*E10 Fuel introduction in September*

#1

Shawn K

Professional Cat Confuser
Premier Member
#3
E10 ethanol blends have been de rigueur in the States for a long time now. It never occurred to me that it wasn't the case in the UK.
 

IBA ZX-9R

Active Member
#4
From a 'if it's generally safe to use' side of the equation.

Six months ago I did my own study on E10 and E0, aka Ethanol-Free in a carburetted motorcycle, my 2000 Kawasaki ZX-9R. I wanted to see for myself if the ethanol free proponent claims of 8% better power and 8% better fuel economy were true...and to see if conversely,
Visordown said:
MPG figures could take a tumble, as ethanol isn’t quite as efficient as a fuel when compared to petrol - with a 34% lower energy per unit volume ratio.
And since all of my carburetted ZX-9Rs have UEGO wide-band AFR gauges and I monitor their fuel consumption meticulously, I should be able to get a general idea of how accurate the E0 proponent and "E10's going to kill your MPG" claims were. With such equipment, I could both see the effect each fuel had on AFR in real time, under real-world riding scenarios over identical routes and nearly identical atmospheric conditions...which I did, in two sets of tests. I quickly accumulated a lot of data on the subject in the process. :cool:

My results were consistent with the chemical makeup of E0 v E10 fuels. Refineries blend ethanol into petrol fuels at the point the fuel is ready for delivery. The "blend" they will add is dependent on the petrol's octane rating and each batch will be slightly different dependent upon the "minimum octane rating" the fuel must meet; more ethanol if the petrol has a poor octane rating on its own, less ethanol if it has a higher rating. This is why you will see it spelled out at the pump. When it says E5, the fuel may contain "up to" 5% ethanol. It could be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5%, but then you'd have to test each batch to tell what ratio it has. E10 is the same way.

Visordown's scary use of the word tumble as well as stating that you're putting in fuel that will be 34% less efficient? Yeah, on the 0 - 10% of the fuel blend. That portion will be 34% less efficient! E10 is almost always somewhere below 7% (E7), which would translate to 7% preforming at 66% as efficient as petrol and the other 93% of the fuel used performing at 100%. This equates to 97.62% as efficient as 100% E0. If you've been accustomed to using E5 that is 5% ethanol, the difference in performance to 7% E10 is almost an immeasurable 0.68%, where E5 is 98.3% as efficient as 100% E0. 'MPG numbers could take a TUMBLE? Come on Visordown!

However, this becomes even more complicated for carburetted engines, due to the nature of our fixed fuel metering jetting. We can either jet for better fuel economy or for better power, no matter what fuel we put in, but we CANNOT get both better power and better efficiency. If we tune for better power, we will lose efficiency. And conversely, if we tune for best E0 efficiency, we'll lost power. EFI has us beat there. And it goes downhill from there. If we tune for best efficiency running E0, we CANNOT then put in E10. Our AFR numbers will go off the scale lean and the bike will be almost unable to run. But if we tune for best power on E0, we can run E10. It won't result in the same power we had using E0, but our (MPG) efficiency will improve.

I'm not concerned about the use of E10, ha-ha, because that's what fuel the carburetted 2000 ZX-9R was designed to use. The key word there is carburetted as it relates to what would have been necessary had Kawasaki jetted it to run on E0 or E5. As explained above, if they would have designed it to run on either E0 or E5 there would have been lawsuits and recalls from owners that ran E10 fuel through them at any point from 2000 to 2021. That, of course, didn't happen, so they must have jetted the carburetors to accept E10 to begin with.

So how much performance and efficiency was I able to substantiate? That depended upon my jetting. On one hand, I lost 4% in MPG running E0, with my jetting tuned for best power on E10. Did you get that Visordown? Yes, I lost 4% from putting in E0, not 0.68% going in the other direction. And if I fine tuned my jetting for E0 stoich (14.7:1), I got up to a 4% improvement in MPG (see video for how I arrived at those results, however); not the 8% claimed by ethanol-free proponents. I would assume that if optimized for best power on E0, I could see up to 4% as a possibility, but I don't have any way to measure for those results. My bike has RAM air, tuned for a pressurized airbox, so even a dynamometer would get the HP/torque numbers wrong.

The long and the short of it? For carburetted vehicles, switching between the fuel blends, it's not a free lunch.

 
Last edited:

EricV

Premier Member
IBR Finisher
#5
In the US, non-ethanol fuel is still available, but not as commonly as E10. I buy non-ethanol fuel for my small engines, mower, etc. On occasion if I stop for fuel and have a choice, I will sometimes pay more for the non-ethanol fuel because I do see a consistent improvement in mpg over E10 on every fuel injected vehicle I've run both in. The big motos typically get ~4 mpg better on average for the same conditions and riding style. Some of my 4 cyl autos were more dramatic in the difference.

The basic suggestion that E10 is better for emissions omits the reality that you're burning more of it for the same distance traveled. IMHO, the only reason for ethanol in petrol is to make ethanol sellers money. The corn produced for ethanol is not food grade, so we collectively are growing crops that are not dedicated for food, which impacts food prices over the long term.

The US started doing this "seasonally" in winters at first. Now the majority of petrol for autos is E10 with some retailers offering non-ethanol fuel at a stand alone pump, or a separate nozzle on the same pump set, much like diesel.
 

IBA ZX-9R

Active Member
#6
Yes, the separate (blue) nozzles for E0 would be required, otherwise the E10 fuel would contaminate for the customer, in a way, the fuel being dispensed.

The reason for ethanol being used as an additive to E0 seems to me to be because of multiple reasons that I doubt have anything to do with food grade. At least from what I've researched. It would seem perhaps, but only maybe that it has more to do with quantity and ease of distribution, unless you know of a substance that could replace it in the same quantities that are needed for E0 fuel? If you do, please come forth with what that is, because you'll be instantly rich and known the world over. But outside of that, at this time it appears that only ethanol can be produced to meet the needs of boosting the octane rating of petrol E0 and make it cleaner burning in the quantities necessary for mass distribution.

E0 fuel on its own pollutes. It's dirty, harmful to humans and unsustainable in the long term. We know this. E0 is also expensive to produce in quality with it's own ornate high octane properties. We also know this. Back in the old days, they found that a cheap way to boost E0's octane and anti-knock properties was to add tetraethyl lead. But that turned out to be a bad idea, when we discovered that long term exposure to lead aerosols tricks our bodies into thinking it's calcium. In dong so it made us all dumber and we know we're all dumber, our parents too, because of it. We know that too even though our IQs are all lower. Lead in any quantity in the human body is toxic. You don't want it in there. So the governments saw the problem and the chemical companies addressed both problems of octane boosting E0 cheaply and getting rid of tetraethyl lead by introducing fuel additives that were cleaner burning, because they had an oxygen atom in their makeup, something that E0 does not have. Thus, the only leaded fuels left, in quantity, are used in civil aviation.

Those fuel additives were MTBE and ETBE. Unfortunately, we all found out later that those too were toxic to humans and don't break down well if they get loose in the environment. Which is why they've been banned. Too many ground water wells poisoned by man-made compounds that don't play well with nature. So now they've turned to ethanol, which they've always known to have high octane properties. It's octane is 112, so it's an octane booster and anti-knock additive. Ethanol on a molecular level also brings with it an oxygen atom just like MTBE and ETBE, which promotes cleaner burning, and its available in mass quantities for cheap easy distribution at the levels needed to augment dirty polluting E0. And since ethanol is a semi-naturally occurring compound, it is not toxic if it leaches into ground water tables, comes in contact with human skin, nor if we accidentally inhale it. And that, to me, seems to be the logic behind why E10, from E5 or even E0.
 
Last edited:

EricV

Premier Member
IBR Finisher
#7
You are misguided. There is no need to boost the octane of E0. Your breathing is harmful to the environment, but I wouldn't suggest you stop. Cutting down the rain forests does far more harm than burning fossil fuels, but that continues unabated. Cows pass methane into the atmosphere, but suggesting that we survive on sustainable algae farms won't get you too many fans.

We as a humanity are always learning. That said, we will kill this planet, it's just a matter of time. Baring a huge die off, the current population and trends make the future unsustainable on this planet. Regardless of what we do. By and large, people don't care. They only care about their immediate future. E10 is effectively a scam to make a segment of the market rich. The benefits you outline don't realistically exist in real world terms.

We could eliminate gasoline altogether and burn only alcohol. There are functional advantages to that, and some countries have made inroads along those lines. There are also real problems with that on the scale of the US or even the EU. Never mind that China is the largest user of fossil fuels and will be for some time before the curve catches up with them. And never mind that the oil companies need to find something else to sell us before they give up on gasoline. They spend millions on making sure legislation stays favorable to them.
 
#8
Whilst I cannot comment on what others appear to have spent a long time researching on this subject, I can comment on problems that current E5 based fuels have caused me.

My petrol (4 stroke) garden strimmer developed a fuelling problem at the start of the summer(?). Not knowing an awful lot about how these micro engines (25cc) work, I took it to the local garden machinery service establishment. Turns out that the ethanol based fuel bought from the local garage had gummed up the carburettor. They cleaned it out and fuelled it with non ethanol based petrol, and all works well. They did advise that leaving ethanol based fuel in the tank for any period of time causes the ethanol to evaporate leading to additive heavy fuels which cause this problem. You can get ethanol free fuel for garden machinery at £20+ gallon, which is guaranteed to stay fresh for 3 years.

Surely leaving a tank of ethanol based fuel unused for any length of time will cause the same effect, whether that is a bike, car or garden strimmer. Personally if I am leaving the bike for any length of time, I try to run the fuel to a minimum, but with higher percentages of ethanol being introduced, could this be a potential problem in the long term? Especially for those of us with multiple older bikes, some of which are rapidly becoming collectable.
 

Tep_52

Premier Member
#9
Ok gentleman her is the perspective of a career mechanic. While alcohol is great for raising octane numbers cheaply and making good power, it does have it's own drawbacks. 1. You will lose fuel economy due to the fact that you have to burn almost twice as much alcohol as gas to make the same engine run. Hence you need to be slightly richer on your jets for e10. 2. Your self life is going to rubbish as the alcohol is unstable and evaporates quickly leaving behind a fuel your not going to prefer. 3. It will attack parts of your fuel system this is really important to your old collector bikes. Can someone say viton seals. 4. This is the big one. Alcohol is hydroscopic. It will take water out of thin air, once again leaving you with a fuel you don't want and causing RUST. Moral of this is learn to buy only what you need, don't store it for more than a few weeks, use fuel stabilizer, be prepared to rebuild old carbs more often
 

Martien

Premier Member
#10
E10 has been mandatory for 95 octane fuel in Europe for some time now. The consensus with riders is that, if your bike can run on E10, it is ok for long runs, like IBA rides, or on the highways on your way to the twisties.

However only premium 98+ octane fuel now is E5 (or E0 still), and not available so much, so this is used for more "interesting rides" when you can get it. And of course for storing your bike in the winter, when the alcohol can do more damage over longer time!
 

EricV

Premier Member
IBR Finisher
#12
Additives like STA-BIL for ethanol help on bikes not ridden much. The US went thru the attrition of small lawn machines when we changed to E10 years ago. Between seals and fuel lines that were not compatible and the water retention, plus the simple cleaning effect of the ethanol, many carbureted devices were damaged, destroyed or gummed up and required repair or replacement. It became much harder to find E0 for quite some time, then became easier as the market responded to the demand. I can now buy it at the pump, but for years I would have to go to a race shop and fill a 5 gal jug for E0 fuel for some of my devices. Something several of my vintage bike owning friends did. Naturally at a significantly higher cost.
 

IBA ZX-9R

Active Member
#14
You are misguided. There is no need to boost the octane of E0. Your breathing is harmful to the environment, but I wouldn't suggest you stop..
I am misguided by the data I've personally collected that have concluded exactly what's in the chemical makeup of E0 and E10? The data were the mileage results of my carburetted 2000 ZX-9R motorcycle are in correlation to AFR readings coming off of my wideband UEGO Lambda gauge? Huh? They're repeatable results and easy enough for anyone to verify, so if anything, they are deductive in theory. I make no secret of those results and I stand by the data and its conclusions.

Continuing on OPs subject. I am providing more details that anyone can freely look up about refiners' fuels, blended fuels, and "sub-octane" (E0) fuels (typically 81 - 84 AKI E0). The US Energy Information Administration - EIA has an informative PDF on how refiners use 110-112 octane ethanol (E98) to modify their "sub-octane" E0 fuels , boosting its minimum octane rating cheaply (yes, subsidized).

Perhaps some will appreciate this little tidbit too. Since E0 is typically such poor grade fuel, termed by the industry as "sub-octane," in order to meet "minimum octane ratings" for regular, mid-grade and premium fuels at the pump, all of which will be rated as E10 (up to 10% ethanol), regular will have the least amount of ethanol octane modifiers as a percentage and premium will have the MOST ethanol as a percentage. Meaning, 87 AKI may be 95% E0 and 5% ethanol, whereas 91 AKI premium will have an ethanol content of something higher than that, maybe 93% E0 and 7% ethanol. ;)

We know that water is a corrosive. We know refineries do not pipe ship E10, but instead pipe E0 fuels to distribution wholesale terminals, where E0 is blended with ethanol and shipped to retailers. Mid-grade fuels in between those of regular and premium are typically "blended" at the gas station dispenser in whatever ratio necessary. For instance, 50% 87 AKI E10 regular dispensed at the fuel pump with 50% 91 AKI E10 premium, results in 89 AKI mid-grade E10, without the need for shipping or storing 89 AKI separately.


So its not as easy as just filling up. And as I mentioned originally. It's a fools errand if you rejet a carburetted engine for stoich on E0, regardless of AKI rating, then attempt to run E10 through it. Don't do it. Your engine is not EFI and cannot determine fuel lambda. The AFRs will be off-the-chart lean and you could damage your engine.

Another consideration for ethanol-free proponents in Summer is running 100% E0 in an EFI vehicle equipped with a narrow-band lambda gauge. We know E10 has less energy in it and that ethanol burns slightly cooler than E0. EFI computer controlled vehicles that only know whether a mixture is rich or lean based on lambda and adjust fuel-injection according to that, will typically run a mixture of ~14.7:1 AFR on E0. That mixture will result in the maximum amount of combustion heat, which is exactly what my two data sets resulted in negatively or positively. That is the energy efficiency of E0 at stoich. It is capable of producing more thermal expansion through heat than E10...obviously.

Here's where the trick comes in though. An EFI vehicle with a narrow-band gauge, however doesn't see AFR, it only sees lambda a measurement of when 'a fuel' is stoich. So if you've filled your tank with 100% E0 because your truck will be towing a loaded 5th-wheel or your touring motorcycle will be carrying you and the wife and all of your gear for a week and you want the most engine power, your computer will be telling your vehicle's fuel injectors to maintain the hotter and leaner 14:7:1, where E0 is stoich. And on a tank full of E10, they'll be producing a slightly richer ~14:1:1 with the relatively cooler ethanol flame front, where E10 is stoich, due to the oxygen atom ethanol brings with it. In other words, if you're the guy with E0 in your EFI vehicle's tank, you'll want to make sure your vehicle's cooling system is fully functional.

And consistent with this, is if you own an EFI track bike with a wide-band UEGO and Power Commander and the fuels available to you are ethanol-free or ethanol blended E5 - E15 fuels, you'll definitely want to run the highest octane E0 race fuels your computer controlled ignition system can handle, ones your PC can take full advantage of. Gravitate towards the E0 fuels and away from the ethanol enhanced fuels, if horsepower is what you're after and your cooling system can manage it.
1623819682831.png

Continuing with what I've researched and consistent with all of the above about E0 v. E10, if you have a carburetted lawn mower you own at your house in Santa Fe, NM, and you follow other people's online advice blindly and fill it with E0, because hey, who doesn't want their lawn mower to run its best, right? You're going to quickly find your lack of understanding about the subject has left you with egg on your face. E0 does not bring an oxygen atom to the AFR party, because it has no native additives that have oxygen atoms. So while you're neighbor's identical lawn mower is happily cutting grass throughout the summer next door running E10, your lawn mower may start then stall once warmed up, will probably be belching a lot of black smoke unlike his, struggling to cut your grass in the thin hot Summer air, and unable to reach the RPMs of your neighbor's mower. That has something to do with manufacturers tuning their small carburetted engines for reliable sea-level operation on E10, not E0 (see fool's errand). Combustion is a chemical process that requires semi-ideal conditions to occur. You could rejet to take advantage of E0, but if you're like most people, you haven't and you are putting in E0, which has no oxygen atoms in it and you're depriving the motor of atmospheric pressure (air), during Summer's heat, it's going to be choking on fuel molecules it cannot chemically oxidize. Which is why I ONLY run E10 in all of my small carburetted motors. None of them have been rejetted. Instead I've used the float-bowl height trick for a relatively leaner mixture for higher top RPMs and more grass cutting in Summer and snow-blower snow blowing power in Winter.

I live > 2,000' AMSL. E10 is what the engine's were tuned to run on by the manufacturer and it's the only fuel they've been refilled with for the two or more decades I've owned all the them (less tests to experiment with E0). E10 is my goto fuel for best operation and coolest operation for my internal combustion engined vehicles for year-round use. I have the choice to fill them with E0 at any time, but all of my motorcycles and small ICEs are jetted to run best power AFRs on E10 where I live, which makes them incompatibly jetted to run with E0. Zero failures and zero problems with E10. You guys are free to use what you think works best for you. I'll be sticking with what my vehicles prefer and allows them to run relatively cooler, for longer reliable operation, E10.
 
Last edited:

IBA ZX-9R

Active Member
#15
Ok gentleman her is the perspective of a career mechanic. While alcohol is great for raising octane numbers cheaply and making good power, it does have it's own drawbacks. 1. You will lose fuel economy due to the fact that you have to burn almost twice as much alcohol as gas to make the same engine run. Hence you need to be slightly richer on your jets for e10. 2. Your self life is going to rubbish as the alcohol is unstable and evaporates quickly leaving behind a fuel your not going to prefer. 3. It will attack parts of your fuel system this is really important to your old collector bikes. Can someone say viton seals. 4. This is the big one. Alcohol is hydroscopic. It will take water out of thin air, once again leaving you with a fuel you don't want and causing RUST. Moral of this is learn to buy only what you need, don't store it for more than a few weeks, use fuel stabilizer, be prepared to rebuild old carbs more often
1) Caveat or qualifier to that. A carburetted engine tuned to run E10 will LOSE fuel economy when filled with any ratio of E0, due to the richer mixture properties of E0 AND the fixed fluid flow rates of carburetor jets, as well as, the loss of the oxygen atom which is part of the ethanol molecule. That's pure mathematical fact. You should qualify that comment to read computer controlled EFI vehicles with narrow band 02 sensors will lose fuel economy....that's true. A carburetted vehicle must be rejetted to take advantage of E0's higher stoich of 14.7:1 and lack of oxygen atoms.

2) Qualifier: EFI, EURO 2 - 6 emissions standards, California Emissions, aka EVAP models and other EFI vehicles negate fuel (any fuel) breakdown due to them being a closed system that prevents the outside atmosphere from coming into contact with the fuel once it is in the fuel tank. I've let some of my motorcycles sit for over a year, without issue and was often puzzled why they didn't exhibit the issues others complain about. Then I found out that my bikes were all EVAP models. Upon startup all that time later, they're usually just a little grumpy for a few minutes, then clear up. Your statement pertains to vehicles that do not meet these fuel evaporation standards, like many older Euro or bikes produced specifically as U.S. 49-state only bikes that vent fuel from the tank and carburetors freely with outside air. E10 does break down quicker than E0. But E10 can be managed to last longer than what would otherwise be the case.

3) I don't know what a viton seal is, so I'll take your word on it.

4) Ethanol is hygroscopic, which means that it is able to safely retain water, whereas E0 is not and resists mixing with water condensation in a fuel tank. So if you have an iron tank, you'll want E10 protecting it, not E0 separating from it. Right? Ethanol DOES NOT attract water nor does it "draw it out" of air. Condensation however, in air cavities in a fuel tank can result in moisture clinging to surfaces then mixing with ethanol based fuels. This is actually a good thing about ethanol, as water condensation up to a certain percentage (0.41 percent water or 3.06 teaspoons of water per U.S. gallon) can be safely transported through the fuel system, protected by the ethanol to evenly flow through the engine's normal combustion process. However, fuel tanks with E0 will have the condensation separate and fall to the bottom of the tank where it will concentrate, flowing through internal parts making full contact with them as it does until drawn out.
I experimented one time doing the water in the fuel test intentionally, mixing in 1/4 cup of water into my tank of E10 and seeing what happened. It was an interesting experiment because the ratio of water was higher than what the small percentage of ethanol in the tank could hygroscopically mix with. It meant riding around in first gear and not being able to use more then about 1/32 throttle for a number of miles, until presumably the ratio of water had been ingested by the motor that the ethanol was able to work its magic. The next 5 - 20 miles got progressively better and I was able to ride at normal speeds, but with obvious performance issues if I asked for too much throttle. After 20 miles, everything returned to normal.

Fun fact, as mentioned in paragraph 3 above, high AKI octane fuels contain more ethanol than lower AKI octane fuels. Therefore premium will have the ability to hold the most water condensation. So if you have a water in your fuel problem, you'll want to fill with the E10 fuel with the highest concentration of ethanol, which will typically be the premium fuel at the local retailer.

Moral of the story is, if you're going to let your non-EVAP specification vehicle sit for extended periods, you should do like civil aviation pilots do. Fill your tank completely to reduce the amount of stagnant air inside. Air contains moisture. As the outside temperatures change, the moisture in that air will condense on internals surfaces, causing corrosion. Use a fuel stabilizer to help keep the water condensation that does mix into the fuel tank suspended in the fuel. That way when you go to use your vehicle next, it may grumble for a bit. But once the condensation has safely and effectively been transported by the stabilizer or ethanol in your fuel through the normal combustion process, your fuel systems internal metal surfaces will have far less damage than if you didn't use fuel stabilizer and/or didn't fill completely with an ethanol based fuel.
 
Last edited:

Shawn K

Professional Cat Confuser
Premier Member
#16
Ethanol DOES NOT attract water
"A hygroscopic substance is one that readily attracts water from its surroundings, through either absorption or adsorption.
Examples include honey, glycerin, ethanol..." - https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/hygroscopy.htm

"Because of their affinity for atmospheric moisture, hygroscopic materials might require storage in sealed containers..." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygroscopy

"The rate of moisture uptake from humid air into gasoline-ethanol blends was measured in two experiments:" - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQIBBAG&usg=AOvVaw0Q3xoPb97tBV_n55A9J8WG

"Hydrogen bonding causes pure ethanol to be hygroscopic to the extent that it readily absorbs water from the air." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol

As of this post, you've written 3,332 words on the subject and have dominated the thread. Unless you're working on your doctorate thesis on ethanol-based fuels, perhaps it's time to allow for a different perspective, if for no other reason than variety.
 
Last edited:

EricV

Premier Member
IBR Finisher
#17
@IBA ZX-9R - Just keep ignoring scientific facts by attempting to overload data, not understanding statistics and overly focused on the wrong things. Keep digging brother, you'll get to China soon enough.

People have been adding alcohol to fuel for decades to combat water contamination, because the alcohol is hygroscopic and absorbs water into a mix that the engine can burn. Products are, in fact, actually marketed for that purpose.

Racers have been using water injection and alcohol injection to cool intake temps forever as well.

The problem with E10 is when you leave it sitting in an uncoated steel tank for longer periods, like storage. You end up with rust. Similar issues occur with brake fluid left too long in a system, especially inside ABS solenoids where it sometimes does not get circulated well if the system is not activated. Beyond the other issues with older vehicles using fuel line and other materials that break down when exposed to E10. Most of the US is past this problem at this point, but the OP was referring to the UK, which is making the change over now, so will have to suffer through these issues.
 

IBA ZX-9R

Active Member
#18
"A hygroscopic substance is one that readily attracts water from its surroundings, through either absorption or adsorption.
Examples include honey, glycerin, ethanol..." - https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/hygroscopy.htm
...
As of this post, you've written 3,332 words on the subject and have dominated the thread. Unless you're working on your doctorate thesis on ethanol-based fuels, perhaps it's time to allow for a different perspective, if for no other reason than variety.
Yes, thank you for confirming the definition is absorption. Glad we can agree with what hygroscopic is defined to be. ;);):cool:
 

IBA ZX-9R

Active Member
#19
@IBA ZX-9R - Just keep ignoring scientific facts by attempting to overload data, not understanding statistics and overly focused on the wrong things. Keep digging brother, you'll get to China soon enough.

People have been adding alcohol to fuel for decades to combat water contamination, because the alcohol is hygroscopic and absorbs water into a mix that the engine can burn. Products are, in fact, actually marketed for that purpose.

Racers have been using water injection and alcohol injection to cool intake temps forever as well.

The problem with E10 is when you leave it sitting in an uncoated steel tank for longer periods, like storage. You end up with rust. Similar issues occur with brake fluid left too long in a system, especially inside ABS solenoids where it sometimes does not get circulated well if the system is not activated. Beyond the other issues with older vehicles using fuel line and other materials that break down when exposed to E10. Most of the US is past this problem at this point, but the OP was referring to the UK, which is making the change over now, so will have to suffer through these issues.
EricV, when you become defensive you go ad hominem on the person you're having a discussion with, unnecessarily personally attacking them. That always shows when a person feels threatened. I have not attacked you personally by anything I've said thus far nor do I feel the need to do so. I have only clarified points made so that they are factually and scientifically accurate, so that others are not mislead by unsubstantiated opinion.

I'm not sure how to respond to this message about me ignoring science, because it doesn't actually refute any points I've made. :rolleyes:

"Racers have been..." ??? Okay. Terrific? :rolleyes:

"The problem with E10 is when you leave it sitting in an uncoated steel tank for longer periods, like storage. You end up with rust." What? Please explain. I think you've made some unsupported assumption or leap in logic with that proposition. That is absolutely false! E10 contains up to 10% ethanol. Ethanol's molecular formula is C2H5OH. Gasoline's molecular formula is something like C8H18 or CH3-(CH2)6-CH3. I'm not sure what properties in either of those chemical compounds would intrinsically cause rust on uncoated steel tanks. :confused: If anything, I think you confirmed what I mentioned about the need to fill fuel tanks completely to eliminate air pockets. Air contains water molecules, which when they condense on surfaces, like uncoated steel tanks, will cause them to rust or oxidize.


The rest of the paragraph goes off subject, similar to the 'racers have been...' paragraph. I have no comment on any of that as it does not pertain to anything I've mentioned about the U.K. going forward with E10 adoption and trying to comfort anyone who has been running E5 in their vehicle thus far. :rolleyes:
 

Shawn K

Professional Cat Confuser
Premier Member
#20
EricV, when you become defensive you go ad hominem on the person you're having a discussion with, unnecessarily personally attacking them.
This thread is going to turn pointless very quickly if you get butthurt at someone disagreeing with you.

Eric didn't "go ad hominem" on you, nor did he "personally attack you". There's a difference between someone saying something offensive, and someone being offended.

You've now gone on for 3,617 words about your expertise on ethanol and your extensive testing on your 21-year old motorcycle, complete with large pictures and a YouTube link to some guy in a shop. You're at almost 80% of the length of the United States Constitution (4543 words). Do you have more productive commentary to contribute on the subject? If not, can you be okay with people disagreeing with you?