E10 New Fuel Megathread [Consolidated for all E10 discussion]

My daughter reckons her Fireblade did 100 miles to the fuel light on e10.
130 on e5

4 Likes

Hmm, my visitor last week asked me to listen to the “big-endy noise” at low revs in his 2005 Focus, but I could not hear anything other than the sort of general all-around faint grumble one might expect on an all-original car approaching 200K.

He puts in the very cheapest petrol he can find each fortnight, uses the minimum of revs, and this was now his fourth tank of E10 since he’s been noticing the extra noises. I suggested trying one tank of V-Power or Ultimate.

Sure enough last night he said that now since Saturday he cannot hear any nasty noises with the Synergy petrol, and the gauge is dropping more slowly, but he’s waiting until his next Saturday refill before making a definite statement on economy or how mpg compares with either usual brand of E10.

1 Like

Hello Hello!
Trying to give a perspective from Brazil. Where we, since I can remember, have as options:

  • 100% ethanol
  • Petrol varies a lot:
    standard: has 27% of ethanol and 87 RON
    Premium: premium BR is 102 RON and 25% of ethanol

And at least there, we will have *ECUs that:

  • can detect any proportion of mixture (most common nowadays): ethanol/petrol
    • they also have a small tank to have petrol for cold start
  • have the “normal acceptance” of fuel mixture variation: petrol
  • have the “normal acceptance” of fuel mixture variation: ethanol
    *together with values from lambda

Based on the cars and Bikes I had there, the only differences for a car to be compliant with “more ethanol” are:

  • injectors
  • fuel pump
  • pipes
  • filter
  • ECU map
    *this full list to be optimal. Also, we have to service our cars in smaller intervals and a car with 100k (kilometers) is considered “not a good deal to buy”, maybe related with fuel quality?

Comsunption/power:

  • ehtanol + power + consumption + less temperature (all home made turbo cars use 100% ethanol to avoid pre ignition “on the cheap”)

I am a happy new owner of a Eunos 1994 “Monty”. Forgot how it is to have an old car, but I love it.
Around Frome Shell V-Power is £1.619/LTR :frowning:
I think we don’t have much choice, but when possible, use the good old E5?

Cheers!

I’ve had my mk1 for a few months and only got through 3 tankfulls. First was standard Shell before the E10 kicked in, then 3 fills of superunleaded - firstly VPower which is usually my go to with the other cars, then Esso Synergy and latterly Tesco Momentum. Can’t say mpg has improved (no idea what previous owners ran it on) but the engine seems more responsive and revving is smoother than when I drove it home for the first time. Possibly due to the extra detergents as the engine can’t take advantage of the higher octane from a timing perspective, as I understand it.

May try a tank of E10 one day, to see what happens. Then again, may not!

1 Like

I’ve now been running E10 for the last 4-5 fill-ups (4-5 weeks) and I can honestly say the car is not that happy!
As I posted earlier, NC 3.5.
It doesn’t start that well when just off cold and doesn’t pull as well as it did and has lost 3-5 mpg.
Can a remap help? Super round here is way too expensive for my daily commute.
Rick.

I am aware that my 1991 MX5 cannot use E10 petrol without potential damage but My garage recommended using ‘Forte Advanced Formula Petrol Treatment’ which not only cleans the injectors etc but will also protect my car from damage if I use E10 petrol, providing I use it every six months.
Any technical experts out there who can confirm one way or the other?
Thank Will

it’s my understanding that all mx5’s are supposed to use super 97 or 99 octanes (now the only e5) anyway!
so why would you want to use 95octane normal fuel?

NOt sure about that particular additive, but generally Forte are quite good. THIS ARTICLE explains about the increase in Ethanol and the drawbacks

I think your understanding is incorrect.
The NC’s onwards are ok, a matter of choice of course.

1 Like

you are very likely absolutely correct my friend!
that being said my nc2 has a sticker on the underside of the fuel flap, that says super only!
tho it doesn’t say anything about E5 or E10.

personally, i think that this Ethanol thing is a giant boondoggle! as to run all cars on Ethanol would require all of the fertile land and then some! also Ethanol isn’t as good as petrol!.
hopefully, as more people switch to electric cars and demand drops off, the oil companies will go back to selling us good ol’ pure petrol!

let’s remember petrol is a byproduct of the oil refining process, and in the days before petrol cars, they used to just dump the petrol into the ground surrounding the refinerys

1 Like

I’ve just switched from the standard 95 Ron now E10 to 97 Ron super unleaded for my NC3.75 Must say the car runs so much better on it. A second consideration was the car has been mapped to 180bhp so it needed the different fuel I reckon. My previous NC1 always had the normal unleaded, now E10.

I’m running on the 99octane shell and esso if I can get it.
there is actually i noticeable difference in performance between supermarket 97 and the shell 99 v-power!

Thanks for all responses.
I’ll stick with E5 because no damage to rubber seals, fuel lines etc due to ethanol attracting water into the system. However, it is debatable whether there is likely to be much impact (see ‘MX5 Restorer’ clip on YouTube).
As for the Forte fuel additive, I’ll use it to clean the system. E5 is more expensive but more fuel efficient and may give a little extra pep in a 30 year old NA!
Cheers

if you go from an empty tank of e10 95octane to a full tank of e5 99octane. you Will notice a performance difference!
seriously not kidding!

3 Likes

Have to agree. Am on my third tank of super (1st VPower, 2x Momentum) and my 1.6 NA feels much more responsive than it did when I bought it. Engine can’t take advantage of the higher octane but I guess the additives have given it a good clean out.

2 Likes

yes, the correct words to describe it are “responsive” and “urgent” :sunglasses:

2 Likes
  1. My model of MX-5 is: __2.5 NB 2001
  2. I’m based near: __Dover
  3. I’m looking for technical help or recommendations on: _Using E10 fuel

Hi Members, So I’m new to the MX5 and I’m really enjoying the driving and owning experience. However; One thing that is confusing me. I own a 2001 Mk2.5 !8i Petrol so I checked the government website to see if my vehicle was compatible to use the new E10. It appears that my version is not compatible. Yet, I noticed a sticker on the inside of my filler cap stating the minimum RON should be 95, which is what E10 is I believe. Is anyone here using E10 with a 2001 MX5. Many thanks for any advice and many thanks for the add.

The RON is fine. What is in question is the proportion of ethanol.

95 RON sold in the UK was E5 (<=5% ethanol) until September. Now it is E10 (<=10% ethanol).

Some of us suspect that E10 will not harm an MX5 regardless of what Mazda UK or the government say. If you don’t want to use it, choose ‘super’ petrol, usually 97-99, which is still E5.

My son has been using E10 in his Mk3. He estimates he gets about 2mpg less than with E5.

THere is a megathread on the topic here:

There is confusion, including from Mazda themselves. Mazda UK haven’t a clue, and what they sent to the UK government was literally what Mazda Japan told them. Mazda Germany ominously promises permanent engine damage in E10 us used once. Mazda USA though certified that for Miatas built from at least 1995, and certainly through 2002, use of E10 would not infringe the factory warranty.

There appears to be no difference in the fuel system between a US spec Miata and Japan spec cars. Can’t comment on UK/EUR cars, but I’ve no reason to suppose they are any different.

1 Like

Hi John,

Many thanks for sharing your knowledge and info, very much appreciated.

Kind regards
Doug