Found this in my user manual for my 2016 MX5ND:-
“Fuel:- Premium unleaded fuel (Conforming to EN 228 and within E10)”
“Octane No:- 95 or above”
From this topic I believe that E10 is compatable with my ND, however is “within E10” to be interpreted as up to and including E10?
Same wording is used in the User Manual for our 2017 Mazda 3 Sportnav.
Its the sort of thing Mazda would come up with though. They don’t like pattern parts.
Mazda Germany comes up with rather more positive affirming language
https://www.mazda.de/faq/E10-Info/
MX5 NC and MX5 ND are compatible
MX5 NA and MX5 NB are not.
But they say if you use E10 once on a non-compatible car, you will permanently damage the engine.
However, here is the US owners manual for the 2002 Miata (ie. NB-FL)
Page 68 gives the fuel requirements
“Gasoline blended with oxygenates such as alcohol or ether compounds are generally
referred to as oxygenated fuels. The common gasoline blend that can be used with your
vehicle is ethanol blended at no more than 10%. Gasoline containing alcohol, such as
ethanol or methanol, may be marketed under the name “Gasohol”.
Vehicle damage and drivability problems resulting from the use of the following may not
be covered by the Mazda warranty.
• Gasohol containing more than 10% ethanol.
• Gasoline or gasohol containing methanol.
• Leaded fuel or leaded gasohol.”
ie. using gasoline with 10% ethanol will not invalidate the warranty.
Same in 2001 owners manual:
and 2000
Which indicates NB1 and NB2 (NB-FL) have the same fuel system
Australian info is more or less the same as what Mazda is tating in Europe
https://www.fcai.com.au/environment/can-my-vehicle-operate-on-ethanol-blend-petrol
The Australians are a bit more sanguine about using E10 in an older car:
"Most metal components in fuel systems will corrode or rust in the presence of water. Ethanol increases petrol’s ability to absorb water without separating. Therefore, ethanol-blended petrol can ‘hold’ more water and carry this through the engine. The greater the concentration of ethanol the greater the ability to ‘hold’ water.
Australian MX5 club i saying E10 is ok for 2000+ MX5s.
Mazda needs to clarify, because their own literature contradicts statements in the UK and EU, or is it, they can identify particular components in US and Australian cars that differ from Europe (I don’t think there are).
Several studies have examined the effect of E10 on fuel tanks and fuel system components and have concluded that ethanol up to 10% does not increase corrosion in normal, everyday operation.
Ethanol blends may have a deteriorating effect on the rubber components of an engine. Other additives, such as benzene, may also have an effect.
In older models, deposits in fuel tanks and fuel lines are occasionally loosened by E10, and the fuel filter may become clogged with this residue. This is remedied by a fuel filter change. If very ethanol-rich fuel is used, this may cause an engine to stall.
The use of E10 petrol in vehicles that are E5 compatible may also result in material compatibility problems within the fuel system."
So more frequent changing of a fuel filter, maybe.
Mazda in Europe is giving contradictary information to governments, compared to North America
deleted
So as my 2003 NBFL seemingly won’t run on E10 I will switch to super unleaded like other members have suggested. To stop me slipping up and using E10 I’ve added a sticker to the inside of the fuel flap to remind me to use super unleaded only as its so easy to forget.
A German friend of mine tells me that E10 production is being greatly reduced there, as only some 12% of drivers are using it. The reasons appear to be that the reduced performance means a heavier foot to compensate hence fewer miles to the gallon and that results in E5 working out cheaper as less required albeit dearer at the pump. Many Germans are also wary of the long term issues with E10 as their longer term studies are about the same as ours…virtually nil. The lower mileage would also equate to more gallons required and greater emissions another point being glossed over.
It is my intention to stick with E5 and an additive for the pre-cat vehicles.
Each to his own 
Can Mazda clarify the difference in advice issued in 1999, to owners of US market 2000MY+ cars in that engine warranty will not be affected by used of petrol (gasoline) that contains upto and including 10% Ethanol (I assume v/v not w/v), but this contradicts advice given by Mazda Germany, that any NA/NB engine will be permanently damaged by a single use of E10, and the advice provided by Mazda UK to the UK Department of Transport in stating only NC models and newer are cleared to use E10.
There are obvious contradictions that can cause owners unecessary cost. There appears to be no material difference between a 1999-2000 US market fuel system and that sold elsewhere.
Further
From the owners manual of the 1994 Miata
Again references fuel with more than 10% Ethanol as being damaging. This substantiates anecdotal evidence from US owners that even NA MX5s run fine on E10.
Anyone worried about using ethanol based petrol can simply switch to Tesco Momentum,. NO Ethanol.
Most damage will be to rubberised fuel lines and changing to to a modern ethanol proof fuel line will negate any problems on older cars. Gates Barricade is the one to go for.
Zero ethanol???
Why so sure??
I wonder how the fuel lines on a 2004 MX5 are different from a 1998 Toyota, 2000 Nissan, 1991 Subaru, any fuel injected Honda, any petrol Hyundai, any 1992 Jaguar (all of thse can run on E10).
Momentum contains 5% ethanol.
Allegedly, the only ethanol free petrol available is Esso Synergy Supreme+ 99.
Even that isn’t ethanol free every where.
“Although our pumps have E5 labels on them, our Synergy Supreme+ 99 is actually ethanol free (except, due to technical supply reasons, in Devon, Cornwall, North Wales, North England and Scotland). Legislation requires us to place these E5 labels on pumps that dispense unleaded petrol with ‘up to 5% ethanol’, including those that contain no ethanol, which is why we display them on our Synergy Supreme+ 99 pumps”.
A reply I received from Mazda UK seems confused, and I doubt the technical veracity. The company is now stating to me, in relation to a query specifically about the MX5, that Mazda vehicles produced since 2002 are E10 compatible. Mazda Miatas are apparenty compatible due to different emissions standards (what is the mechanical difference between a 1994MY Miata (first year of the 1.8) and a 1994 Mazda MX5 (UK)? None, as far as I know, beyond where the steering wheel is).
Additionally, and this is the fallback for the last 20 odd years from Mazda UK, they have no knowledge about Mazda cars sold outside of Europe (Roadster owners, as usual, we are on our own).
Unfortunately for us all, exhaust emissions must cease if we are going to save our planet. Isn’t the real question, 'how long before all vehicles drivers will be forced to go electric?
I am sure these new fuels are going to kill the internals of the combustion engine over time and 9 years seems to be the government’s agenda. Perhaps there may be an alternative such as hydrogen fuel cells that could power the combustion engine with little modification, but we haven’t got long to apply these mods before our engines are defunct.
Been using Momentum for my track car for years now and it was ethanol free, no E5 label on pump yet, but now you maybe right.
Lots of older cars need new fuel pipes due to ethanol but as you say some are ok. Worth checking any car built before 2000.
Well yes, everything is going to change and probably quicker than you think. Hydrogen fuel cells won’t be powering cars, they are are just too expensive, that technology will be seen in ships, large trucks and railway engines that are not electrified.
Hopefully classic and enthusiast cars will be around for a lot longer.
In that case, Jaguar cut their own throat by telling the government that E10 is fine in a 30 year old Jag.
The US has been using ethanol-gasoline since 1978. Cars didn’t die.
The question, for this thread, is Mazda interested in owners of older cars? It seems it is not, and the recent NA restoration project was not a true statement of intent. I’m trying to discern whether the statements they have made are accurate, and the result of exhaustive analysis, or whether they are judiciously worded reflecting they exist to sell new cars, not to support old cars.
Its not so much that these fuels will destroy engines (they won’t), but whether the fuel itself will be economically viable to sell at the roadside.
Fuzz Townsend’s comments at the MX5 National were both correct and wrong. His thesis that ICE classic cars will always be around because we still have horses might be correct. But horse ownership now is very expensive (when cars were introduced, horses were dirt cheap, and cars were really expensive, by multiples), but I can still buy hay, apples or whatever a horse eats.
His solution to fuel supply seemed unworkable. He predicted peple will buy petrol from specialist suppliers, and keep it stored at home, pointing out 200 liters of petrol, with council permission, could be stored in a detached garage. Or that farmers will get into the fuel sales business.
Its a matter of perspective whether all of this is fortunate or unfortunate. I spent my early part of my career demonstrating whether the CLAW hypothesis was correct. CLAW (Charlson, (James) Lovelock, Andrae, Andy Watson) proposed a climate feedback loop (how diatoms in ocean, proliferating during periods of warming, can effect local cooling, by promoting cloud albedo). In this case, the marine sulfur cycle. My discovery was of a novel group of bacteria that could close the loop and ensure the cycle was a cycle, and we are screwed if that cycle was disrupted (this played into Lovelock’s idea of Gaiea, or the living planet, a useful metaphor about how the mineral cycles were much like the homeostasis processes that keep every cell alive. Break the cycles, and you kill the cell).
Exhaust emissions, per se, are not the issue, but where those emissions came from. The burning of oil, dinojuice, hugely imbalances the carbon budget. A more biological component will mitigate that (biological will never totally mitigate, because you can’t get to the crop yields needed without a bit of oil-derived fertilizer). Unfortunately, in my view, Genetic Luddites, slowed the development of some high yield crops.
And its not about “saving the planet”. The planet will be ok, we won’t. The rhetorical question shouldn’t be “how long before all vehcile drivers will be forced to go electric (or other alternative power system)” but should be “how long before all vehcile drivers will want to go electric (or other alternative power system)”. Probably not far from that, and right now, I suspect the vast majority of drivers, if given the opportunity, would “go electric”. But cost is a barrier, as well as technical uncertainties.
But its not just fuel that is necessary to keep that car on the road. For an older car, it pretty much is, but for cars built after 1991, there are other things needed to keep the car legal. Emissions control equipment (catalytic converters); what happens when the catalytic converter manufacturers change their business (or go out of business? Cars still need to meet regulation, and those requirements become stiffer, in general, the newer the car. And then the mechanical skills needed to maintain such cars; when will they disappear from the workforce? In general, the newer the car, the more necessary it is to be able to access diagnostic instrumentation.
Further from Mazda; they apologised for getting their own advice wrong, by clarifying they meant 2005 NC MX5s and not 2002 MX5s were cleared for E10. Its apparent that Mazda UK are basing their statements on instructions from Japan, rather than being involved at all in any technical evaluation. And likely they cannot indication which parts have given them pause for thought, if any. For owners of non-UK market cars, they are stating ignorance, and recommend such owners (eg. owners of Eunos Roadsters) consult the Japanese language pwners manual for further information.
This paper from the RAC is interesti g. Its an analysis of E10 compatibility among the UK car fleet in 2018, down to the model. Allowing for age, Mazda is probably the worst for apparent compatability.
Anecdotally, the US experience suggests it will be fine.
But its important for Mazda UK to furnish accurate information because:
My thoughts.
Very interesting reading, I’m not technical so use this to get advise.
I’ve a 2106 ND and have found the car has a smoother drive and more responsive using E5 vs E10.
Whilst I know I’m OK to use E10, prefer E5 (when I can find it, I’m not an always fill up on Sunday as mileage varies)
Questions.
My local garage say they’ve noticed pitting and quite bad looking hoses on NA/NBs over the past few years and my E5-fed NB they say looked quite good. Bit of an anecdote, but Mazda says NC onwards, so NC onwards it is. They probably can’t work it either way, so this is probably them covering their behind just to make sure.
As others have said before, the fuel economy for E10 does not appear to be better in any way, so why risk it when you can pay effectively the same and protect your car and also have it run better?
Again, this is me guessing, but my understanding is that 99+ also has better additives although obviously that will vary by vendor. By the way, the Momentum 99 on my local Tesco station has always said E5 on it and the regular has said E10 for at least 1.5 years.
