Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The report I quoted and attached was made for the PM's office, not by the PMs office. It was a report made by the Biofuels Taskforce. This taskforce includes:

    *  Dr Conall O'Connell, Deputy Secretary, Department of Environment and Heritage

    * Dr David Brockway, Chief, Division of Energy Technology, CSIRO

    * Dr John Keniry, Chairman Ridley Corporation Limited, and

    * Mr Max Gillard, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Toyota Technical Centre, Asia Pacific Australia.

You've missed the point. It's one thing to be a member of an essentially Govt appointed panel, but entirely another to have done the proper scientific testing. I would prefer to see the CSIRO itself (or some equivalent body) present it's own evidence on the matter and thereby provide a sound basis on which the public can judge.

It is clear that Nissan has it's reason's for the statements it has made, and it is also clear that Nissan is in the best position to judge the effects on the vehicles it manufactures. I'd also note that Nissan (amongst others) is not represented on the panel you list and I believe Mazda (owned by Ford, I think) takes a similar position (to Nissan).

It's also not a question of 'scaremongering'...there are many instances in history where science has come out in support of a particular technology and made claims about it being 'safe'.....only to find 5,10,15 years down the track that there are 'unforeseen' effects.

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

SteveL: I believe that the Biofuels Taskforce would use CSIRO findings in their reports. I can't see how you'd think otherwise. If the Chief of Energy Technology at CSIRO is one of the people making the report, I don't think he's going to allow questionable information that he didn't get from his own organisation. It would defeat the purpose of him being a member of the taskforce.

No, Nissan is not on the panel. They don't need a rep from every car maker. Only one to represent them all. That is the norm for government taskforces.

And your missing the point about the scaremongering. There is quite a bit of it going on, as you can see in this thread, many people do not understand the effects of ethanol and how it can possibly be used safely.

As to science finding out later that there could be unforeseen effects, you have to remember there is nothing new about ethanol. It has been added to fuel in this country since the 1920s.

Edited by shyster

Ok, do we trust that im a semi-reasonbly reliable source?

Rather that "someone" off PF who people dont know?

I've just been talking to Nissan Aust over the phone.

There has been no press release on E5 at this stage and Nissan's stance is unknown at this point until testing completes.

The Engineers are still doing product testing and the results/information release will be avaliable in approx 3-4 weeks.

At this stage they cant give a firm statement

This is direct from Nissan Australia's Customer Relations Department on the use of E5 in pre-2004 vehicles.

Being the E5 is such a new product, in relation to the Shell product (as they have had a number of calls).

Lets give them some time and see what becomes of it.

I have a follow-up e-mail address that i will use in a few weeks to get some documented confirmation. Hopefully thier testing completes on-time

cheers - ash

I guess we find all this out when i pump my e-mail off :)

considering though that as an eg...

32 GTR was both sold here and there, build there, that for at least upto mid 90's Jap fuel was non-ethanol you'd think?

Anyone know what nissan's are send on the boat, and what is made here?

anything made for australia will be detuned for our fuel... so the locally delivered ones u would have to assume were the same.

but yeah perhaps something to include when you ask em.

Good work ringing Nissan, you went further than I was prepared to go. But in the long run it probably would have been the easier thing to do.

It will be interesting to hear what they have to say about E5. I'm pretty sure they won't have a problem with it. But if they do it would be good to hear what Shell has to say about it, needless to say they wouldn't be happy about a car manufacturer giving out warnings about their fuel. ^_^

it would have been detuned, yeah, but i dont think thats the issue really narkie poo's :P

yeah, i had some spare time to ring em lol.

plus its an outta interest thing for me anyways as i wanna find out

Yeah... Peace and all that mate, but hang on a sec, I am having a little hard time of understanding you.

First you cream yourself over a 40 awkw gain on a race prepped GTR.

Than you dismiss the statement of Nissan Aus, saying it's only to cover their backside.

Finally you are betting your bottom dollar that there is no difference in between 03 and 05 Nissans.

So, why do you hesitate in using this fuel straight up...?

We (nay sayers) are not scared of ethanol per se, just cautious of the fact that Nissan does not recommend it. Why is it so, is the million dollar question. It might be as simple as to meet the emission requirements, or something that has more serious consequences.

Leaded race fuels have negative effects to your catalytic converters, O2 sensors, etc, but these effects are known and people (myself included) use it at their own risk. Same thing can not be said of ethanol.  I don't care about what Peugeot or Citroen recommend, as i don't drive one.

Hard time understanding me.....why, do you find English difficult to read and comprehend? :D

40awkw is a hell of a lot of kW, by changing fuels.

All I'm saying is that I am open to the new fuel, I'm not going to say "its bad" because Nissan said so, I'm going to see for myself, how other Skylines respond to the fuel and come to a conclusion on my own.

All I'm saying is, don't take what Nissan have said as gospel, when there are clear results that show that the fuel is not necessarily detrimental, but rather, benificial to a Nissan. Keep an open mind....

Peace.

Being a Chemical Engineer by background and working for the world's most profitable car company as an Environmental Engineer, let me say that we believe the 5% Ethanol will not have a detrimental effect to any of our engines (neither will 10% Ethanol). Only the real old stuff (pre 86 or so) is just not designed to use that fuel.

Most of the argument on Ethanol in fuel in this country revolves around politics and little else ;-)

As stated previously - nobody is going to endorse it for older cars as they were tuned to cope with the 'dieselesque' like sludge that is called petrol in this country ;-)

Consequently unless the manufacturer gets to 'tune' the engine and test it thoroughly they will not officially endorse it (and they will not invest the testing time to do that ;-)

Therefore the easiest option to protect themselves from possible warranty claims along the line of "You told us it'd be okay" is to distance themselves from the argument - after all we've already made the sale so who cares.

Obviously since Ethanol has been on the agenda for a couple of years, all current and future models will run just fine and are tested - as we want to make sure that we can comply with future ADR developments.

Similarly the Oil Companies have no interest in blowing up everyones engine - so they have a vested interest to not blow their reputation. That by and in itself should be sufficient to make sure it is safe.

In short - no hesitation to use the stuff - but if you want the benefit you need to tune the engine and use it consistently.

Just remember "Caveat Emdor" - Buyer Beware ;-)

BTW in Brazil they run 20-25% ethanol (and used to run much more ;-)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
    • If they can dyno them, get them dyno'd, make sure they're not leaking, and if they look okay on the dyno and are performing relatively well, put them in the car.   If they're leaking oil etc, and you feel so inclined, open them up yourself and see what you can do to fix it. The main thing you're trying to do is replace the parts that perish, like seals. You're not attempting to change the valving. You might even be able to find somewhere that has the Tein parts/rebuild kit if you dig hard.
    • Can you also make sure the invoices on the box (And none exist in the boxes) are below our import duty limits... I jest, there's nothing I need to actually purchase and order in. (Unless you can find me a rear diff carrier, brand new, for stupidly cheap, that is for a Toyota Landcruiser, HZJ105R GXL, 2000 year model...)  
×
×
  • Create New...