Ethanol Content Sensor - Always at 11%?

[TurboTapin]

5 hours ago, GTSBoy said:

And we shall have to presume that Canada is the same?

Sadly no. They get pump E85, we don't. 

[TurboTapin]

3 hours ago, Murray_Calavera said:

If I drove to a typical petrol station, what would my choices of fuel be? 

Canada:

87, 89, 91 AKI everywhere. 94 AKI at all Petro Canada pumps. 

USA:

Depending on the state they will have either 87, 89 and 93 AKI or 87, 89, 91 AKI. They also have a fair bit of E85, again dependent on the state you're in. 

USA Gas Fun Fact: It's outlawed to pump your own gas in the state of New Jersey. 

 

[Murray_Calavera]

4 minutes ago, TurboTapin said:

87, 89, 91 AKI everywhere. 94

So of these

4 minutes ago, TurboTapin said:

87, 89 and 93 AKI or 87, 89, 91 AKI

and these, which ones have ethanol in them? 

[TurboTapin]

35 minutes ago, Murray_Calavera said:

So of these

and these, which ones have ethanol in them? 

I can't speak for the US, but for Canada as I mentioned above, all fuel gases contain ethanol. We have regulations for E5/E10/E15. Each province handles it differently but basically any fuel gases sold must be E10 and slowly increasing to E15 by a certain year. 

[Kinkstaah]

So yes. All of them. Something like 98% of all fuel in the USA has 10% ethanol:
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol-fuel-basics

2 hours ago, Murray_Calavera said:

So of these

and these, which ones have ethanol in them? 

It's labelled as like, AKI, 87, 91, 93 with an E10 or E5 or E15 label on the pump.

At a certain point, it's not just "E10" instead of 91. It is 91, 95, 98, and all of them have 10% Ethanol in them. You can also get E85 and E30 which is why you do see some people rolling around with E30 tunes in them.

[Duncan]

yeah the sugar refining companies were pushing for the same in Oz originally, all fuels were going to have 10% ethanol to make them "cheaper" (noting, that the loss in l/100 might be greater than the decrease in price).

I guess they won that fight in Canadia

[GTSBoy]

But seriously, can we ask for the results of the "tip a bottle of metho into a nearly empty tank" experiment?

[soviet_merlin]

Here E10 is the cheapest fuel. And general advice is to not use it unless you hate your car. From what I remember it clogs up stuff in the fuel system or injectors? 

With US/Canada being E10 across the board, does that mean that all fuel there is terrible?

[Kinkstaah]

I think given SAU's knowledge of E85 we can strongly conclude that 10% ethanol in almost any situation is entirely fine. Almost all of the myths against E85 were overblown, let alone E10.

[soviet_merlin]

2 hours ago, Kinkstaah said:

Almost all of the myths against E85 were overblown, let alone E10.

Hmmm, interesting. Makes me wonder whether there is bias as well. It's the cheapest fuel, so it is used for all kinds of ill-maintained shitboxes which are bound to have issues regardless. Nicer cars tend to require higher octane rated fuel and can't use it anyway.

FWIW, the official NSW E10 facts page is decent. 

[GTSBoy]

The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help.

The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs).

That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.

[Dose Pipe Sutututu]

2 hours ago, soviet_merlin said:

Nicer cars tend to require higher octane rated fuel and can't use it anyway.

Those above shitboxes, mediocre and above usually have a turbo strapped to them, hence the slightly higher octane is required.

 

[joshuaho96]

On 16/07/2025 at 11:26 PM, GTSBoy said:

And we shall have to presume that Canada is the same?

The incentives are mostly the same, yes. Ethanol is cheap compared to the cost of doing 98-100 RON with crude oil alone.

22 hours ago, Murray_Calavera said:

If I drove to a typical petrol station, what would my choices of fuel be? 

87 to 93-94 AKI all with E10. In 2020 Canada mandated E10 as a part of their "renewable fuel standard" and is supposedly going to go to E15 in 2030. In California where there are only 8 refineries with two threatening to shut down next year it's been over 20 years now of E10 and 91 AKI maximum because there's just not enough refinery capacity or crude oil supply relative to the demand for premium unleaded fuel. And CARB's low carbon fuel standard means functionally none of the diesel available at the pump is made from crude oil anymore. It's almost all entirely 20% biodiesel blended with 80% renewable diesel (hydrotreated vegetable oil) now. The number of gasoline vehicles that support E15 or higher ethanol concentrations is surprisingly low, I can't imagine it being wise to play tricks like this without flex fuel sensors in most of the fleet.

Edited July 18 by joshuaho96

[TurboTapin]

6 hours ago, soviet_merlin said:

Hmmm, interesting. Makes me wonder whether there is bias as well. It's the cheapest fuel, so it is used for all kinds of ill-maintained shitboxes which are bound to have issues regardless. Nicer cars tend to require higher octane rated fuel and can't use it anyway.

FWIW, the official NSW E10 facts page is decent. 

The E10 adds octane, not the other way around. Our 94AKI E10 is roughly 101RON. 

[TurboTapin]

3 hours ago, joshuaho96 said:

The incentives are mostly the same, yes. Ethanol is cheap compared to the cost of doing 98-100 RON with crude oil alone.

87 to 93-94 AKI all with E10. In 2020 Canada mandated E10 as a part of their "renewable fuel standard" and is supposedly going to go to E15 in 2030. In California where there are only 8 refineries with two threatening to shut down next year it's been over 20 years now of E10 and 91 AKI maximum because there's just not enough refinery capacity or crude oil supply relative to the demand for premium unleaded fuel. And CARB's low carbon fuel standard means functionally none of the diesel available at the pump is made from crude oil anymore. It's almost all entirely 20% biodiesel blended with 80% renewable diesel (hydrotreated vegetable oil) now. The number of gasoline vehicles that support E15 or higher ethanol concentrations is surprisingly low, I can't imagine it being wise to play tricks like this without flex fuel sensors in most of the fleet.

It's funny how 10-15 years ago, almost all new cars being sold were "Flex Fuel" when Ethanol wasn't around. Now that we have Ethanol in everything, Flex fuel vehicles have pretty much disappeared. Great timing. 

[TurboTapin]

6 hours ago, GTSBoy said:

The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help.

The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs).

That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.

With 10% Ethanol, we're talking 2-3% fuel consumption difference. The emissions reductions and octane boost in my opinion far outweigh this almost non existent loss. 

 

10 hours ago, GTSBoy said:

But seriously, can we ask for the results of the "tip a bottle of metho into a nearly empty tank" experiment?

My tanks sitting at 80%. Luckily that should go down fast as I'm on vacation again for the next two weeks. 

Edited July 18 by TurboTapin

[soviet_merlin]

1 hour ago, TurboTapin said:

The E10 adds octane, not the other way around. Our 94AKI E10 is roughly 101RON. 

Oh, you are right. But, in Australia E10 is based on 91RON fuel and ends up being 94RON. Hence it being the cheaper option for economy cars. The more performance oriented cars go for the 98RON fuel that has no ethanol mixed in. The only step up we have left then at some petrol stations is E85.

[Dose Pipe Sutututu]

11 minutes ago, soviet_merlin said:

Hence it being the cheaper option for economy cars

and it ends up being already priced in as though you're just on 91RON without any ethanol.

Car will lose a bit of economy as the short and long term fuel trims bring down the AFR back to stoich or whatever it is for cruise/idle for the engine.

 

[MBS206]

13 hours ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

and it ends up being already priced in as though you're just on 91RON without any ethanol.

Car will lose a bit of economy as the short and long term fuel trims bring down the AFR back to stoich or whatever it is for cruise/idle for the engine.

 

We've got some servos around me that have 91 with E10, 91 (no E10), 95, and 98.
At those stations the change from 91 E10 to 91, is typically around 8c/L.

 

But lets not get started on the price of fuel in Oz. It's ridiculous. All the service stations around me, bar one, the price of fuel has been over the $2 mark per litre for the cheapest, 98 being around $2.45. That one service station is a CostCo, fuel from it comes from the same refineries, and makes no pitstops, it runs great, including the 98. In fact, I've had no issues on CostCo fuel, but plenty of issues at other stations!. The CostCo fuel, was $1.65 roughly this week for 94 with E10. $1.88 for 98. Servos directly across from it, $2.10 for 91 E10, and $2.48 for 98. The part I had to laugh at? If I drive multiple HOURS away from Brisbane, say out near Nanango, or Kingaroy, or even out to Goondiwindi, the price of their fuel, is the same as what it is at the CostCo... Oh, and that BP servo at Goondiwindi is HUGE and goes through epic turnover of fuel, so it's not sitting there for weeks going to shit.
And what blows me away, my mate is one of the people who drives the Fuel Tanker all around QLD, delivering to all those places. At the same company his previous role was doing the "local haul" deliveries... Same truck, same driver, same pickup point it all comes from.
So you tell me, how the hell it is 60c/L CHEAPER for fuel, when nearly all else is equal, except they require a B-Double to drive half a day out of Brisbane, and half a day back, every second day, compared to the delivery that can be under 30 minutes drive from the fuel pickup point...

Not to mention, go five blocks down the road, and Ampol to Ampol will vary 30c/L... And I've had this conversation with my mate... The way it's priced, is just typical, pure and utter rubbish...

He also does runs from Brisbane, to all over QLD, down to Newcastle, Sydney, Nowra, Melbourne, Geelong, and even out to parts of the NT depending on the companies needs. His main stuff is all the longer distance away from home for a few days at a time, then when he's back, he loves to just pickup extra shifts wherever he can in whichever truck, hence all the weird different places.

 

Oh, as for getting E10 into all the fuels in Australia... It was very quickly highlighted, that we don't have enough biomass available to use to make E10 sustainably like they require, and it would dramatically cut into our, and the worlds food chain supply...

 

I vote we all just start running on liquid methane gas... Plenty of that just getting tapped off at tips from underground decay... (Note, this is pure just stupid commenting. I could very easily highlight the reasons its not a good idea especially on scale...)

[MBS206]

Oh, and as for everyone with their fuel economy changes, I switch between E10 and 98 in the company car. Even do when I had personal cars that could run on E10.

You know what changed my fuel economy in any noticeable way? How I drove, and where I drove.

Otherwise, say on full tanks of just back and forth from work only (So same trips, same sort of traffic), couldn't notice a difference that I can correlate to the type of fuel in use. In the current vehicle, that's over 42L of USABLE fuel.

While 98 is all "more energy dense", it also has higher knock resistance as it takes more energy to get it to ignite too. The longer hydrocarbons, typically more tightly bound. So running the same ignition map, can also produce less power, if there isn't enough time to get it all burnt through properly, as yep, the flame propagation speed is different from lower octane fuel to higher (Higher has a lower flame propagation, due to the more tightly bound and harder to self ignite funs.

This is also typically where, a vehicle that is designed purely to run on 91 (Whether it be E10 or normal 91) usually sees absolutely no real world difference in fuel economy for the normal man, woman, or dog.