E10 vs Shell V-Power ( Benelux Europe )

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Zunigrijje

They discontinued the Celerio in Europe though: you can't buy them new anymore

I see Suzuki is more focused to increase its hybrid range in Europe, even though it's been mostly achieved through a BAS-Hybrid setup, which is compact and eventually affordable enough to be suitable to a Celerio too.

I noticed that with V-Power the car runs more fuel efficient

Presumably it's more related to the absence of ethanol than to the octane rating.

[SDMCF]

I'm not sure how relevant this is, but I was recently at a rolling road session to map a 2 litre turbocharged competition engine for different set-ups:
- 102 Octane racing fuel with a 34mm diameter air restrictor
- E85 Pump fuel with a 34mm diameter air restrictor

(The air restrictor is mandated in some competitions to try to cap power outputs).

With the same air restrictor, the engine produced 2.0% more power and 2.5% more torque when running on E85 compared to when it ran on 102 octane racing fuel. In both cases of course the air restrictor is the main limit to maximum power. We did not measure fuel usage rate on this test but experience during competitions shows the engine uses about 30% more fuel when running E85.

We also ran a test using E85 Pump fuel with no air restrictor, but we didn't test the 102 octane with no restrictor. Removing the restrictor increased maximum power by 17.4% but barely changed the maximum torque (0.5% improvement).

[Zunigrijje]

Originally Posted by SDMCF

I'm not sure how relevant this is, but I was recently at a rolling road session to map a 2 litre turbocharged competition engine for different set-ups:
- 102 Octane racing fuel with a 34mm diameter air restrictor
- E85 Pump fuel with a 34mm diameter air restrictor

(The air restrictor is mandated in some competitions to try to cap power outputs).

With the same air restrictor, the engine produced 2.0% more power and 2.5% more torque when running on E85 compared to when it ran on 102 octane racing fuel. In both cases of course the air restrictor is the main limit to maximum power. We did not measure fuel usage rate on this test but experience during competitions shows the engine uses about 30% more fuel when running E85.

We also ran a test using E85 Pump fuel with no air restrictor, but we didn't test the 102 octane with no restrictor. Removing the restrictor increased maximum power by 17.4% but barely changed the maximum torque (0.5% improvement).

Still interesting though: I also noticed some small difference in driving, while using E10 and yesterday I did some experiment on the Autobahn while having the V-Power.

The real-time fuel consumption stayed, at 30KM/L while going up a slight elevation: yes my speed went down

But as soon as it went back down, the speed went up again and the fuel consumption stayed at 30KM/L. It didn't work with steep climbs though, although my car only has 68 horsepowers. I wouldn't do this kind of experiment on a weekday though, but on Sundays truck aren't allowed to drive on the Autobahn.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by SDMCF

I was recently at a rolling road session to map a 2 litre turbocharged competition engine for different set-ups:
- 102 Octane racing fuel with a 34mm diameter air restrictor
- E85 Pump fuel with a 34mm diameter air restrictor

Does it feature port-injection or direct injection?

the engine produced 2.0% more power and 2.5% more torque when running on E85 compared to when it ran on 102 octane racing fuel

Usually a larger difference in power has been reported for the flexfuel cars running on regular gasoline and E96h in Brazil, to which the lower octane rating of the gasoline may explain. Torque on the other hand sometimes remains exactly the same or at a much narrower difference.

We did not measure fuel usage rate on this test but experience during competitions shows the engine uses about 30% more fuel when running E85.

Once again, rule of thumb dictates a 30% higher fuel consumption on E96h than on Brazilian gasoline which nowadays has around 22 to 27% ethanol, even though actual results may vary according to each engine's specifications and features.

[SDMCF]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Does it feature port-injection or direct injection?

Port injection.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

I still remember when converting from gasoline to dedicated-ethanol was usual in Brazil when a naturally-aspirated engine got an aftermarket turbocharging setup, as it was much easier to mitigate knock. Cold start could become quite a PITA. Now that direct injection is more widespread in engines turbocharged from the factory, it's not much of an issue as it used to be.

[SDMCF]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

I still remember when converting from gasoline to dedicated-ethanol was usual in Brazil when a naturally-aspirated engine got an aftermarket turbocharging setup, as it was much easier to mitigate knock. Cold start could become quite a PITA. Now that direct injection is more widespread in engines turbocharged from the factory, it's not much of an issue as it used to be.

That is interesting. A few years ago cold start on E85 could be a problem here - although typically cold start here would be a lot colder that in Brazil. I hadn't thought about it until you mentioned it but I haven't seen anyone having that problem for quite a while, with any injection type. Perhaps the tuners have just got better at it.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by SDMCF

A few years ago cold start on E85 could be a problem here - although typically cold start here would be a lot colder that in Brazil. I hadn't thought about it until you mentioned it but I haven't seen anyone having that problem for quite a while, with any injection type. Perhaps the tuners have just got better at it.

Presumably the sequential injections becoming more common than continuous ones also improved the thermal management, leading to a shorter cold phase. In Brazil it has been increasingly common for flexfuel cars with port injection to feature electrically heated injectors as a starting aid with ethanol, while older ones resorted to an auxiliary gasoline tank which also used to be common back in the day of the dedicated-ethanol cars.

[SDMCF]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Presumably the sequential injections becoming more common than continuous ones also improved the thermal management, leading to a shorter cold phase.

That makes sense, but I don't have any actual knowledge to back that up. I think you know more about this than I do.

In Brazil it has been increasingly common for flexfuel cars with port injection to feature electrically heated injectors as a starting aid with ethanol, while older ones resorted to an auxiliary gasoline tank which also used to be common back in the day of the dedicated-ethanol cars.

Another interesting issue I know nothing about. Could you give more info about the auxiliary tanks? Did the driver have to manually select the auxiliary tank when starting from cold, then switch back when the engine was warm? Or was it automated somehow?

This reminds me that Jaguars used to have twin tanks with a dashboard switch to select which one to use. Is there any milage (pardon the pun) in adopting that approach as a mod? Perhaps use one grade of fuel for starting or faster driving and a cheaper grade fuel for easy cruising. Has anyone done anything like that?

[Ecky]

The difference in energy content between pure gasoline and E10 is approximately 3%. I've been able to measure an approximately 3% difference in fuel trims in my vehicle - I made separate fuel maps for ethanol-free fuel and E10.

Here in the 'states, E0 is almost always high octane "Premium" fuel. If you need to run high octane fuel anyway it's an obvious choice, but it does not pay for itself vs regular grade.

@Zunigrijje, your 18.5% improvement doesn't line up with the energy content difference between the fuels, or what I've been able to measure in my own vehicle.