So about that E20

[AsiaCheese]

When I bought a new Honda Jazz two years ago, I went with E20 (because I could...). A few weeks and a long trip later, I was back at the dealership, complaining that I only got 13km/l according to the car's calculation, whereas I used to squeeze out anywhere between 16-18km/l with various rented Jazz' going on E10 and similar routes/conditions earlier. Their first reaction was to try and teach me about driving conditions (town/country) and my potentially heavy foot... The second reaction was to reset the trip counter and "try again" - hopeless.

A bit later, a good friend, who's been working in the fuel industry, told me: "no wonder - the percentage of ethanol reduced the reach in km by roughly the same percentage". So: E10 = 10% less, E20 = 20% less than plain benzine. When I calculate that with 13km (E20) and avg. 17km (E10), it was actually almost 25% less, just between those two! While E20 is cheaper than E10, the difference does by far and away not make up for the loss of reach, plus it adds the inconvenience of having to fuel up more often. I've been using E10 ever since, and get 16+km/l regularly. I might one day do a trip with 95 octane and compare the results...

[shiroboi]

Robblok, half of 10% is 5%. You have 5% less power. 20% less power would be a HUGE difference. I'm pretty sure I'd notice that.

Ace of Pop, I have a Honda Freed. It's based on the FIt/Jazz chassis and engine. Has 7 seats.

AsiaCheese, My father in Law has the Jazz and I used to drive it a lot. It could get anywhere from 13-16 Kl/Litre depending on how I drove it. Those numbers are in line with my Freed test. Same engine but more weight.

Edited January 8, 2015 by shiroboi

[maswov]

The HHV of ethanol is 84,000 BTU/gal and benzene is 124,000 BTU/gal so that puts ethanol closer to 68% the efficiency of straight benzene. I don't doubt your results but 2 tanks in an uncontrolled environment can hardly be considered a satisfactory test. The loss of power for a daily driver is negligible unless you have something to prove to the countless morons on the road trying to keep up with them.

Fossil fuels won't last forever, that stuff should be saved hot rods.

[shiroboi]

The HHV of ethanol is 84,000 BTU/gal and benzene is 124,000 BTU/gal so that puts ethanol closer to 68% the efficiency of straight benzene. I don't doubt your results but 2 tanks in an uncontrolled environment can hardly be considered a satisfactory test. The loss of power for a daily driver is negligible unless you have something to prove to the countless morons on the road trying to keep up with them.

Fossil fuels won't last forever, that stuff should be saved hot rods.

Those HHV facts are interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I do agree that my tests wouldn't pass scientific merit but both tanks had almost exactly the same fuel efficiency by the end and are more or less in line with everything I've read about E20. Just sharing my results, not ironclad conclusions.

My car is so badly underpowered as is. Driving around town with just me in it is one thing. But pulling 7 people with a 1.5L engine is just painful, there's no reason I'd ever want to willingly decrease my power, even if it's by 3-4%. My fuel tank is small so decreasing the range is another unwanted setback. Finally, the very noticable drop in fuel efficiency mostly negates any significant savings I might come up with. I have to fill up more often with E20. I'm not sure what's so ecological about consuming larger quantities of fuel.

I really think it's just a nice thought to put eco friendly fuel at the pump when in reality, it's doing a whole lot of nothing and saving you very little money.

[Morakot]

Ethanol has roughly half of the explosive power of gasoline.

Any evidence for this?

[maswov]

Dealership and mechanics say I have to use 95 for the Benz. Is this true? Before the price dropped I was spending 3000 baht per fill up.

Possible. Normally high performance engines will need a higher octane to prevent pre-ignition.

Temperature increases with pressure therefore in a higher compression engine the air/fuel mixture will get hotter than in a lower compression engine during the compression stroke. The flash point for higher octane fuel is higher than lower octane. Typically ignition will occur 4 degree before top dead center, however if the compression is high and the octane is low, the fuel may ignite before the spark. This usually results in knocking and pinging.

I'm not sure if different countries use different methods in rating fuels, but in the US 87 is the low octane which most cars run on, 89 and 91 are available as higher octane alternative with the occasional 93 or 94. I do remember 104 or 105 Cam II racing fuel, but that was extremely rare and not available at typical gas stations.

[smotherb]

The motors here in Thailand are weak and pathetic to begin with. 1.5 liter can't get out of its own way.

Formula One currently uses 1.6 litre...

Formula One motors here in Thailand, who would have thought?

[maswov]

The HHV of ethanol is 84,000 BTU/gal and benzene is 124,000 BTU/gal so that puts ethanol closer to 68% the efficiency of straight benzene. I don't doubt your results but 2 tanks in an uncontrolled environment can hardly be considered a satisfactory test. The loss of power for a daily driver is negligible unless you have something to prove to the countless morons on the road trying to keep up with them.

Fossil fuels won't last forever, that stuff should be saved hot rods.

Those HHV facts are interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I do agree that my tests wouldn't pass scientific merit but both tanks had almost exactly the same fuel efficiency by the end and are more or less in line with everything I've read about E20. Just sharing my results, not ironclad conclusions.

My car is so badly underpowered as is. Driving around town with just me in it is one thing. But pulling 7 people with a 1.5L engine is just painful, there's no reason I'd ever want to willingly decrease my power, even if it's by 3-4%. My fuel tank is small so decreasing the range is another unwanted setback. Finally, the very noticable drop in fuel efficiency mostly negates any significant savings I might come up with. I have to fill up more often with E20. I'm not sure what's so ecological about consuming larger quantities of fuel.

I really think it's just a nice thought to put eco friendly fuel at the pump when in reality, it's doing a whole lot of nothing and saving you very little money.

I can see when you have a full load you will need to squeeze out every ounce of power you can.

You may use more fuel with bio-blends but the idea is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels being used. If you compare a tank of E20 to straight benzene and for example you can travel 100 km on the benzene and 80 on the E20, there is no benefit as you would be using the same amount of benzene to go the same distance. If the distance is less than 80 km you would be using more fossil fuel to go the same distance, but the goal is to get higher than 80 so anything above that mark would be essentially kilos run on fossil fuel free fuel.

For those that subscribe to the theory of anthropogenic global warming cost wouldn't be an issue since the bio portion of the fuel is carbon neutral. I fully support biofuels since our resources are limited, Conserve what we can now so future generations enjoy the raw power of a 1970 Boss 429 or a 1968 Dodge Superbee.

[maswov]

The HHV of ethanol is 84,000 BTU/gal and benzene is 124,000 BTU/gal so that puts ethanol closer to 68% the efficiency of straight benzene. I don't doubt your results but 2 tanks in an uncontrolled environment can hardly be considered a satisfactory test. The loss of power for a daily driver is negligible unless you have something to prove to the countless morons on the road trying to keep up with them.

Fossil fuels won't last forever, that stuff should be saved hot rods.

Those HHV facts are interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I do agree that my tests wouldn't pass scientific merit but both tanks had almost exactly the same fuel efficiency by the end and are more or less in line with everything I've read about E20. Just sharing my results, not ironclad conclusions.

My car is so badly underpowered as is. Driving around town with just me in it is one thing. But pulling 7 people with a 1.5L engine is just painful, there's no reason I'd ever want to willingly decrease my power, even if it's by 3-4%. My fuel tank is small so decreasing the range is another unwanted setback. Finally, the very noticable drop in fuel efficiency mostly negates any significant savings I might come up with. I have to fill up more often with E20. I'm not sure what's so ecological about consuming larger quantities of fuel.

I really think it's just a nice thought to put eco friendly fuel at the pump when in reality, it's doing a whole lot of nothing and saving you very little money.

I can see when you have a full load you will need to squeeze out every ounce of power you can.

You may use more fuel with bio-blends but the idea is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels being used. If you compare a tank of E20 to straight benzene and for example you can travel 100 km on the benzene and 80 on the E20, there is no benefit as you would be using the same amount of benzene to go the same distance. If the distance is less than 80 km you would be using more fossil fuel to go the same distance, but the goal is to get higher than 80 so anything above that mark would be essentially kilos run on fossil fuel free fuel.

For those that subscribe to the theory of anthropogenic global warming cost wouldn't be an issue since the bio portion of the fuel is carbon neutral. I fully support biofuels since our resources are limited, Conserve what we can now so future generations enjoy the raw power of a 1970 Boss 429 or a 1968 Dodge Superbee.

[Ace of Pop]

Anyone with half a brain can work out that 7people in a small Car infers a dippy driver who can count passengers how can he figure out KPL.

[gandalf12]

As someone suggested in another thread that when doing mainly highway driving E20 does well. I filled up on my last trip that was all highway and according to the trip computer on the tank I was getting about 13.5 km/l where as with 91 I got around 12.9, this was with a 1.8 liter Honda on the way back I was a bit lighter than the trip going (1 less person, and a little less luggage). I filled up with E20 when I got back to see how it was in the city which is primarily all I do and so far 100 km in and I am running about 9.5 km/l where as with 91 I was running about 10.5 in the city. I didn't notice any performance difference on either tank, downshifted to pass was the same. In town power is useless so that is not really a concern of mine.

I will probably use E20 on trips, and 91 in town if the current tank works out how I think it will. I still want to try E85 but every time I wanted to fill up the station we stopped at didn't have it.

We use E10 in our BMW and to be honest the response and mileage is great. Have noticed no difference

[udongolf]

I have a 2013 Nissan sylphy 1.8 litre I fill up on e20 about 1100 baht it drives like a dream getting

About 13.7 per litre round udon about 14.6 on a run .ps automatic

[landslide]

Keep in mind also that in a highly humid climate like Thailands, if your car sits for any length of time without being run, you can get "phase seperation" of the ethanol and benzene. Phase seperation occurs when water and ethanol combine, creating a substance that is heavier than benzene. It in essence causes some of the ethanol to congeal into a jelly like substance, and can cause problems with your fuel system, until removed from the tank.

[culicine]

The HHV of ethanol is 84,000 BTU/gal and benzene is 124,000 BTU/gal so that puts ethanol closer to 68% the efficiency of straight benzene. I don't doubt your results but 2 tanks in an uncontrolled environment can hardly be considered a satisfactory test. The loss of power for a daily driver is negligible unless you have something to prove to the countless morons on the road trying to keep up with them.

Fossil fuels won't last forever, that stuff should be saved hot rods.

Based on the energy of the fuel alone, this calculates to less than 4% difference in energy between E10 and E20, but 25% between E10 and E85.

I tried E10 a few times in my swift but found little difference between it and E20. Now prices have dropped, I may go back and run several tanks of E10 through and compare again to the E20.

[thailandusauk]

On a 200+ hp car E20 seems ok but I wonder if it does anything bad to an expensive car for the long term ?

[thailandusauk]

Dealership and mechanics say I have to use 95 for the Benz. Is this true? Before the price dropped I was spending 3000 baht per fill up.

. If your driving a Benz, the last thing you should be complaining about is price of Gas...

Wrong ! You buy the car 1 time then you refill every week...

[thailandusauk]

Dealership and mechanics say I have to use 95 for the Benz. Is this true? Before the price dropped I was spending 3000 baht per fill up.

Possible. Normally high performance engines will need a higher octane to prevent pre-ignition.

Temperature increases with pressure therefore in a higher compression engine the air/fuel mixture will get hotter than in a lower compression engine during the compression stroke. The flash point for higher octane fuel is higher than lower octane. Typically ignition will occur 4 degree before top dead center, however if the compression is high and the octane is low, the fuel may ignite before the spark. This usually results in knocking and pinging.

I'm not sure if different countries use different methods in rating fuels, but in the US 87 is the low octane which most cars run on, 89 and 91 are available as higher octane alternative with the occasional 93 or 94. I do remember 104 or 105 Cam II racing fuel, but that was extremely rare and not available at typical gas stations.

So is it true that German car should not use E10 or E20 ? Sorry i didn't get it.

[cooked]

The HHV of ethanol is 84,000 BTU/gal and benzene is 124,000 BTU/gal so that puts ethanol closer to 68% the efficiency of straight benzene. I don't doubt your results but 2 tanks in an uncontrolled environment can hardly be considered a satisfactory test. The loss of power for a daily driver is negligible unless you have something to prove to the countless morons on the road trying to keep up with them.

Fossil fuels won't last forever, that stuff should be saved hot rods.

Those HHV facts are interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I do agree that my tests wouldn't pass scientific merit but both tanks had almost exactly the same fuel efficiency by the end and are more or less in line with everything I've read about E20. Just sharing my results, not ironclad conclusions.

My car is so badly underpowered as is. Driving around town with just me in it is one thing. But pulling 7 people with a 1.5L engine is just painful, there's no reason I'd ever want to willingly decrease my power, even if it's by 3-4%. My fuel tank is small so decreasing the range is another unwanted setback. Finally, the very noticable drop in fuel efficiency mostly negates any significant savings I might come up with. I have to fill up more often with E20. I'm not sure what's so ecological about consuming larger quantities of fuel.

I really think it's just a nice thought to put eco friendly fuel at the pump when in reality, it's doing a whole lot of nothing and saving you very little money.

I can see when you have a full load you will need to squeeze out every ounce of power you can.

You may use more fuel with bio-blends but the idea is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels being used. If you compare a tank of E20 to straight benzene and for example you can travel 100 km on the benzene and 80 on the E20, there is no benefit as you would be using the same amount of benzene to go the same distance. If the distance is less than 80 km you would be using more fossil fuel to go the same distance, but the goal is to get higher than 80 so anything above that mark would be essentially kilos run on fossil fuel free fuel.

For those that subscribe to the theory of anthropogenic global warming cost wouldn't be an issue since the bio portion of the fuel is carbon neutral. I fully support biofuels since our resources are limited, Conserve what we can now so future generations enjoy the raw power of a 1970 Boss 429 or a 1968 Dodge Superbee.

Our resources are indeed limited which is why I for one don't want the whole of Sumatra to be sterilised so the oil palms can be cultivated. At the same time, less land becomes available for food production, as they have discovered in South America.

[IMHO]

The motors here in Thailand are weak and pathetic to begin with. 1.5 liter can't get out of its own way.

Thailand is a net importer of oil - so policies are written around protecting balance of trade - that's why small engined cars are favored in the taxation system.

'

It doesn't seem to bother the British too much, but Americans and Aussies do seem to miss their V8's

Edited January 8, 2015 by IMHO

[bkkjames]

some of these mileage figures being quoted in here are impressive....especially when we are talking about eco car sized engines. Makes me feel alot better when sitting in my 2.5 liter diesel that only gets about 11kms in bangkok traffic....or did I misunderstood the meaning of eco car other than cheap and small? lol

[IMHO]

Dealership and mechanics say I have to use 95 for the Benz. Is this true? Before the price dropped I was spending 3000 baht per fill up.

. If your driving a Benz, the last thing you should be complaining about is price of Gas...

You don't have the money to buy a Benz if you don't know how to spend money

[Ace of Pop]

Robblok, half of 10% is 5%. You have 5% less power. 20% less power would be a HUGE difference. I'm pretty sure I'd notice that.

Ace of Pop, I have a Honda Freed. It's based on the FIt/Jazz chassis and engine. Has 7 seats.

AsiaCheese, My father in Law has the Jazz and I used to drive it a lot. It could get anywhere from 13-16 Kl/Litre depending on how I drove it. Those numbers are in line with my Freed test. Same engine but more weight.

Thats good for a Mini People Carrier.7 in a Car annoyed me safety wise,my only real care in this section.

[shiroboi]

Robblok, half of 10% is 5%. You have 5% less power. 20% less power would be a HUGE difference. I'm pretty sure I'd notice that.

Ace of Pop, I have a Honda Freed. It's based on the FIt/Jazz chassis and engine. Has 7 seats.

AsiaCheese, My father in Law has the Jazz and I used to drive it a lot. It could get anywhere from 13-16 Kl/Litre depending on how I drove it. Those numbers are in line with my Freed test. Same engine but more weight.

Thats good for a Mini People Carrier.7 in a Car annoyed me safety wise,my only real care in this section.

What are you the saftey police? I'm using it on rare occasion as the manufacturer has indicated it be used. 7 people, all in seatbelts, little ones in the back row. I don't see how that's any less safe than a Honda Jazz. My car is bigger, taller and weighs more. If you don't like it, write to Honda. It isn't a southeast asia only model like the new Mobilio. This car was built and used by Japanese people in Japan to their saftey standards.

Edited January 9, 2015 by shiroboi

[Dannyboy666]

On a 200+ hp car E20 seems ok but I wonder if it does anything bad to an expensive car for the long term ?

. That's what concerns me...

[Dannyboy666]

Dealership and mechanics say I have to use 95 for the Benz. Is this true? Before the price dropped I was spending 3000 baht per fill up.

. If your driving a Benz, the last thing you should be complaining about is price of Gas...

. It would be like buying a Lamboghini, and crying about petrol prices in the States...

Wrong ! You buy the car 1 time then you refill every week...

[Ace of Pop]

7 Seatbelts 7 People,shame folks dont all follow your standards in all Countries.I like the Safety Police bit.Are you a Black Window Clown, many are here,the Wifes brother told em. .

[maswov]

Dealership and mechanics say I have to use 95 for the Benz. Is this true? Before the price dropped I was spending 3000 baht per fill up.

Possible. Normally high performance engines will need a higher octane to prevent pre-ignition.

Temperature increases with pressure therefore in a higher compression engine the air/fuel mixture will get hotter than in a lower compression engine during the compression stroke. The flash point for higher octane fuel is higher than lower octane. Typically ignition will occur 4 degree before top dead center, however if the compression is high and the octane is low, the fuel may ignite before the spark. This usually results in knocking and pinging.

I'm not sure if different countries use different methods in rating fuels, but in the US 87 is the low octane which most cars run on, 89 and 91 are available as higher octane alternative with the occasional 93 or 94. I do remember 104 or 105 Cam II racing fuel, but that was extremely rare and not available at typical gas stations.

So is it true that German car should not use E10 or E20 ? Sorry i didn't get it.

I was talking about the octane rating and the effects on higher compression engines.

E10 and E20 refer to the ethanol to benzene blend, 10/90 and 20/80 respectively. The problems you may have with gasahol is that over time, ethanol deteriorates rubber seals and lines on some older cars, E20 should only be used if it is recommended by the manufacturer or you have had the proper modifications done. You can normally get away E10 use with just about any car although I have heard of possible problems with floats in carburetor engines.

Edited January 9, 2015 by maswov

[maswov]

The HHV of ethanol is 84,000 BTU/gal and benzene is 124,000 BTU/gal so that puts ethanol closer to 68% the efficiency of straight benzene. I don't doubt your results but 2 tanks in an uncontrolled environment can hardly be considered a satisfactory test. The loss of power for a daily driver is negligible unless you have something to prove to the countless morons on the road trying to keep up with them.

Fossil fuels won't last forever, that stuff should be saved hot rods.

Those HHV facts are interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I do agree that my tests wouldn't pass scientific merit but both tanks had almost exactly the same fuel efficiency by the end and are more or less in line with everything I've read about E20. Just sharing my results, not ironclad conclusions.

My car is so badly underpowered as is. Driving around town with just me in it is one thing. But pulling 7 people with a 1.5L engine is just painful, there's no reason I'd ever want to willingly decrease my power, even if it's by 3-4%. My fuel tank is small so decreasing the range is another unwanted setback. Finally, the very noticable drop in fuel efficiency mostly negates any significant savings I might come up with. I have to fill up more often with E20. I'm not sure what's so ecological about consuming larger quantities of fuel.

I really think it's just a nice thought to put eco friendly fuel at the pump when in reality, it's doing a whole lot of nothing and saving you very little money.

I can see when you have a full load you will need to squeeze out every ounce of power you can.

You may use more fuel with bio-blends but the idea is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels being used. If you compare a tank of E20 to straight benzene and for example you can travel 100 km on the benzene and 80 on the E20, there is no benefit as you would be using the same amount of benzene to go the same distance. If the distance is less than 80 km you would be using more fossil fuel to go the same distance, but the goal is to get higher than 80 so anything above that mark would be essentially kilos run on fossil fuel free fuel.

For those that subscribe to the theory of anthropogenic global warming cost wouldn't be an issue since the bio portion of the fuel is carbon neutral. I fully support biofuels since our resources are limited, Conserve what we can now so future generations enjoy the raw power of a 1970 Boss 429 or a 1968 Dodge Superbee.

Our resources are indeed limited which is why I for one don't want the whole of Sumatra to be sterilised so the oil palms can be cultivated. At the same time, less land becomes available for food production, as they have discovered in South America.

There is still plenty land available for food production, the main problem is that food farmers prefer to use the land for higher valued crops.

Also, since the first cultivated crops, man has sought ways to improve and increase food production and currently there have been breakthroughs with indoor farming and turning barren wasteland into fertile farmland. I read a story a few months back about a single man in India, who for the last 40 years has been building a forest in once desolate land. The forest has grown lush and now inhabits wildlife including elephants and tigers. This obviously is not farmland but it shows the amazing things that can be accomplished even by just one man.

[Si Thea01]

As someone suggested in another thread that when doing mainly highway driving E20 does well. I filled up on my last trip that was all highway and according to the trip computer on the tank I was getting about 13.5 km/l where as with 91 I got around 12.9, this was with a 1.8 liter Honda on the way back I was a bit lighter than the trip going (1 less person, and a little less luggage). I filled up with E20 when I got back to see how it was in the city which is primarily all I do and so far 100 km in and I am running about 9.5 km/l where as with 91 I was running about 10.5 in the city. I didn't notice any performance difference on either tank, downshifted to pass was the same. In town power is useless so that is not really a concern of mine.

I will probably use E20 on trips, and 91 in town if the current tank works out how I think it will. I still want to try E85 but every time I wanted to fill up the station we stopped at didn't have it.

E85 is not that good believe me. I have a CRV, nearly two years old, which is designed to run on it. When I first bought the vehicle I did a lot of kilometres, driving from Chiang Kaen to Pattaya and used 91. I also travelled all over the north and northeast clocking up around 30,000 in 18 months. It has a 54 litre tank and I averaged about 18 kilometres per litre. At that time the 91 was around 38.97 a litre. When the tank was run right down it would cost, roughly, B2100 to fill. When I got rid of the travel bug I reverted to E85 but driving between Loei and Udon Thani (150k X 2) I could only average 10.5 kilometres per litre, a marked difference. It was however, only costing me around B1350 to fill up.

When I used the 91, around town, I would average around 12 - 13 kilometres per litre but on E85 this dropped to as low as 7.5 kilometres per litre. It is still the same now, however, the cost to fill up with E85 has dropped to around B1000 a tank full but at this time I have not had a fill up on 91 but based on the current price it would cost around B1350. Now not being good at maths I haven't worked out the economies of scale but those of you who are could work out what sort of savings, if any, there is between the grades. I also found the torque seemed to improve using the 91. I worked it out roughly, that on a trip using 91, I would get about 800 a tank, as compared to 500 using E85. As I said, the maths are not the best but the figures I have quoted is about what the cost and distances have been so it will give you some idea of the differences. Oh, the motor is 2354cc.

[Ace of Pop]

E85 is bloody good believe Me when Cruzin mid revs on long runs with Eco Mode on. No Power Gain from expensive stuff.Drops down kpm wise in Towns/ Slow mountain traffic but the lo cost covers that.Any Ride full of Passengers / Luggage especially a CRV Honda gobbles fuel just like a Tblazer truck.