Yes, I was drawing attention to the myth that premium gas has more detergents than regular, and that hi-perf engines need them. There's plenty of other links that back this up with a little searching on Google.

 

No. Lead in gas was a lubricant. Was used for a great many years in cars. Running unleaded in an engine which requires it forces you to use additives to replace what was taken out.

Cars that run on E10 used to have alcohol sensors which have now been replaced with advanced programming which estimates the alcohol levels to advance or retard timing. They require advanced knock sensors too.

You cannot run E10 in your Jag without the serious possibility of knocking, especially at low temperatures where it is more difficult to achieve enough vapor pressure. Ethanol tends to increase fuel enthalpy of vaporization.

 

I'm really not sure where you're getting your info, but it's waaaay off.

Lead in gas was employed to raise octane levels as it was cheap, available and nobody knew or cared at the time about the health hazards. A side effect was the tendency to lessen wear on valve seats by leaving a residual coating on the valve face and seat. This coating reduced the tendency for extremely hot metal surfaces to stick (correct term is microweld) themselves together creating an environment where the seat surface appeared to be eroded away. If you wish to call this phenomena 'lubrication', then I guess teflon cooking pans would be 'lubricated' too.

As leaded gas started to be phased out in the 70s, OEMs were concerned that the lack of lead would accelerate valve seat wear and began to induction harden the seats during manufacture. This practice was later proven to be superflous on the vast majority of vehicles, but it is commonly carried out nonetheless.

There were no other modifications made internally to accommodate unleaded gas, the lubrication myth is just that- but 40 years later the confusion carries on. I belong to a Corvette enthusiasts group with the vast majority of cars being at least 35 years old. No one has ever seen a head or valve seat damaged by lack of lead and very very few have the heads modified with hardened valve seats accordingly. I've put 40K+ miles on my car with unhardened seats, use no additives and have suffered no damage. Most of those miles have been with E10 gas also.

Regarding cars with 'alcohol sensors' for E10, could you point me to an example?

Could you also point me to a document that indicates that modern Jags are not to use E10?

Why would a car run on 93 octane E10 knock more than a car with 93 octane 'pure' gas?

The vapour pressure characteristic of E10 you refer to is absolutely irrelevant in a fuel injected car running 30-40psi pressure and has no connection to performance levels. Fuel vapour pressure can be a concern on carburated cars where percolation in the carb or vapour lock can occur in the fuel pump especially in hot climates. Most OEMs addressed this (again in the 70s) by running a bypass fuel line to recirculate fuel back to the tank, keeping the carb and pump cool enough to avoid the issue.

 

The most I can find is in the handbook (about Ethanol) that up to 10% may be used and:
"Ensure the fuel has octane ratings no lower than those recommended for unleaded fuel. Most drivers will not notice any operating difference with fuel containing ethanol. If a difference is detected, the use of conventional unleaded fuel should be resumed."

The recommended minimum ratings appear to be 91 AKI / 95 RON (for Europe).

The "will not notice" is hardly reassuring!

 

I meant E85 so I will disregard the vast majority of what you wrote.

As for lead being a cheap octane booster, that is true. Leaded gasoline also protected some older car engines from wearing down by covering soft engine parts with lead-containing material. This would be what....lubrication? Yes, of course. It is no different than the graphite that you use to lubricate your door locks.

 

The difference they are referring to would be increased fuel consumption while using E10. No debate there from my side.

We're all getting royally screwed by the E10 scam- it should be priced lower than pure gas to compensate for the higher consumption. Even people that don't use it are getting farqued-the cost of basic consumer items like wheat has risen to offset the loss of land that's been devoted to subsidized corn production.

Did you guys in the US know there's a huge import tariff on cane sugar that could be used to make ethanol? Guess who pushed for the tariff?

 

E85 appears to fit Jag's description of being more than 10% ethanol LOL
So, not allowed in the tank.

 

There were/are no 'soft' engine parts in the combustion path of an engine. This is another extension of the seemingly unkillable myth.

Who mentioned E85? What's that got to do with E10?

 

Sigh. Go back and re-read.

 

OK, it appears to be confusion on your end. No problem

 

Enthusiast specified E85, he didn't "mention" it. I posted the Jaguar Handbook statements. Where's the confusion?

 

Well maybe I'm confused now? Isn't E10 10% alcohol? This is certainly used in the USA and I don't know that you can even find anything but E10 these days since that other "pollution fighting" additive was banned.

It definitely reduces mileage due to the lower energy content per gallon and in the collector car world a number of people are "claiming" issues with corrosion and rubber deterioration.

Bob S.

 

You need to go back and read the whole thread. Someone here stated that alcohol could be run in a Jag without modifications. I was talking about E85, which will not run properly in our cars.

Also, alcohol is a much more corrosive liquid which does in fact break down rubber much more quickly.

 

So, who's on first again?

E10 = 10% ethanol alcohol. No problem in S types, they were designed for it from the ground up.

E85 = 85% ethanol alcohol. No Jaguar is designed to operate on this fuel. Bad, bad, bad.

 

Bad in what ways?

 

I reckon your S Types might be alcohol addicted hence due to usage of E85 lol

 

No, but your statement about not being able to run a 10% alcohol mix is what's confusing me. I can't believe you actually posted it. You either made an error or most of us don't understand the point you're trying to make. Let's stay on that one for a moment and stop talking about E85. I don't care what you think about E85. I've not seen the flex-fuel label on any Jags in this country. I want to try and understand what you meant by saying you cannot run an E10 blend in one of these cars. If it's just a simple error, fine. I understand that.

Bob S.

 

I think you need to read post#45.

 

Oh I did read it. But this "debate" between the two of them has been been long and a bit heated. Exactly what he meant by that statement was not clear. "Oh sorry my mistake I meant E85 wouldn't work" would have been easily understood. Then his many of his original points make sense. No one's going to realistically jump all over him for switching E10 & E85. I can understand how it happened.

 

It's not heated. I frankly don't know how this all started. Let's review my feelings so that there can be no further confusion:

1. Running regular in an S-Type is bad. You will see lower mileage and it may damage your motor.

2. Someone here mentioned that there is no reason that the S-Type should not run on alcohol. That is false. The engine management system won't be up to it and it will damage the fuel delivery system.

3. The lead that they used to put in gas was to lubricate soft parts and as a cheap octane booster.

Done.