91 Ron

[shevek]

I've read most of the fuel links. Thanks. I get that Ethanol is false economy & 95+ is good for the engine & maybe performance.
With the WS, many said 91 RON was just as good, probably because the tweaked engine adjusts on the fly so no pinging, etc.
Uunfortunately, 91RON is on the way out, hard to find in Sydney, to be phased out by mid next year.

So the choice is now E10 vs 95/98. No contest you say, but 12c a litre is $150+ a year. I know I know, I've just paid 21.5k, etc. How could I even think it.
I'm just wondering whether the engine tweaks that make a WS Zetec happier than earlier Fiestas on 91 might also make it run well on E10. Any views?

Philosophically, I'm uneasy about E10 because I don't like the idea of plants being grown to feed cars.

[fiestaz]

dont go near E10 its just not worth it.... you would probably be better off on 95, and the extra money may not matter if u are getting a bit more km's to a tank.... or go to another petrol station that has 91 available, (they are around).

[trento]

I did the sums as well shevek and on average I get 80-100km extra on a tank of 98 when compared to E10/91. So despite the higher price per litre you still come out in front.

[dannyhilton]

Yep, these guys have done their sums. It's better for your car, and you'll get much more milage. Just buy on days where it's cheap and you'll be back infront of Ethanol. I find the following fuels quite good. Although, the difference in power between 95-98 is zilch in the Mk7 Fiesta IMHO. I go three tanks of 95 then a tank of 98. PB Ultimate seem to use more fuel than either of these two, which is quite strange?

- Shell V-Power 98
- PB Premium 95

[GoesLikeAZetec]

We've just been using Shell V Power for a few months.

I'd say the fuel economy is definitely better on 98 but not ridiculously better.. But it never pings now, which it did on 91 and sometimes even 95...


Havent tried ethanol yet..

[trento]

I generally try to use Caltex Vortex failing that BP Ultimate.Haven't tried V-power coz the local shell servo is dodgy.

[shevek]

Okay Okay. A bit stingy of Ford to send them out with half a tank of E10, as the dealer said they did.

[Franco Cozzo]

I only use 95 in my Fez, never tried 91 in it after reading some peoples experiences here.

[JClarke]

I only use 95 in my fiesta now, she wont accept 91 nowadays.

[Dustproof]

Originally Posted by shevek

I've read most of the fuel links. Thanks. I get that Ethanol is false economy & 95+ is good for the engine & maybe performance.
With the WS, many said 91 RON was just as good, probably because the tweaked engine adjusts on the fly so no pinging, etc.
Uunfortunately, 91RON is on the way out, hard to find in Sydney, to be phased out by mid next year.

So the choice is now E10 vs 95/98. No contest you say, but 12c a litre is $150+ a year. I know I know, I've just paid 21.5k, etc. How could I even think it.
I'm just wondering whether the engine tweaks that make a WS Zetec happier than earlier Fiestas on 91 might also make it run well on E10. Any views?

Philosophically, I'm uneasy about E10 because I don't like the idea of plants being grown to feed cars.

Hmmmm, where did you get the idea that normal unleaded is 91 RON the fact is it is supposed to be 93RON (closer to 92 really). E10 is 91RON and I have used it several times in my WS Zetec with no noticeable drop in power or pinging. I have used 95RON as well and can't really feel too much difference, the fact is it is probably better but not nessesarilly worth the extra money.

In essence the Fiesta's engine is constantly in a state of tune, it checks engine ping/knock through sensors and adjusts mixture and timing to suit. This is the same for the Focus, some customers said it was pinging and had other problems, the thing is the engine needs to adjust itself to the fuel it has and this is what people were complaining of - this is normal.

Ford dealers will tell you don't use E10, this is because they don't like it so you are being influenced by someones paranoia. Soon we will have cars running on E85, do you think they are going to pay extra to use 95 or 98 octane fuel.

For what it is worth, I have built many race cars and engines over the years and I can tell you that you can get more power out of Ethanol than petrol BUT the engine needs to be designed to handle it. If you don't believe me - why do V8 Supercars run so well on E85. The down side is they use a lot more of it.

[geckoGT]

Interesting topic.

I did some quick sums based on experiences quoted here.

A fiesta using the Ford quoted 6.1L/100 km for a manual (they quote this as done on 95), will provide 705 km to a 43L tank.

A Fiesta on 91, assuming it gets 80 km less out of 43L of fuel, will require 48L to travel that same 705 km.

Working on a fuel price of $1.20 for 91 and $1.32 for 95 (the 12c that was quoted on this thread). This equates to the 705 km costing $57.60 on 91 and $56.76 on 95, a difference in the favor of 95 but not much in it.

The point is, for the extra cost of 98 (about 5c/L over the cost of 95), it would have to give a much larger improvement in fuel economy to out perform 95 in a cost per km basis. To achieve this it would have to achieve a fuel economy of 5.8L/100km to break even with 95. I highly doubt a Fiesta would achieve this fuel economy in usage as demonstrated in ADR 81/02.

Out of all this, there really is nothing in it on a cost basis, they all work out pretty even in the end cost for that 705 km distance. Added to that, if 95 exceeds 12c or 98 exceeds 17c over the cost of 91, the favor tips to the 91 quite quickly on a purely cost basis.

It would be interesting to see some testing of this car on E10 done in accordance with ADR 81/02 to give a fair comparison.

[GoesLikeAZetec]

yeah or a real life test on the same car on the same day with all the different fuels...

and include price, pinging, consumption etc into the test

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by GoesLikeAZetec

yeah or a real life test on the same car on the same day with all the different fuels...

and include price, pinging, consumption etc into the test

Impossible to do as the ECU would not be able to adjust to the different fuels so quickly to give a fair comparison (running a car adjusted for 98 on 91 would not give fair comparison and vice versa). You would have to use a similar car, same specs, same weight etc (all of which have been run on that fuel for sufficient time for the ECU to adjust).

[dannyhilton]

Having driven a fair few MK7 Fiesta models, from CL to Zetec, all I can say is that 91RON does not do the car any favors. The test Fiesta I drove was on E91, and a friend who has a Black CL puts only E91 in her car, guess what, it pings, and the pickup isn't there not to mention fuel economy isn't as good as mine, and I rev my car. I've tried 98RON in my Fiesta, and every four tanks put some in, but I personally don't find any massive advantage (perhaps over time I would), but using a constant supply of 95RON seems to work a treat. Even if 95RON sky rockets in price, the convenience of having more pickup, along with better economy (wether it be better in comparison to the cost doesn't worry me, I don't pay for my fuel my work does) makes 95RON the better choice for me. 98RON could again be better, it was in the WP Fiesta. Everyone has different needs in life, different financial situations, different influential factors, all I can say is what I think and know, and 91RON or E91 just doesn't cut it for me.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by dannyhilton

Having driven a fair few MK7 Fiesta models, from CL to Zetec, all I can say is that 91RON does not do the car any favors. The test Fiesta I drove was on E91, and a friend who has a Black CL puts only E91 in her car, guess what, it pings, and the pickup isn't there not to mention fuel economy isn't as good as mine, and I rev my car. I've tried 98RON in my Fiesta, and every four tanks put some in, but I personally don't find any massive advantage (perhaps over time I would), but using a constant supply of 95RON seems to work a treat. Even if 95RON sky rockets in price, the convenience of having more pickup, along with better economy (wether it be better in comparison to the cost doesn't worry me, I don't pay for my fuel my work does) makes 95RON the better choice for me. 98RON could again be better, it was in the WP Fiesta. Everyone has different needs in life, different financial situations, different influential factors, all I can say is what I think and know, and 91RON or E91 just doesn't cut it for me.

All very good points, that is why Ford recommends 95.

I was just referring to the economy of it all.

[GoesLikeAZetec]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Impossible to do as the ECU would not be able to adjust to the different fuels so quickly to give a fair comparison (running a car adjusted for 98 on 91 would not give fair comparison and vice versa). You would have to use a similar car, same specs, same weight etc (all of which have been run on that fuel for sufficient time for the ECU to adjust).

my point was just to make it a fair comparision.... and that the comparison is useful to real life buyers...

[notorious_benny]

Pfffft! Who really cares about the difference in price between 91 and 95 RON.

I have asked my wife to just use 98RON in her Fiesta, a couple of bucks extra a tank is neither here nor there, not when these little cars use such a small amount of fuel to start with.

I will lend you my XR6 Turbo for a couple of months, it only likes 98 and drinks like a fish!!

[burnz]

irony "E10 generaly equals 95ron".
some companys are reducing E10 down to 91ron.

95~98 contains ethanol anyway.

[bensley]

BP ULTIMATE does not contain ethanol, I have seen testing on it.

Ethanol increases octane rating in the mixed fuels but you burn more then 100% unleaded fuels, Proven fact.

Drew

[gazza414]

You'll find that Shell at the pump rate UUNLEADED at 91 RON, E10 at 94RON

and very true about the Cal Val of E10....look at individual Cal values...however Ethanol has a very high Octane rating..both RON and MON.


Look at why some run motors on Methanol..great stuff and cheap !!!..well kinda :

[dannyhilton]

Originally Posted by burnz

95~98 contains ethanol anyway.

While I may be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but I was under the impression any fuel containing ethonol has to be labeled. While places like United have 95 and 98 Ethonol products, BP and Shell at least do not add any ethonol to their 95 or 98RON fuels. Seeing as most older engines can't handle ethonol, I'd assume I'm correct in saying the pumps have to be labeled. Heck, if BP put ethonol in their Ultimate, I have been putting it into my ex's Holden Astra SRi for months, and her Astra can not accept ethonol.

[greenfoam]

Originally Posted by dannyhilton

Yep, these guys have done their sums. It's better for your car, and you'll get much more milage. Just buy on days where it's cheap and you'll be back infront of Ethanol. I find the following fuels quite good. Although, the difference in power between 95-98 is zilch in the Mk7 Fiesta IMHO. I go three tanks of 95 then a tank of 98. PB Ultimate seem to use more fuel than either of these two, which is quite strange?

- Shell V-Power 98
- PB Premium 95

I can back that up Shell and BP 95 give me the best economy also, much more solid than BP Ultimate 98. The Fiesta pings on 91 anyway so it's no point even considering that. BP 98 defiantly has some kind of octane enhancing crap in it that cuts power if you don't have the compression for it, it's always been slower on any car I've used it in, I wouldn't have it unless I had a car running alot of boost and even then I'd run shell V power instead

[bensley]

When we started chasing larger number horse power we found this on a dyno with the same mods.

CALTEX 98 396 RWHP

V POWER 98 423 RWHP

BP ULTIMATE 98 432 RWHP

These dyno runs were done as equal as possible, same temp, same tyres, same dyno etc not perfect but as good as we could get it to even.

Yes thats a big difference and now with 540rwhp were still using BP ULTIMATE

Most of the guys running big numbers use BP ULTIMATE as apposed to V POWER

As you say maybe little cars do better on 95 but certainly big horse power cars need 98 and the 98 most prefer is BP ULTIMATE.

FREEDOM 95 & 98 contains methonal but I can assure everyone BP 95 & 98 ULTIMATE does not contain ethanol 100%

Drew

[greenfoam]

Shell V power is the winner on my mates RB30 on 25 psi but I guess different engines like different things and maybe the batches of fuel vary, still for Fiesta's 95 octane is quite a lot better

[GoesLikeAZetec]

thats a good read bensley

ill definitely agree with the v power and bp are better than caltex in the fiesta too.

[Fiesta God]

Originally Posted by dannyhilton

Heck, if BP put ethonol in their Ultimate, I have been putting it into my ex's Holden Astra SRi for months, and her Astra can not accept ethonol.

Best way to treat the ex girlfriend ... :thebirds:

[dannyhilton]

Pitty she's still a good mate!

Greanfoam, I think it's rather funny that we both use the same fuel, we both are happy with the performance and we have two of the best fuel economys recorded on the site. Sounds like were onto a winning formula ;)

[Cyborg1978]

For what it's worth, I have just over 6k on my fez and I've used V power from day 1. City driving I get 620km from a tank. That's with my econemy hvering between 6.4 and 6.5. That's not driving like a granny.