In that case, why did Mitsubishi lose the court case?
Our experience with our CR-V is within the ball park of Honda’s claimed fuel consumption.
2 Likes
One has to wait until after the legal process has been fully completed…Mitsubshi has indicated that they will appeal. Hopefully this drives change to the existing testing regime.
3 Likes
The auto diesel version of the MY15 Honda CR-V was specified as having a fuel consumption of 6.7L/100km with its 2.2L turbo engine.
A person who was driving one prior to our decision to buy the petrol version stated that it was achieving that sort of fuel consumption.
I calculated that we would never recover the extra $2,200 odd purchase price based on our limited annual mileage of around 12,000 km P.A. as the small difference between diesel and U91 prices back then would require an annual mileage of arounf 25,000 km P.A…
Now that the fuel industry is ripping off consumers more for diesel than U91, it would have been substanially worse.
One of the problems with the mandated numbers and testing is that they are artificial and represent very few of us on the roads. But that being written, the official numbers for my vehicle are 5.7 / 7.7 / 11.2 l/100km for highway, average, and city.
After 40,000km the trip computer showed 10 l/100km for each 10,000 km. Since in-city short trips dominate my drives 10 seems reasonable, but if I sued that the combined figure of 7.7 was 23% too optimistic I wonder how that would go. Surely that would be taken as reasonable,so I wonder what the circumstances were of the plaintiff’s 26.7% discrepancy. The media report does not address 26.7% more than which number (6.8, 7.6, 9 l/100km), and under what circumstances.
2 Likes
Without reading through the hundreds of responses above. We own a VW Polo and according to VW it must run on 98 (running on 91 will void your warranty) however we also have a 3 year old Mazda 6 and I run it on 95 as there is a marked improvement in smoothness and performance. A number of year ago I looked at running a new Ford Falcon on E10 which Ford quoted as perfectly suitable for the Falcon. When I spoke to the service mechanic he advised not to run the Falcon (or many other brands) on E10 as they would be ok for a number of years (usually until the warranty ran out) then the proverbial problems may surface. His advice was not to run E10 until light aircraft were running it as an alternative to AvGas. I dont know if E10 is replacing AvGas and it may be interesting to find out.
This would seem a silly suggestion. It is not going to happen any time soon.
Avgas supplied in Australia is leaded fuel. So an unleaded E10 blend is not going to fly! There are also too many risks associated with introducing a second type of fuel, when most older aircraft are not designed for it. Some modern piston engines can used Ethanol fuel blends, but only If the user adds a measured amount of lubricant to the fuel.
There would also be a significant difference in octane rating comparing E10. Standard Avgas is specified at 130 octane when running rich for full power, and at least 100 when the mixture is leaned out for cruising.
P.S.
There are numerous anecdotal comments previously in this topic re some vehicles running better on a higher octane rated fuel than specified in the manuals. As vehicles age, combined with variations in use over time, and maintenance, it is possible the airfuel ratio (mix) and timing may have drifted from optimal. Feeling a vehicle runs better or indeed achieves better economy on higher octane fuel may simply be due to the more expensive fuel compensating for an engine that has drifted from it’s optimum tune.
2 Likes
Heheh I think the object of the advice was to steer clear of E10 but just put in a way that was so “out of bounds” it would never occur so they would never use E10. But your’s was a well made point @mark_m from you on the usage.
2 Likes
No this is not the case. VW Australia recommends for all Polo models RON95 fuel, not RON98. See…
Spending more for RON98 is unlikely to have any benefits, other than increasing the fuel companies profits…unless a car is specifically designed to run on such fuels.
The more recent models of Australian Falcon and Commodore was specifically designed to run on E10. The main problem with E10 is it can affect seals etc where materials and vehicles are not designed for reaction with ethanol.
The car industry supports use of E10 in their vehicles, and have provided information which us used in the websites above.
There have also been vehicles sold in Australia which could be run safety on fuels up to 80% ethanol. In Brazil they have been using high ethanol fuels in vehicles…which manufacturers support such use and vehicles designed for the fuel, for decade or more without any issues.
Well, E10 cant be used due to water absorption and separation in the tank due to change in temperature. This can result in loss of power/engine problems especially for aircraft which sit around for a long time without use. Water is an achilles heal of safe air travel and water contamination tests are done regularly for commercial flights.
1 Like
Permitted fuel types are subject to certification requirements for each engine model. Just for interest there are always exceptions.
Rotax allows up to 10% ethanol (similar to E10 fuel for cars) in the fuel for Rotax 912engines. Light sport aircraft that are specified by the manufacturer to tolerate alcohol in the fuel system can use up to 10% ethanol.[17]
Thanks to Wikipedia.
2 Likes
Using 95 RON and 98 RON fuel may have some benefits , all be they minor , to the environment .The sulphur content in Australian fuel lags well behind the restrictions imposed in Europe and the USA . 10PPM of sulphur is the maximum emission level allowed in those countries petrol regardless of octane level . In Australia 91 RON has 150PPM of sulphur and 95 RON has 50PPM . E10 comes in at around 140PPM of Sulphur .
In Europe the standard fuel used is 95 RON with a maximum PPM , as stated , of 10 . All development work on low emission motors in Europe at the present time is based on 10 PPM of sulphur emission . If we want to see those motors here the government or who ever needs to pressure the oil companies to come into line as far as sulphur content in our fuel goes with Europe and the USA . Japan and South Korea have the sulphur content of their fuel capped at 10 PPM also .
I asked a friend in the industry recently a question regarding why a certain motor I am interested in not available in Australia yet freely available in Europe . His answer is in my previous paragraphs . We really are lagging behind in sulphur content emissions in our petrol.
By the by Diesel fuel in Australia is capped at 10 PPM of sulphur . Begs the question why not petrol too . Just as an after thought 95 RON fuel maybe phased out in favour of a low sulphur PPM 98 RON . Strong rumours in the fuel industry on that one . If I listen I think I can hear the song " Pennies from Heaven " playing in the distance . Well the oil companies certainly will be .
4 Likes
Perhaps more so with some evidence the only alternate choice will be standard unleaded, may contain up to 10% ethanol - at least at the nearest BP here in SE Qld.
4 Likes
Not just for commercial flights; CASA rules apply to even the most losely regulated airplanes (the private single engine prop under visual conditions). The contamination test is to be done daily and after refuelling, or before flight if the airplane has not been regularly used.
4 Likes
With my small Toyota I always fill-up with ulp 95, at a petrol station near me. With my previous car I would go to a Caltex nearby, and at the time there was a lot in the news about motors in cars being damaged after filling up with Caltex due to water content in the petrol. About that time, my car’s motor caught fire while I was driving, but maybe that’s another story.
2 Likes
One of the problems with fuel being stored underground in service stations is water seepage . It depends on the area where the Service station is located to a large extent . I live bay side Melbourne and you only save to dig down 1 metre in some areas to find bore water .
This means that there is a good chance I’m getting a certain amount of water when I fill up . I have a 1992 Nissan Urvan E24 2.4 lt Petrol motor . It has a carburettor fitted to it . Once a month I add a 1 litre bottle of Methylated Spirits to the tank before topping up with fuel . The molecules in the Metho combine with those of water to drag the water through the fuel system not allowing it to build up in the petrol tank…
Even though I don’t always agree with what he says John Cadogan of Auto Expert spoke about adding Metho to the tanks of new cars in a recent YouTube upload . He said it did no harm and advised it . He was referring to Methos ability to combine with water molecules to keep the car’s tank free of water .
My car , a Suzuki Baleno Turbo , has injectors especially developed for that motor . I would have to ask my local Suzuki dealer or Suzuki Australia if this would harm the vehicle . I dont see in the owners manual any reference to the vehicle being able to run on E10 . This fuel is 10 % ethanol ( Meth spirits has minimum content of 95% ethanol )
I’m getting the car serviced on the 24-07-19 so will ask the mechanics at the dealership .
Another factor is the Nissan Van has an 80 litre fuel tank and the Suzuki a 38 litre tank . That is why I will seek advice before adding a litre of Metho to the petrol tank of the car .
3 Likes
I also live bay side Melbourne, do you think I should add methylated spirits to the tank, @vax2000 ?
2 Likes
What car do you drive Gaby ?
1 Like
2008 Toyota Yaris, very low mileage, Mike.
So far it’s been a dream car as far as reliability and ease of driving.
My previous one was an escort ghia, I could never be sure it was going to start!
2 Likes
Your car can use E10 fuel Gaby . Add the 1 litre of Metho no problems at all . I had a Ford Escort GT 1600 . Had more rattles than a millionaires baby . Worst car I ever owned .
2 Likes
Thank you, Mike.
I’m also glad I wasn’t the only one with Escort issues!
2 Likes
I see that this is now 5 years old.
I never came in to that “Nitrogen makes your tyres run cooler” thing.
In my book it is just an expensive scam.
Since atmospheric air is 78% NITROGEN, I reckon my tyres are running cool enough, particularly since most of my running is around town.
Now if I do a long distance trip, I can run my tyres cooler by driving 5km/hr slower, and ensuring they are inflated to the recommended pressures.
Underinflated tyres run hotter.
Tyres are reported to drop their pressure through slow leakage on average by 1 psi/month.
The $70 is half the cost of a new tyre, so I reckon go easy on the accelerator and regularly check tyre pressures, and you can take the family out for a meal on the savings.
1 Like
