Until at least 2020, United Petroleum has actively advertised that their E10 is 95 RON. Since my car also requires 95 RON, I had decided to fill up with United’s E10.
I have now noticed that at all United petrol stations the reference to 95 RON has completely disappeared and there is no longer any reference to it on the United website either. Leaseholders of United petrol stations have repeatedly told me that their E10 has never been 95 RON.
However, I still have a screenshot of the United website from 2020 that proves the opposite.
I have now tried to find out how much RON E10 from United really has - without success. I also found out that the Australian standard only stipulates that E10 contains a minimum of 1% and a maximum of 10% ethanol. So it could be that United E10 is now just the nominal unleaded 91 with only 1% ethanol. In general, it seems almost impossible to find out the composition of fuels.
Does anyone know more? In any case, I feel a bit hoodwinked that United has quietly changed this without clearly pointing it out.
In relation to United Petroleum claims, I recall reading an article in the paper (possibly this one but is is behind a paywall so can’t confirm) a few years ago about the government potentially investigating the company’s claims of the E10 being 95 RON (or in effect min 95 RON which would be required for the fuel to be labelled as such).
From what I understand is E10 generally has only been recommended for vehicles which can run on 91 RON. This is the case as E10 octane levels can change depending on the amount of ethanol added to the fuel (1-10%).
Before using E10, it is worth seeing if the manufacturer recommends using E10 for your particular vehicle by carrying out a search on one of the many websites such as:
We’ve travelled by car more than usual over the previous 5 months. Hence a variety of servos in Vic, NSW and QLD have been the beneficiaries. I recollect often seeing signage at the pumps/bowser extolling the virtues of each grade of fuel. E10 was promoted most typically as having up to 10% ethanol content. The higher octane rating RON 94 was one of the added attributes all of which suggested your car would run better with E10, if it was permitted by the manufacturer.
I have a similar recollection the higher octane rating was not qualified, or have I misread the marketing?
Edit note:
E10 is typically specified as octane 94. Similar comments from other suppliers.
Ethanol mix fuel is a joke. The cost of production of the ethanol is high, and its addition to standard unleaded 91 RON to pretend it is PULP 95 RON is variable unless the percentage can be guaranteed. Even at 10% ethanol in the mix, you are only going to get to 94 RON. Close, but not quite there.
Also the energy content of ethanol is 30% less than petrol, so you need to burn more of it per kilometer.
Many reports are less kind, eg it is a bad joke and as bad or worse than straight petrol. e10 has its roots in the US corn lobby. Where the US leads we usually follow while avoiding the worst of their excesses.
Questions arose 2 decades ago regarding diverting agri-land from food crops to fuel crops. A recent article from a US motoring magazine.
There are myriad reports ethanol laced petrol is good, as well as bad, the former seemingly from ‘interests’ that justify its value. The latter from interests that are equally questioning.
Given the diverse studies and their sources ‘following the money’ could be a decider in which has more credibility.
Could United achieve a higher octane rating of RON95 for E10 or the other suppliers assure always achieving RON94? It depends on the properties of the fuel (petrol) it is blended with. Everyone here is assuming the base blend is a RON 91 product. The suppliers can blend a higher octane fuel to balance the final product ti achieve RON 94 or even RON 95. If they choose to do so.
It’s worth considering that E10 at 10% ethanol true blended content is approx 3% less energy dense compared to regular unleaded 91 petrol. However the cost saving is as little as 1.2% est.
E10 is NOT 95 RON. I would steer clear of any supplier making that statement.
Ethanol lifts the RON in 91 fuel to 94. 95 fuel has that RON without help.
My car is rated for 91, as well as E10, but never fill with E10. The real reason we have it is that John Howard was friends with a major political donor. Although E10 has more energy per litre than 91, its only about 3% more. So if you car can use 91, from the economical point of view, E10 should be roughly 3% cheaper. But it’s only 2 cents per litre cheaper. At prices above 1.50 dollars per litre that’s well below 3% discount.
