Petrol Price crisis......

[kypez]

Originally Posted by PooDog

Interesting the difference between 95 and 98 is only 5c .....the difference over this side of the ditch is around 15c , the explanation is the discount is only on 91 so if you need a high octane you really get ripped off

I use E10 on the cars that need 95. E10 is 94.5 minimum which is fine for the cars.

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by kypez

I use E10 on the cars that need 95. E10 is 94.5 minimum which is fine for the cars.

OK I don't like using ethanol in my cars because it's water soluble

[kypez]

Originally Posted by PooDog

OK I don't like using ethanol in my cars because it's water soluble

Not an issue really. Besides, we love E85 in high performance applications

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by kypez

Not an issue really. Besides, we love E85 in high performance applications

OK, not for me I would rather not risk running crap through my injectors

[kypez]

Originally Posted by PooDog

OK, not for me I would rather not risk running crap through my injectors

Sigh. F1 cars run E10... alcohol is a cleaning agent

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by kypez

Sigh. F1 cars run E10... alcohol is a cleaning agent

But they don't gas up at a servo

[DJM83]

Put a few litres of BP's finest in my ute to fill er up.
230cpl or close.
Turned a little of it into noise/wheelspin for the weekend drive.
Not bothered with the price!

[Rallye Sport]

Originally Posted by DJM83

Put a few litres of BP's finest in my ute to fill er up.
230cpl or close.
Turned a little of it into noise/wheelspin for the weekend drive.
Not bothered with the price!

Much the same around here.
Sounded great being sucked down the throats of my weber's. Might do it again tomorrow...

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by Rallye Sport

Much the same around here.
Sounded great being sucked down the throats of my weber's. Might do it again tomorrow...

Preaching to the choir

All this downer about prices. It is what it is i think.
Give me ute some hurry, i dont even think about how much it cost me!

[FairmontGS]

Back from extended OS tour. Fired up the 5.8 and backed it out of the garage. Chocked it up and selected D. Later on, let the FG 335 sit idling for 30 minutes as well.

Not noticing any dinosaurs missing.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by kypez

I use E10 on the cars that need 95. E10 is 94.5 minimum which is fine for the cars.

I put it in my old ****box ute, which has a corroded fuel tank to deliberately try cause issues with it, it got like 5 or 6 tanks of E10 just to try cause problems, and at one point sat for months on end with a tank of E10 .

No dramas

Got 98 for $2.169/L this afternoon in Sunbury 7/11 on Sunbury Rd.

However I also bought a small pack of Pringles that were tactically placed when I went to go pay, so that eliminated any potential savings

[fiestaz]

Paid $2.12 for 98 today. My usual servo had it for $2.07, but it was too out of the way and extremely busy.
Everywhere else around me has it for for a $2.50

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by PooDog

But they don't gas up at a servo

I don’t use E10 for a different reason, the price is 2cpl cheaper than straight 91ULP
but the energy difference is about 5% less so would need to be 8 to 10 cpl cheaper to match 91.

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by jpd80

I don’t use E10 for a different reason, the price is 2cpl cheaper than straight 91ULP
but the energy difference is about 5% less so would need to be 8 to 10 cpl cheaper to match 91.

Agree it also leans the A/F ratio 2% its why factory rich settings make a bit more power with E10 , but then custom tuned vehicles have to be cautious

[kypez]

Originally Posted by jpd80

I don’t use E10 for a different reason, the price is 2cpl cheaper than straight 91ULP

but the energy difference is about 5% less so would need to be 8 to 10 cpl cheaper to match 91.

Actually, 3%. But the car can advance the timing to run more efficiently so should net closer to the same. Many cars can't run 91 which is where E10 is much cheaper than 95.

[mick taylor]

Originally Posted by jpd80

I don’t use E10 for a different reason, the price is 2cpl cheaper than straight 91ULP
but the energy difference is about 5% less so would need to be 8 to 10 cpl cheaper to match 91.

I use 94 E10 only and avoid the 91 E10 rubbish totally.
Why because most cars built from about 2010 on should run on 95 octane in fact regardless what the car company says in Australia.
What happens to a car from 2010 on is that it only says you can run on 91 but what truly goes on is that the engine is retarding the spark timing at times or all the time maybe and you loose performance and fuel economy because of this.
So such should truly be using 95 octane ! and if 91 and 95 octane was the same price who would use 91 only a moron would do that.

But what of 94 E10 well because it's 94 octane most 2010 on cars will perform much better than 91 octane regardless as for the regards of the E10 part yep you could use more fuel, but i found with my Commodore VY SS manual that was not the case at all as i ran ipswich to Gold coast and back everyday on cruse control. but if i used A/C yes the E10 did use a bit more, so i found that driving easy no difference but when working it harder it did use more fuel. So the best i seen at times was 8.2L 100 on E10 and 91 normal was 8.6 L 100.

Being a 5.7L V8 driving under 100km/h would not be any better for economy worthy trying, but where such shines regarding fuel economy is you can cruise about at say 160 KM/H or say 180 and your 4 cly cars economy at such speeds could use more fuel at that speed because they are working harder.

E10 91 is bad value you are being ripped off but 94 E10 Is much better value.

Remember the old Vacuum gauge that some cars came out with in the 80's what that can tell you is related to your old Vacuum advance on the dizzy is doing ? this system is truly a real economy device in fact, and if it is not connected your max economy on the highway will be shocking ! and the thing is if you push your car harder on the HWY the vacuum adv will start to retard the harder you push the car. EFI does the same thing as well.

So we are trying to find the best relationship of spark advance as this being the key to economy and putting in 91 octane in an engine that truly needs 95 to perform at it's best 95 is best used, but if engine only truly needs 91 then 95 octane will not improve economy at all in fact. because it's all in relation to the spark timing, so if the computer has to drop spark adv because it detects a ping this can drop 12 deg out directly from where it should of been and the only reason why it does so is to save the engine from destroy pistons.

[Vekgib]

BP Marulan northbound tonight has E10 at 224.9.
Ampol Truck Stop next door has E10 at 197.9

[FairmontGS]

91 for $1.84 in Marrickville today. Filled up the Fiesta

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by FairmontGS

91 for $1.84 in Marrickville today. Filled up the Fiesta

WRC cars need 98....

[Syndrome]

Originally Posted by Syndrome

Last Friday set an new high : $162 for a full tank of 91 RON

Well today another dubious record. $168.8 for 73.5 liters of 91 RON.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by mick taylor

I use 94 E10 only and avoid the 91 E10 rubbish totally.
Why because most cars built from about 2010 on should run on 95 octane in fact regardless what the car company says in Australia.
What happens to a car from 2010 on is that it only says you can run on 91 but what truly goes on is that the engine is retarding the spark timing at times or all the time maybe and you loose performance and fuel economy because of this.
So such should truly be using 95 octane ! and if 91 and 95 octane was the same price who would use 91 only a moron would do that.

But what of 94 E10 well because it's 94 octane most 2010 on cars will perform much better than 91 octane regardless as for the regards of the E10 part yep you could use more fuel, but i found with my Commodore VY SS manual that was not the case at all as i ran ipswich to Gold coast and back everyday on cruse control. but if i used A/C yes the E10 did use a bit more, so i found that driving easy no difference but when working it harder it did use more fuel. So the best i seen at times was 8.2L 100 on E10 and 91 normal was 8.6 L 100.

Being a 5.7L V8 driving under 100km/h would not be any better for economy worthy trying, but where such shines regarding fuel economy is you can cruise about at say 160 KM/H or say 180 and your 4 cly cars economy at such speeds could use more fuel at that speed because they are working harder.

E10 91 is bad value you are being ripped off but 94 E10 Is much better value.

Remember the old Vacuum gauge that some cars came out with in the 80's what that can tell you is related to your old Vacuum advance on the dizzy is doing ? this system is truly a real economy device in fact, and if it is not connected your max economy on the highway will be shocking ! and the thing is if you push your car harder on the HWY the vacuum adv will start to retard the harder you push the car. EFI does the same thing as well.

So we are trying to find the best relationship of spark advance as this being the key to economy and putting in 91 octane in an engine that truly needs 95 to perform at it's best 95 is best used, but if engine only truly needs 91 then 95 octane will not improve economy at all in fact. because it's all in relation to the spark timing, so if the computer has to drop spark adv because it detects a ping this can drop 12 deg out directly from where it should of been and the only reason why it does so is to save the engine from destroy pistons.

Those 5.7 LS engines have a knock sensor, so on light throttle constantly checks and sets the timing to just under pinging,
I think that’s why you get better fuel economy with the slightly higher octane…

I don’t think my CX7 with base 2.5 I-4 Auto can take advantage of the E10 and just sees it as less energy.
For me, the 91 is cheaper and goes slightly further on a tank of fuel, smaller less efficient engine in a weighty suv.
The later CX5 has as much room as our CX7 and is a ton more efficient with 2.0 DI & 6AT, probably 20% better mpg.

[stefcio007]

From this thread I now know that there is 91 E10 and 94 E10. I think I’be only ever seen one place selling 94 E10.
Anyone in Vic have a list of places that sell 94 E10?

Just for fun decided how low I could get the economy down while driving on the freeway. Got it as low as 4.8L/100km (Average speed shown was 85 km/h). This was a tank of 98.

Most of my driving is city driving and I average ~9L/100km.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by Syndrome

Well today another dubious record. $168.8 for 73.5 liters of 91 RON.

You hate electric cars and then complain about the price of fuel?! That makes sense.

[kypez]

Seems diesel owners are going to be in a world of hurt for the rest of the year. Global diesel production is hurting

https://m.economictimes.com/news/int.../103729313.cms

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by stefcio007

From this thread I now know that there is 91 E10 and 94 E10. I think I’be only ever seen one place selling 94 E10.
Anyone in Vic have a list of places that sell 94 E10?

Just for fun decided how low I could get the economy down while driving on the freeway. Got it as low as 4.8L/100km (Average speed shown was 85 km/h). This was a tank of 98.

Most of my driving is city driving and I average ~9L/100km.

You won't break any economy records using Ethanol fuels

[roKWiz]

Originally Posted by kypez

Seems diesel owners are going to be in a world of hurt for the rest of the year. Global diesel production is hurting

https://m.economictimes.com/news/int.../103729313.cms

Great move. Looks like the all the local delivery prices will just follow suit.
Shopper looses again.

[mick taylor]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Those 5.7 LS engines have a knock sensor, so on light throttle constantly checks and sets the timing to just under pinging,
I think that’s why you get better fuel economy with the slightly higher octane…

I don’t think my CX7 with base 2.5 I-4 Auto can take advantage of the E10 and just sees it as less energy.
For me, the 91 is cheaper and goes slightly further on a tank of fuel, smaller less efficient engine in a weighty suv.
The later CX5 has as much room as our CX7 and is a ton more efficient with 2.0 DI & 6AT, probably 20% better mpg.

It comes down to is manly is the spark timing graph having too retard the spark at all ! that's the main economy and performance deal !

The E10 91 in it's self regards to 91 unleaded has less energy per volume of fuel.
But with E10 94 Octane we have the addition of Octane in the play, so it may get better fuel economy and performance ? why because if the spark timing mapping is a healthy one ? meaning it does not have too drop out spark timing from the set Graph ! That is the key issue, spark timing !

Now as to running say 98 octane in a car say from 2010 on that truly needs 95 Octane, well 98 will make not much difference economy wise but should not be less performance by rights ? that's EFI not carby ?

I ran 95 in my bikes with cabys and with 98 well you had to re jet the carby to get the most out of it using 98, go a bit leaner in general for better performance.
With E10 you may jet it a bit richer, but i could go run E10 and find out or feel the fine tune aspect regarding where it's all at.

[roKWiz]

Originally Posted by mick taylor

It comes down to is manly is the spark timing graph having too retard the spark at all ! that's the main economy and performance deal !

The E10 91 in it's self regards to 91 unleaded has less energy per volume of fuel.
But with E10 94 Octane we have the addition of Octane in the play, so it may get better fuel economy and performance ? why because if the spark timing mapping is a healthy one ? meaning it does not have too drop out spark timing from the set Graph ! That is the key issue, spark timing !

Now as to running say 98 octane in a car say from 2010 on that truly needs 95 Octane, well 98 will make not much difference economy wise but should not be less performance by rights ? that's EFI not carby ?

I ran 95 in my bikes with cabys and with 98 well you had to re jet the carby to get the most out of it using 98, go a bit leaner in general for better performance.
With E10 you may jet it a bit richer, but i could go run E10 and find out or feel the fine tune aspect regarding where it's all at.

Whats better, you reckon Mick in a 250 crossflow carby 91 or 95 98 ??
Can't say I notice much difference to be honest.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by roKWiz

Whats better, you reckon Mick in a 250 crossflow carby 91 or 95 98 ??

Can't say I notice much difference to be honest.

91. Given the static timing, you'd have to pick the fuel you want and tune really

[mick taylor]

Originally Posted by stefcio007

From this thread I now know that there is 91 E10 and 94 E10. I think I’be only ever seen one place selling 94 E10.
Anyone in Vic have a list of places that sell 94 E10?

Just for fun decided how low I could get the economy down while driving on the freeway. Got it as low as 4.8L/100km (Average speed shown was 85 km/h). This was a tank of 98.

Most of my driving is city driving and I average ~9L/100km.

I went down to SA and no E10 down their that i seen. maybe Vic is the same.
I thought that all of NSW was E10 or the City should be totally only E10.

The USA is all E10 for some years now i believe. because Unleaded is too toxic to the underground water it makes such stink like rotten eggs and people do now wash your hands in it for it's toxic can get into your blood. E10 Does not !

Funny that the car i have now performs best on 95 but on 98 it does not perform as well, why i do not know.
But E10 94 It's performing great and 95 best.
When moving into the highway with say half throttle the 95 kicks in real well from 3500RPM All other fuels it kicks in at 4000RPM.

But with 91 with A/C on taking off the mark for get it, I can't stand to drive it like that, so i only use E10 94 because of the price or i would use 95 if the price was not so high.