Is anyone using this fuel in their Series 3 (FI)? The 95 octane rating is attractive, providing the ethanol isn't likely to cause damage due to different additives. Until now I've been running on ULP 91RON and occasionally PULP 95RON.

In Australia I'm reading that E10 is compatible with Jaguar vehicles of 1986 build onward, but I'm not sure if or to what extent the FI systems from earlier S3's (e.g. 1984) would differ to say, '86 or '87 builds.

This question may only be relevant to AU calibrated models, but I'm still interested on wider opinions re. part ethanol fuel (10%) in these cars in general.

 

What would you gain with higher octane rating?

 

Nothing necessarily, but there's also nothing wrong with using higher octane.

E10 95 is cheaper than standard unleaded 91 octane, and very much cheaper than premium 95. My interest is on the impacts of ethanol on these engines, if any, although I may not use it. Just curious to know if anyone is using it.

 

Hi Tony,

Apart from the well documented side effect of ethanol's like of breaking down the lining of older fuel lines such as those in our vintage of cars, ethanol has a very short burn nor is it as powerful as petrol.

You need more of it in volume to attain the same result as normal fuel. Read not as economical.

So by the time you add in the expense of re wiring your fuel lines to accommodate e10 and the fact that you will use more e10 to go the same distance, well, what is the point??

In a nutshell, the higher the octane, the longer the burn and more powerful the stroke meaning better fuel economy you will get.

These XK engine respond well to high octane fuel.

Also, in Australia we have the dirtiest refined fuel in the western world due to our ancient outdated fuel refineries. By definition, the higher the octane, the more highly refined the fuel.

I only run 98 octane in both Jag's and the Suby as the fuel is at least the cleanest I can put in their tanks in this country.

Also one of the main supermarket chain brands here has rubbish additives in all of their fuels and so have a shorter shelf life fuel on offer.

Cheers,

Nigel

 

I've been using E10 for 20+ years. I've never had any problems running it in any of my older (80s vintage) Jags or any other cars. In my neck of the woods it's standard issue at the pumps. You have to search for non-E10.

Anyhow.....

The cars run fine on it. You lose about 3% efficiency/power. No fuel hose failures, no fuel pump failures. Well, my brother did have a pump fail on his Chevy but it was over 20 years old at the time. It's hard to specifically blame E10 if a 20 year old fuel pump fails....but I'm sure some people would. It's all the rage these days to summarily blame E10 for *any* failure in the fuel system without considering other causes.....like old age.

As far as hoses go, specifically, who runs a 25-30-35 year old car on original fuel hoses anyway? That's crazy. Even with non-E10 gasoline rubber hoses will eventually need replacing.

*If* you're gonna have a problem with E10 it's most likely to occur if the car is put in *long term storage in a damp environment*.

Octane? If the engine isn't pinging you don't need higher octane.

Cheers
DD

 

Sorry, no. Octane rating has nothing to do with burn speed or power. It is simply the measure of resistance to detonation and nothing more.

As already stated if the engine is not detonating on 91, using a higher rated fuel is pointless.

Like Doug, I've been using E10 on vehicles of all types for 20+ years and never had a problem. The fuel has been in widespread use here for 30+. Don't fall for the sky is falling myths.

 

Yes, I guessed this would throw up some differing views

I'm aware the faster burn of E10 means higher consumption accompanied by a small percentage loss in efficiency. What I didn't know until recently is that E10 is 95 octane. I had always assumed it to be 91 with 10% ethanol. Although the higher octane won't necessarily benefit the Jag, it won't hurt it either.

So it comes back to whether E10 is likely to damage the fuel system components, and why Jaguar regard post 1986 suitable for E10, what changed in 1986 compared with my 1984 build?

This is more a matter of curiosity rather than a strong desire to use E10 in the Jag, since there is little difference in price between E10 and 91ULP. Given the lower efficiency of E10, I'm probably better off continuing with 91ULP as I've always done.

Current per litre prices: 95E10 $1.05 91ULP $1.07 98PULP $1.40

These prices are at a brand new outlet in my area (non-supermarket brand), opened 2 days ago. The most interesting thing of all is they have deleted 95PULP altogether. Although irrelevant to the Jag, my late model VW does require 95 octane and since the car is rated as E10 suitable, that's what I'll be using now. The price of 98PULP is ridiculous.

I suspect we're likely to see more and more E10 creeping in.

 

It's nothing to do with burn speed. E10 has 3% less energy content than 'pure' gas/petrol. That's where the loss of power/fuel mileage comes from.

All OEMs started upgrading their cars in the '80s to make them ethanol compatible. Despite the rumours on the internet, the sky has yet to fall from usage.

Ethanol has no direct connection to octane rating. That's a separate parameter.

 

Semantics, surely? To me, "loss of fuel mileage" with E10 means you're "burning" more fuel to cover the same distance.

 

Chicken little stuff????


1. My LT1 powered 83 and I went to market yesterday. E10 laced 87 octane. It fired right up, as usual and purred as usual. I stomped on it a couple of times, it squatted and leaped.


2. My neighbor is using my ancient Troy Bilt Chipper shredder to get rid of a lot of Ivy overgrowth. I repowered it a couple of years ago. Out, B&S 5HP. In, HF sourced Predator 6.5 HP. In actuality an OHV Honda knock off. Noisy and powerful. On E10 87. Whacking away just fine.


3. My decades old Honda OHV powered Craftsman mower fires right up and mows. Same juice.


4. My 94 Jeep Grand Cherokee eats the E10 stuff just fine.


5. Although, my 2 cycle things prefer fuel with no ethanol.


Carl

 

To me, no. One of the posts above managed to whip 2 or 3 of the most common myths of E10, I thought you might want some clarification.

 

Speculation here, but I can envision Jaguar asking the vendors "Are you supplying us with E10 compatible fuel pumps [or hoses, pressure regulators, etc]?"

"Yes, we are"

"OK, good. Since E10 is gradually becoming more commonplace we're getting more inquiries from consumers. We'll update our owners manuals to show that our cars are E10 compatible. Thank you."


Cheers
DD

 

I was referring to your claim that E10 doesn't have a faster burn speed, yet it produces lower fuel mileage due to it's reduced energy.

My semantic: If E10 disappears from the tank faster than the equivalent amount of non-ethanol fuel (i.e. less fuel mileage), then you're burning up your E10 at a faster rate.

 

And I suspect that's about the degree of science they applied to it!

 

I'm a member of some mechanic facebook forums. The main criticism i see is ethanols ability to absorb water. Anytime someone posts a photo of some rusty fuel system part there's a communal sigh and eye rolling followed by a "E10 "

I wont pretend to understand all the elements of the fuel, i'd like to use it as ethanol is more environmentally sustainable but i dont. Water + fuel = bad.

 

What's forgotten is that fuel systems were rusting long before E10 became commonplace....hence the age-old advice to store cars (or anything else) with a *full tank* to prevent rusting due to condensation.

On the Series I-II-III sedans, and even the X300 sedans, the far greater risk of water-in-fuel problems comes from rainwater collecting in the fuel filler pockets due to clogged drain hoses. This allows raw water to seep past the filler caps and drip directly into the tanks. With or without E10, this is a problem. Not only will the engine object to water in the fuel but the water promotes tank rusting.

I live in the USA Pacific Northwest...a notoriously wet environment...and haven't had any issues with E10 water absorption on any of my cars, older or newer. You probably won't, either.

But, yes, E10 can absorb moisture which can present problems in certain long term storage conditions....which is why non-E10 is often found at marine fuel docks.

Cheers
DD

 

Rust has been with us going back to the "Iron age". Feo or similar....


Circa 1951, I decided to up date my 23 "T" Ford. I wanted a 27 "roadster" body. Sleeker, and with a door for the driver. The 23 had none!!! One door, passenger side. Oh, except a PO had "chopped" away a chunk of tin to get "in" easier.....


I found a parts car. But, it's Brit Ex pat was not anxious to part with the body. Needed as parts for his Dr.'s coupe. Luckily, his mechanic OK'd parting with the body.


It wasn't hard to unbolt it. And, I forgot how we managed to get it home. Teen muscle, I guess.


But yowee, the "in the cowl" gas tank kept plugging the rather short fuel line with rust!!!!!


Fix: I put a bunch of small nails and some gravel in it. Added Kerosene. Cheaper than gas. Rigged a small out board boat motor tank off the windshield post. Drove it off that. Drained and strained a few times and all was well.... Plumbed it in.


Carl

 

It produces less power than gas not because it burns faster but because it produces less heat. Less heat, less power.

Talking about burn speed usually brings out all the myths about octane rating and detonation. Nothing to do with each other.

 

This has become a rather moot point Mikey, so here's my final shot:

1. Putting all the science of heat, power & detonation aside - In the common vernacular and certainly the context in which I'm applying the term, *burn* means *to consume*. Using approx values, if I can drive 100km on 15 litres of petrol/gas, I will get only 97km from 15 litres of ethanol mix. Ergo; I've *burned* through the ethanol mixed fuel at a faster rate than straight petrol. Similarly, my wife can *burn* through cash faster than I, given that easy challenge!

2. Octane is totally academic in relation to my original question. It was simply my observation that ethanol is now being added to 95RON petrol, and not only to 91RON as in the past (in this country, anyway). My car runs perfectly well on straight 91 petrol, but on the surface, E10 95 looks attractive because it's cheaper to buy than 91 petrol and FWIW the higher octane will do no harm. The question was, will the ethanol prove harmful? I think we're there.

 

Hi Tony,

To answer the missed part of your question.

Ethanol at the low mix (e10) generally available in Australia won't harm your engine per se, just don't tow anything whilst using it.

It is only at much higher concentrations and mileage that the combined effects of potential moisture suspended in that fuel, related lubrication shortcomings of ethanol (not that normal fuel has any fantastic lubricating qualities) and other incremental chemical deficiencies of ethanol starts to seriously affect the engines main bearings if it hasn't been modified for that specific use.

That info coming from an engineer I know and with whom I discussed this topic with many years ago who was heavily involved in the development of a dedicated ethanol engine for one of the big Aussie car manufacturers.

I won't bother boring you with the inherent lack of burn time properties of ethanol in comparison to normal fuel.

Ethanol has a poor calorific value meaning as a power source, it has no punch.

If you are used to towing a caravan up a small hill and are used to dropping out of overdrive to get there, with ethanol, not only would you drop out of overdrive, but you would also need to drop down a cog or two.

Purely as an aside, the higher the octane rating, the greater the resistance to uncontrolled burning. We want to control the burn in the cylinder to make it burn longer and not cause pre detonation.

See if I can stir up another hornets nest here.

Cheers,

Nigel