United "Plus" petrol (10% ethanol, 5c/L cheaper)

[Ext User(googlegroups@sensation.net.au)]

This petrol is 5c per litre cheaper, and I had previously confirmed
that my engine would be happy with ethanol, so I thought I'd give it a
try.

The savings at fill up time don't seem to apply on the road. Typically
my AU3 I6 Fairmont averages about 13.5-13.8L/100km but with a full tank
of Plus it averaged only 14.9L/100km... would have been worse if I
hadn't done a good freeway run which managed to drag it down a couple
of decimal places.

60 litres of unleaded at $1.40 = $84
At 13.8L/100km that gets you 434km
A cost of 19.4c per km
(With a consumption of 13.5L/100km you're paying 18.9c/km)

60 litres of "plus" at $1.35 = $81
At 14.9L/100km you'll travel 402km
A cost of 20.1c per km

So a 1000km trip will cost me $189-$194 on standard unleaded, and $201
on Plus. So much for the discount :)

I don't know if it's just specific to my car (Optimax tends to show
higher consumption also) but I probably won't be buying Plus again...

[Ext User(John Henderson)]

googlegroups@sensation.net.au wrote:

> The savings at fill up time don't seem to apply on the road.
> Typically my AU3 I6 Fairmont averages about 13.5-13.8L/100km
> but with a full tank of Plus it averaged only 14.9L/100km...
> would have been worse if I hadn't done a good freeway run
> which managed to drag it down a couple of decimal places.

You can't tell much from a single tank. Too much depends on
things like how level the car was when you filled up (in
relation to the filler pipe entry to the tank).

I keep spreadsheets for my vehicles, recording every filling
with mileage. The most recent filling figure is all over the
place, so I also average the last 5 fillings, the last 10, and
the overall average.

According to my Pulsar manual, it runs better on 95 octane than
on 91. My figures over 5 fillings of E10 (10% ethanol, 95
octane) is 6.51 L/100km. It's 6.53 L/100km for 5 fillings of
91 octane ULP (too close to be significant, given that my
city/highway ratio is never the same).

John

[Ext User(Toby Ponsenby)]

On 30 Jul 2006 07:26:58 -0700, googlegroups@sensation.net.au wrote:

> This petrol is 5c per litre cheaper, and I had previously confirmed
> that my engine would be happy with ethanol, so I thought I'd give it a
> try.
>
> The savings at fill up time don't seem to apply on the road. Typically
> my AU3 I6 Fairmont averages about 13.5-13.8L/100km but with a full tank
> of Plus it averaged only 14.9L/100km... would have been worse if I
> hadn't done a good freeway run which managed to drag it down a couple
> of decimal places.
>
> 60 litres of unleaded at $1.40 = $84
> At 13.8L/100km that gets you 434km
> A cost of 19.4c per km
> (With a consumption of 13.5L/100km you're paying 18.9c/km)
>
> 60 litres of "plus" at $1.35 = $81
> At 14.9L/100km you'll travel 402km
> A cost of 20.1c per km
>
> So a 1000km trip will cost me $189-$194 on standard unleaded, and $201
> on Plus. So much for the discount :)
>
> I don't know if it's just specific to my car (Optimax tends to show
> higher consumption also) but I probably won't be buying Plus again...

Agreed.
There's a caveat though.
Alcohol allows your ECU to run up more aggressive timing.
Less calorific value, but the story with cars here is that pinking
isn't a part of the deal with ethanol fuels.
It could be argued that the stuff being sold as PUL"Petrol" is
complete crap, of course, since it's the so-called octane rating that
governs whether an engine timing setting is relevant to a particular
fuel.

So, is the ethanol blend you're getting actually rated at 98, or 95.
Reason I ask is that there's a game going on where the sellers 'say'
it's 95 you're buying, and that's the sign on the punp, but it's
actually 98. And let there be unbounded joy - no pinking.

In that instance, I'm guessing that the consumption figures would be
identical for non Alcohol 95 and Alcohol 'enhanced' 95, being actual
98.
As for common-or garden variety Alcohol added 95 - really 95 - if it
actually exists at this point - we'll probably go to 'there' as soon
as the sales of the alcohol enhanced fuel plateaus.
Correct me if I'm wrong:-)

Of course, all this pales into insignificance when the GIANT SCAM
perpetrated on the motorist with "Unleaded Fuel" introduction is
considered.
The energy content of the stuff notwithstanding, we were all set up to
use more fuel virtually overnight.
Not to mention the adulteration of the fuel with 'goop that didn't
attract excise' and managed to fuck up the flexible fuel lines in most
small engines in the nation - just for starters.


--
Toby.
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Ext User(John_H)]

googlegroups@sensation.net.au wrote:

>This petrol is 5c per litre cheaper, and I had previously confirmed
>that my engine would be happy with ethanol, so I thought I'd give it a
>try.
>
>The savings at fill up time don't seem to apply on the road. Typically
>my AU3 I6 Fairmont averages about 13.5-13.8L/100km but with a full tank
>of Plus it averaged only 14.9L/100km... would have been worse if I
>hadn't done a good freeway run which managed to drag it down a couple
>of decimal places.

It's all designed to catch the suckers!

You can reasonably expect a 4% increase in fuel consumption from a 10%
blend (based on the calorific value of EtOH)... unless there happens
to be water in their storage tanks (always possible) -- in which case
it'll be worse. (Either way you'd need to run more than a tank full
to iron out the statistical variations.)

Until such time as the purveyors of ethanol blends price it at least
4% below the octane equivalent petrol, the gain to you is going to be
zilch at best (assuming they do manage to keep it dry).

The only possible exception being an increase in octane rating (always
unstated it seems), which may benefit those running ULP when they
should be running PULP.... With the other lot of suckers being those
running PULP when they only need ULP.

(For the arithmetically challenged: 4% of $1.40 = 5.6¢)

--
John H

[Ext User(John Henderson)]

John_H wrote:

> You can reasonably expect a 4% increase in fuel consumption
> from a 10% blend (based on the calorific value of EtOH)...

I make it much closer to a 3% increase for E10 based on the AIP
figures for energy content of 31.9 MJ/L for petrol and 21.2
MJ/L for ethanol.

> unless there happens to be water in their storage tanks
> (always possible) -- in which case
> it'll be worse. (Either way you'd need to run more than a
> tank full to iron out the statistical variations.)
>
> Until such time as the purveyors of ethanol blends price it at
> least 4% below the octane equivalent petrol, the gain to you
> is going to be zilch at best (assuming they do manage to keep
> it dry).
>
> The only possible exception being an increase in octane rating
> (always unstated it seems), which may benefit those running
> ULP when they should be running PULP.... With the other lot
> of suckers being those running PULP when they only need ULP.

Yes, a good many cars have knock sensors these days, and can
potentially offset some or all of the energy-content penalty of
E10. By and large, these are cars are well suited to ULP too.
It's not that they should be using PULP.

It also seems to be well documented that harmfull tailpipe
emissions are reduced when using an oxygenated fuel such as
E10, cat converter or not.

> (For the arithmetically challenged: 4% of $1.40 = 5.6¢)

And for those not benefiting from the extra octane, 3% is 4.2¢.

John

[Ext User(mark jb)]

>> (For the arithmetically challenged: 4% of $1.40 = 5.6¢)
>
> And for those not benefiting from the extra octane, 3% is 4.2¢.

I would not run ethanol fuels for a 4cpl discount, unless there was a marked
improvement in acceleration as a tradeoff for economy.

-mark

[Ext User(John_H)]

John Henderson wrote:
>
>John_H wrote:
>>
>> You can reasonably expect a 4% increase in fuel consumption
>> from a 10% blend (based on the calorific value of EtOH)...
>
>I make it much closer to a 3% increase for E10 based on the AIP
>figures for energy content of 31.9 MJ/L for petrol and 21.2
>MJ/L for ethanol.

I based the estimate on the Gasoline FAQ net calorific values of
43.8MJ/litre for petrol and 26.7 MJ/litre for ethanol. The difference
being 39% (ie a 3.9% loss for a 10% blend).

You'll find part 1 (and links to the rest) at....
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part1/

The 40% round figure is also widely accepted by the local ethanol
lobby -- or at least the better informed ones from the sugar industry
with whom I've had some personal discussion.

--
John H

[Ext User(Kev)]

googlegroups@sensation.net.au wrote:

> This petrol is 5c per litre cheaper, and I had previously confirmed
> that my engine would be happy with ethanol, so I thought I'd give it a
> try.
>
> The savings at fill up time don't seem to apply on the road. Typically
> my AU3 I6 Fairmont averages about 13.5-13.8L/100km but with a full tank
> of Plus it averaged only 14.9L/100km... would have been worse if I
> hadn't done a good freeway run which managed to drag it down a couple
> of decimal places.
>
> 60 litres of unleaded at $1.40 = $84
> At 13.8L/100km that gets you 434km
> A cost of 19.4c per km
> (With a consumption of 13.5L/100km you're paying 18.9c/km)
>
> 60 litres of "plus" at $1.35 = $81
> At 14.9L/100km you'll travel 402km
> A cost of 20.1c per km
>
> So a 1000km trip will cost me $189-$194 on standard unleaded, and $201
> on Plus. So much for the discount :)
>
> I don't know if it's just specific to my car (Optimax tends to show
> higher consumption also) but I probably won't be buying Plus again...
>


Ok you are Talking about United
what is the quality of the unleaded blended with the Ethanol?

low quality petrol won't make your car run any good to start with

Kev

[Ext User(stevesub)]

We have a V8 Rangie (2000 model) and there is no difference on the fuel
computer whether we run ULP, PULP or E10 (95). Still sits on
14.5l/100km over several tanks of each fuel and reset before changing
types. We have not tried it on the 98 as we cannot justify the extra
cost.

We now use whatever is cheapest at fillup time.

90% of our driving is open road as we live in a rural area.

There also seems to be no difference in perfomance between the
different fuels, not that we give the vehicle a hard time as it drinks
too much fuel when we do.

Steve

Kev wrote:
> googlegroups@sensation.net.au wrote:
>
> > This petrol is 5c per litre cheaper, and I had previously confirmed
> > that my engine would be happy with ethanol, so I thought I'd give it a
> > try.
> >
> > The savings at fill up time don't seem to apply on the road. Typically
> > my AU3 I6 Fairmont averages about 13.5-13.8L/100km but with a full tank
> > of Plus it averaged only 14.9L/100km... would have been worse if I
> > hadn't done a good freeway run which managed to drag it down a couple
> > of decimal places.
> >
> > 60 litres of unleaded at $1.40 = $84
> > At 13.8L/100km that gets you 434km
> > A cost of 19.4c per km
> > (With a consumption of 13.5L/100km you're paying 18.9c/km)
> >
> > 60 litres of "plus" at $1.35 = $81
> > At 14.9L/100km you'll travel 402km
> > A cost of 20.1c per km
> >
> > So a 1000km trip will cost me $189-$194 on standard unleaded, and $201
> > on Plus. So much for the discount :)
> >
> > I don't know if it's just specific to my car (Optimax tends to show
> > higher consumption also) but I probably won't be buying Plus again...
> >
>
>
> Ok you are Talking about United
> what is the quality of the unleaded blended with the Ethanol?
>
> low quality petrol won't make your car run any good to start with
>
> Kev

[Ext User(googlegroups@sensation.net.au)]

Kev wrote:
> Ok you are Talking about United
> what is the quality of the unleaded blended with the Ethanol?
>
> low quality petrol won't make your car run any good to start with

Yeah, prior to them promoting the ethanol blend I have only bought from
the majors. That's the first time I've purchased petrol there.