General topics » Fuel Consumption using E10

According to that most reliable of newspapers sources (??!!!) The Mirror you will suffer a 2-3% reduction in fuel consumption using E10 compared with E5.

The article quotes the RAC as suggesting a 3% reduction in fuel consumption. The Department of Transport suggests "up to 2%".

[URL]h t t p s://w w w.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/new-e10-green-fuel-may-25364597?__vfz=medium%3Dtray_notification[/URL]

So e.g. on long motorway legs riding at say 75-80 mph I might expect circa 213.5 miles rather than 220 (I am assuming 55 mpg. I think I tend to get slightly better at circa 56 mpg so say 217 cf 224). Oh for an extra litre in the tank!!

I am going to stick with my current pattern of E10 for shortish journeys but using E5 on long journeys where I want the option not to stop early.

Chris

The figures you quote are good...

My experience with crude real world...tank fill up with E10 ( the normal around here) and no ethanol E0, over about 5 tank full showed about a 1 mile per gallon improvement ie 2% . From a cost perspective not worth it.

Also beyond all the hype about how bad ethanol is, I tend to disagree in general for the following reasons:

non ethanol around here is only available from "maverick / independent / non brand stations. the quality of the fuel is somewhat suspect. No confidence in the additive package of detergents, stabilizers etc

for my cars, in winter ethanol is GOOD, it absorbs water to the old gas line freezing problem is gone. Remember the days when on had to buy "gas line anti freeze" ie ethanol pint cans.

I do want the superior additive package that one gets from the major branded (ie expensive) source. Shell is one, Sunoco is another. all only available as E10

just my 2 cents

In California we have had E10 for about the past 20 years and never had E5. We went directly from E0 to E10 without any transition. However, there have been times where I have been traveling in other states and have be able to access E0 a few times. In those cases I noted that my fuel mileage increased by as much as 10%, while traveling over the same roads at the same speeds. I don't care what the government regulators claim. After all it is their job to bend you over and make you like it. Eventually, you will get used to using more fuel, which will raise its price and might or might not improve the local air quality and then you will start to forget all about using pure gasoline. Besides, I bet the regulators and decision-makers are driven around in a limo and don't pay for gas.

Zitat von Vtbob im Beitrag #2

---

The figures you quote are good...

My experience with crude real world...tank fill up with E10 ( the normal around here) and no ethanol E0, over about 5 tank full showed about a 1 mile per gallon improvement ie 2% . From a cost perspective not worth it.

Also beyond all the hype about how bad ethanol is, I tend to disagree in general for the following reasons:

non ethanol around here is only available from "maverick / independent / non brand stations. the quality of the fuel is somewhat suspect. No confidence in the additive package of detergents, stabilizers etc

for my cars, in winter ethanol is GOOD, it absorbs water to the old gas line freezing problem is gone. Remember the days when on had to buy "gas line anti freeze" ie ethanol pint cans.

I do want the superior additive package that one gets from the major branded (ie expensive) source. Shell is one, Sunoco is another. all only available as E10

just my 2 cents

---

Zitat von Richard230 im Beitrag #3

---

In California we have had E10 for about the past 20 years and never had E5. ]

---

Zitat von PlacidoD im Beitrag #1

---

So e.g. on long motorway legs riding at say 75-80 mph I might expect circa 213.5 miles rather than 220 (I am assuming 55 mpg. I think I tend to get slightly better at circa 56 mpg so say 217 cf 224). Oh for an extra litre in the tank!!
I am going to stick with my current pattern of E10 for shortish journeys but using E5 on long journeys where I want the option not to stop early.

---

I’m happy to use E10 on my 1200RS, I can afford a small loss of fuel consumption ( if that’s really the case) and I’m happy to make a small gesture towards the environment in support of my hobby. On the other hand I’m trying to ensure my 40 year old R100 RS is only running on E5, it only does low mileage and I’m not planning to destroy it now after so many years of TLC.

Zitat von wessie im Beitrag #9

---

Zitat von Vtbob im Beitrag #2

---

The figures you quote are good...

My experience with crude real world...tank fill up with E10 ( the normal around here) and no ethanol E0, over about 5 tank full showed about a 1 mile per gallon improvement ie 2% . From a cost perspective not worth it.

Also beyond all the hype about how bad ethanol is, I tend to disagree in general for the following reasons:

non ethanol around here is only available from "maverick / independent / non brand stations. the quality of the fuel is somewhat suspect. No confidence in the additive package of detergents, stabilizers etc

for my cars, in winter ethanol is GOOD, it absorbs water to the old gas line freezing problem is gone. Remember the days when on had to buy "gas line anti freeze" ie ethanol pint cans.

I do want the superior additive package that one gets from the major branded (ie expensive) source. Shell is one, Sunoco is another. all only available as E10

just my 2 cents

---

we are the other way around - the superior blends are E5 and only the base fuel (posh brands or supermarket) are E10

my RS gets E10 ordinary unleaded at a 95 RON usually from a supermarket

my XR is tuned to get best performance from 97+ RON fuel but runs okay on 95. I sometimes give it Tesco (supermarket) Momentum at 99 RON that claims to have an additive package at least as good as Shell or Esso.

The only difference I really notice is that with the XR the pops and bangs on the over-run seem to be more frequent and louder with E10 fuel. I first noticed this in France in 2019 but it has been evident on a recent trip in the UK.

---

I’ve not compared E5 consumption to E10 consumption.

As some folk above, my bike delivers 50 to 60 mpg or even more sometimes. And 30+ on a track session.

Overall, my approx 5,000 leisure miles per year are for fun. Fuel consumption is almost irrelevant. On tour, I know I can manage 200+ on a tankful and that’s all I need to know.

What I have done, after reading online comments about E10 vs. E5, is fill my tank with Super E5 fuel on my last ride of the year as allegedly E10 may not like lying around in a vehicle tank for a long time.

i.e. stale E10 is not good for fuel tanks. Fuel pipes. Carbs. Or even FI systems.

Who knows? I guess we’ll all learn the hard way.

Zitat von Boxerboy im Beitrag #8

---

I’m happy to make a small gesture towards the environment in support of my hobby. .

---

If ethanol had zero energy (BTU) then E10 would reduce mileage by 10%, but that's just to make a point. Ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline that's why mileage goes down, I have seen numbers in the past but I don't remember, it is not a huge difference. So 2% or 3% mileage reduction is probably right.

But Lee makes a good point about the footprint of making ethanol. Technology improves, but I know for sure that 30 years ago it took a gallon of fossil fuel to make a gallon of ethanol.

Ethanol got its foot into the gasoline pool because it is an oxygenate, it has a little bit of oxygen in it. But 3% ethanol is all that is needed to help reduce engine emissions, but politicians don't know limits so 10% is what we have now.

Zitat von Bunter im Beitrag #4

---

[
If you were in the position of having the choice of E5 or E10 with equal additives which would you choose to fill the tank up for a bike with minimal winter use?

Thanks in advance

---