News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Fuel comparison: E10 v unleaded v premium 

Fuel comparison: E10 v unleaded v premium

15 Dec, 2008 04:16 PM
As our convoy of Camrys cruised along the Hume Highway towards Albury between Sydney and Melbourne the results of our ethanol economy experiment were beginning to crystalise.

The driver of our lead car, Joshua Dowling, had just done some quick sums based on his car’s distance-to-empty read-out and come to the conclusion he wasn’t going to make it to the NSW-Victoria border town without a pit-stop or a jerry can.

"How are you guys going for fuel?" came the query over the two-way radios.

His distance to empty read-out told him he had a range of 80km and Albury was still about 90km away.

I scrolled through my car's trip computer and told him, with just a hint of smugness, that I had 159km range.

Meanwhile, our third driver, Robert McDonald, had 129km on the clock.

"No guesses who got the bloody E10 car, then," fired Josh.

It had been a recurring theme over more than 2000km of testing identical cars over a mix of city and highway cycles.

The aim of the experiment: to work out which type of fuel provided the best value-for-money: standard unleaded fuel, premium or E10, a blend of 10pc ethanol and 90pc regular unleaded.

Our testers – we had 10 different drivers over the drive program – weren't told which fuel was in which car.

We also switched drivers regularly to make sure that we evened out the differences in weights and driving styles (driving habits can contribute significantly to fuel consumption).

Each time we drove around town we completed the same loop three times in each car, with each driver completing a complete circuit in each car.

But despite our best attempts to keep the identities of the cars a secret (we decided that blindfolding the drivers wasn't really an option), it became clear early on with each refuel which car had which fuel.

The difference was obvious by looking at the needles on our fuel gauges, there wasn't really any need to go to the distance-to-empty or average fuel consumption read-outs to be sure.

Even though there was only a few litres difference in fuel use over the tank, even by the half way mark there were notable differences in where the fuel gauges were sitting.

The ethanol blend car was using a lot more juice than the others. We knew it would – even the car manufacturers and oil companies admit that. But what we wanted to know was whether it was enough to nullify the advantage of a cheaper bowser price.

The answer was yes, as Josh discovered as he crawled the streets of Albury looking for an E10 bowser.

Thankfully, we can report that the Camry has some slack in its distance-to-empty readout. We'd estimate ay least 10km worth.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Well come on, give us the figures! Looking at a fuel gauge is bloody useless anyway. How about cost/km numbers for each fuel type!
Posted by moose, 17/12/2008 3:49:39 PM
Editor's note: The accompanying story, headlined 'Ethanol's false economy: fuel types compared', has the detail which you are after.
Posted by Michael Thomson on 17/12/2008 4:46:34 PM
If the cars' timings are slightly different that may make that car less efficient or more efficient than others. To avoid this, or similar efficiency issues, repeat the test/journey using a different fuel in each car, swap the fuels around, unless you did do this, or have a reason for not doing.
Posted by ADS, 17/12/2008 8:23:05 PM
I have been driving my car with unleaded and with E10. I've found that E10 is far cheaper and gives a better KM range.

Average has been 9.7l/100km on petrol, compared with 8.3l/100km on E10.

I have doubts that the car above was tuned to use E10. I have been using E10 and 95 octane for the last 3 years and use E10 when ever I can.

Posted by CountryDrive, 31/12/2008 11:40:52 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: Does your town have an adequate number of doctors to service the population?

Yes
(16.5%)

No
(78.9%)

Undecided
(4.6%)

Total Votes: 544
Poll Date: 14 December, 2008

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC SJ



Queensland Country Life







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...