol compatible system as far back as 1997 , when the VT was being sold into Brazil, all the fuel lines, pumps etc were unique to suit alcohol based fuels.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by burnz

the cars tune them self on the type of fuel used, they run an alchometer in the tank..

and if the feds force the use e85 then what?? no probs for holden.

Holden spent millions adapting the engines for E85, and then had to tune them to make sure it all worked properly, then had to do all the emissions testing for it. The engines don't work on E85 unless Holden make them compatible. You've confused that with what happens when you put E85 in the tank, and the sensor works out what type of fuel its using an adapts to suit, it only does that because of the millions Holden spent tuning the ECU for it to do it. It can only figure out what type of fuel it has, and what fuel and spark settings plus a million other variables because of the base program Holden load into it.

Why do you think the 3.6 sisi can't run on E85, because Holden are still proramming it to do it at the moment and it won't be ready for at least a few more months. If it tuned it self like you say why isn't it able to run on E85 now?

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Jesmol

Actually you couldn't be more wrong. They needed to redevelop the entire fuel pump system anyway for SIDI introduction. So there was no additional cost to make this happen. So for the sum total of zero dollars they've now introduced a "greener" option.

Holden already made an Ethanol compatible system as far back as 1997 , when the VT was being sold into Brazil, all the fuel lines, pumps etc were unique to suit alcohol based fuels.

Do you think they were able to tune it for E85 for nothing. It would have cost them millions. They would have done thousands of k's of testing, dyno runs, hot and cold weather testing etc. It would have been a lot of testing to prove its safe and can run on E85 under all conditions. They can't just add a fuel sensor and then say yep, it works no worries.

Just because it only required a few extra sensors to make sure it can recognise the fuel type in the tank has absolutely no bearing on how much it cost Holden to put it into production. They still haven't tuned the 3.6 for E85 yet either, they are still in testing for it. If what you claim in that it didn't cost Holden anything to do because the SIDI fuel system was already compatible would mean that the 3.6 would already be running on E85. But they have been testing it for months now getting it ready for production, and that costs bucket loads of money. Every aspect of its operation must be tested and tuned for.

[Till_Lind]

See a lot of places now have additional advertising for Unleaded (regular) fuel nowadays, it's the least I'll use.

[Rastus]

Good. Never used the stuff anyway. Plus, there might be more chance of not having to queue for Diesel.
Now all we need is The Gov to insist that servos must display the price of Premium on the billboard as they do with all the other fuels. Instead of shrugging and filling up once you're already at the pump, we can drive by the ones that are reeming more out of you for with greater margins for 95/98?
Then again "competition" is non existant anyway I guess, so they would all read the same.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Well when you can get 95ron E10 for a cheaper price then 95ron regular it can make it worth it.

The octane rating does not relate to the energy stored in the fuel. 95ron E10 has less stored energy than 91 regular.

[GASWAGON]

Did anyone see A current Affair Vic a few nights ago where they did a full fuel burn test on E10, 95, 98 and Diesel...all Shell fuel and all with same model cars (Hyundai Sorrento's) starting with dry tanks and filled with 3 litres exactly.... The E10 car stopped first, then the 95 then 98 and after like 40k's further the Diesel.... They then did a retest and the results were the same.... Tried to find a video online but none ther..

[ebxr8240]

If Holden Engines where only made here I would say they did well..
But they have BIO fuels in America and G.M are using the SAME engines...
I keep hearing what HOLDEN are doing .. G.M have done it 5 years earlier!!!
Ford Taurus was one of the first flexible fuel vehicles...

[burnz]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

If Holden Engines where only made here I would say they did well..
But they have BIO fuels in America and G.M are using the SAME engines...
I keep hearing what HOLDEN are doing .. G.M have done it 5 years earlier!!!
Ford Taurus was one of the first flexible fuel vehicles...

well you allready know the LSX's are create job's.
the sixes are made here.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by irish2

The octane rating does not relate to the energy stored in the fuel. 95ron E10 has less stored energy than 91 regular.

Well I get the same mileage as 91 & 95 (non ethanol) but the car goes better on E10 95 ron then 91 (non ethanol) I know what I'll keep using.

[Nikked]

E10 user here in my turboed EL, no dramas...loves it!

[Whitey-AMG]

It also seems to me that people just get confused with so many fuels on offer. 91, 95 , 98 , E10 etc etc

Methinks people are just going for what they trust and use regularly. Its also noteworthy that E10 pumps arent always accesible so people will just drive in and look for whatever pump is available......and generally it will be the yellow 91 pump.

I wonder what the ratio of 95 to 98 fuel usage is ?

[2011G6E]

Not to mention the staggering list of cars, sometimes quite recent ones, that can't use it.
It's not only stereotypical "old dungers" that can't run on it. My mothers 1996 Mazda 121 has a clear warning that it must not use ethanol belnd fuel in the handbook. There are also a long list of premium and prestige European cars that simply cannot use it. Many motorbikes cannot use it either...my GSX-1400 can apparently use up to 15% ethanol, but it may need the EFI resetting to run "effectively" on it.

Sorry, but I'm not resking damage to any of my vehicles by using the crap.

[ebxr8240]

Originally Posted by burnz

well you already know the LSX's are create job's.
the sixes are made here.

Doesn't matter where they are made etc..
G.M U.S has had E85 engines for years..
It's nothing special that Holden have done anything...
Just part of there self promotion...

E85 requires at least 30% more fuel supply over ULP..
To keep same power levels and safe AFR..
So yes it should sell for 5c a ltr less than ULP..

[burnz]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

Doesn't matter where they are made etc..
G.M U.S has had E85 engines for years..
It's nothing special that Holden have done anything...
Just part of there self promotion...

E85 requires at least 30% more fuel supply over ULP..
To keep same power levels and safe AFR..
So yes it should sell for 5c a ltr less than ULP..

according to caltex it around 20cpl cheaper the 91ulp...
with respect to the thread direction, liberal + ethanol = pork barrel!!

[castellan]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Well I get the same mileage as 91 & 95 (non ethanol) but the car goes better on E10 95 ron then 91 (non ethanol) I know what I'll keep using.

I find up hear in QLD the stations don't all have the RON ratings on the pumps.
I went in and asked at one station and they did not know what the RON was so i had to go find a 98 RON because my bike runs 13:1 compression.

But i find in my car E10 if it's 95 RON it's OK but if the E10 is 91 RON it is rubbish down low under 1800 RPM and she will drink more fuel but E10 95 RON is not so bad on fuel or power.

We all should know that E10 will not get better mileage but their are more factors involved than just that, as a lot can do with how your EFI system and how it backs of the timing as some can retard from 2 degrees and progressively go to 12 and some just go straight to 12 retard at any detections.
And 12 degrees retarded drops a lot of performance.

[Troy_xlr8]

They used to have 100 octane ethanol fuel at Shell in Punt rd, then they got rid of it for this E85 bull***... Ethanol is cheaper and has more octane, so why water it down? because the sale of their 8 cent per litre more Vortex **** was dropping?
If they come out with a high performance ethanol fuel that was the same price or cheaper then reg unleaded then it would entice people

[2011G6E]

Ethanol is only cheaper because of all the government subsidies. It has less energy content than unleaded (not sure how they managed to get "100 octane" out of it, unless it had masses of additives... ), and is energy negative (takes more energy to produce than is contained in the end product). There's no way of getting around that.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Ethanol is only cheaper because of all the government subsidies. It has less energy content than unleaded (not sure how they managed to get "100 octane" out of it, unless it had masses of additives... ), and is energy negative (takes more energy to produce than is contained in the end product). There's no way of getting around that.

100 RON is easily achievable with ethanol blended fuels. Octane slows the roll of the flame front across the piston, it does not represent the calorific value of a fuel. So in other words it will prevent detonation, whilst also using more of the stuff to produce the same energy yield.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by castellan

I find up hear in QLD the stations don't all have the RON ratings on the pumps.
I went in and asked at one station and they did not know what the RON was so i had to go find a 98 RON because my bike runs 13:1 compression.

But i find in my car E10 if it's 95 RON it's OK but if the E10 is 91 RON it is rubbish down low under 1800 RPM and she will drink more fuel but E10 95 RON is not so bad on fuel or power.

We all should know that E10 will not get better mileage but their are more factors involved than just that, as a lot can do with how your EFI system and how it backs of the timing as some can retard from 2 degrees and progressively go to 12 and some just go straight to 12 retard at any detections.
And 12 degrees retarded drops a lot of performance.

I only go to United to get my E10 fuel. As I know its 95ron. I wouldn't go other places because most are at the 91/92 ron.

People will get different results for fuels the best way is to try it and see what results you get and then you will know what to use on your vehicle. Saying something is crap without actually doing your own testing is quite pointless but then there are always people who hate things because its different.

[GASWAGON]

95 Ron E10 would obviously be more beneficial and 91 should really be removed..... But it still needs to be 'at least' 5c cheaper than standard or people just won't use it.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by vztrt

I only go to United to get my E10 fuel. As I know its 95ron. I wouldn't go other places because most are at the 91/92 ron.

People will get different results for fuels the best way is to try it and see what results you get and then you will know what to use on your vehicle. Saying something is crap without actually doing your own testing is quite pointless but then there are always people who hate things because its different.

Hear hear!

E10 haters lol

[irish2]

Originally Posted by vztrt

I only go to United to get my E10 fuel. As I know its 95ron. I wouldn't go other places because most are at the 91/92 ron.

People will get different results for fuels the best way is to try it and see what results you get and then you will know what to use on your vehicle. Saying something is crap without actually doing your own testing is quite pointless but then there are always people who hate things because its different.

I understand what you are saying, but lets assume ethanol doesn't have any corrosive properties for a minute. Simple science dictates that ethanol has 68% the stored energy of standard unleaded petrol. So by anyones calculations E10 should be 3% cheaper than normal unleaded to be worth while. I have never seen it more than 3c/l cheaper.

[JamesR]

Originally Posted by EF_6

Did anyone see A current Affair Vic a few nights ago where they did a full fuel burn test on E10, 95, 98 and Diesel...all Shell fuel and all with same model cars (Hyundai Sorrento's) starting with dry tanks and filled with 3 litres exactly.... The E10 car stopped first, then the 95 then 98 and after like 40k's further the Diesel.... They then did a retest and the results were the same.... Tried to find a video online but none ther..

http://youtu.be/oZIIhP3usuA

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by irish2

I understand what you are saying, but lets assume ethanol doesn't have any corrosive properties for a minute. Simple science dictates that ethanol has 68% the stored energy of standard unleaded petrol. So by anyones calculations E10 should be 3% cheaper than normal unleaded to be worth while. I have never seen it more than 3c/l cheaper.

Again I get the same mileage out of E10 95ron as I do from 91ron and 95ron. Seeing as the E10 is cheaper and the car actually goes harder I don't have a problem with using it. If I found it to be costing me more then I would avoid it. My testing for my car, driving style and other conditions has shown me (not anyone else but me) that its better value. This is why I said that people should do their own testing, and not 1 tank, and make up their mind.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Again I get the same mileage out of E10 95ron as I do from 91ron and 95ron. Seeing as the E10 is cheaper and the car actually goes harder I don't have a problem with using it. If I found it to be costing me more then I would avoid it. My testing for my car, driving style and other conditions has shown me (not anyone else but me) that its better value. This is why I said that people should do their own testing, and not 1 tank, and make up their mind.

To get accurate mileage data you would have to be in a very controlled circumstance.

It takes energy to accelerate a mass to a speed, and to maintain that speed against friction. I am not disputing your testing, but simple logic dictates that less energy in equals less energy out. We are only talking about roughly 3% less energy in E10, so it is very hard to determine at the bowser.