E10 and the MR2

[moredun]

From September, filling stations will switch to E10 petrol and only super unleaded petrol (E5) will be available.

E10 has the potential to corrode brass, copper, lead, zinc, rubber, plastic and fibreglass, all of which are commonly found in older vehicles.

Studies show that even vehicles built in the early 2000s may be negatively affected by E10. These drivers have been warned against using E10 to fill up their vehicles until it has been confirmed that it is safe to do so.

Will the MR2 be compatible with E10?

After checking the link below, it seems as if the MR2 will be OK to use E10

https://check-vehicle-compatibility-e10-petrol.service.gov.uk/manufacturer/Toyota

Maybe a good idea to look out for any other info regarding any possible issues ...

[Ardent]

This is not good news at all, for all the reasons in the clean fuel thread.

I will wager now. People will see a decrease in mpg. They (you) will be back at the pump another 5% earlier than you would have been.
I have to run on super anyway so no difference there. Though I expect the price to be massaged.

I wonder if the e10 will be 5% cheaper as in contains 5% less fuel.
Raised eyebrow emoji.

[shnazzle]

MR2 will be fine. People run it on E85 elsewhere.
Luckily for us.

Not fine for our final power output and efficiency.
Maybe with e10 is might be better to run 2zz injectors...

[Petrus]

MR2 will be fine. People run it on E85 elsewhere.
Luckily for us.

Not fine for our final power output and efficiency.
Maybe with e10 is might be better to run 2zz injectors...

MAF mod revival ;-)

[Beachbum957]

E10 has been the standard in the US for a long time with no issues, even in older cars.  As for fuel mileage, ethanol free fuels are available (for a premium cost and very hard to find) but other than a few anecdotal reports, most people have reported no significant difference in fuel mileage. We tried a couple tanks of ethanol free, and saw no difference at all in mileage or performance.  We did see a reduction in the wallet as it cost more.

E15 is fairly common in many areas and is approved for cars built after 2001, but we have never tried it.

If you want to learn about a fuel additive that did cause problems, look up MTBE.  It was fairly common in the US starting in the late 1970's and required a lot of fuel system changes. If a car could handle MTBE, ethanol blends were no problem at all.

[Petrus]

It again is all about the use, how you drive, how sensitive the driver is.

I définitely notice the difference between E5 and E-free.
Have méasured a definite difference in mileage.
The difference with E10 will be twice that that because it is simple the difference in caloric energy/ kg.

Whether one thinks it worth the extra money and/or hassle is a personal choice. The difference however is real. Simple chemistry. No way around that. The rest is denial and/or choice.

[shnazzle]

It again is all about the use, how you drive, how sensitive the driver is.

I définitely notice the difference between E5 and E-free.
Have méasured a definite difference in mileage.
The difference with E10 will be twice that that because it is simple the difference in caloric energy/ kg.

Whether one thinks it worth the extra money and/or hassle is a personal choice. The difference however is real. Simple chemistry. No way around that. The rest is denial and/or choice.

Haha I like that; "denial or choice".

Our resident scientist @Ardent has done us the favour of "proving" that it indeed results in lower fuel economy. But that makes sense. As you say, simple chemistry.
I fill up on a pizza a lot quicker than the same amount of "weight watchers" food. 

It is what it is. The world we live in

[Dev]

 Our cars like most modern era cars were designed with ethanol blends in mind but much older cars were not.
Having said that ethanol blended fuels has ruined the fuel lines of my older small lawn equipment but not the newer ones that was purchased because they build them for the kind of issues encountered with ethanol.
 
The damaging effects of ethanol is still there with phase separation and all kinds of other things if you keep you car long enough so I now add a ethanol treatment with every fill up and before my car goes into storage.

 I use something like this.
https://www.amazon.com/STA-BIL-22275-Performance-Technology-Stabilizer/dp/B0081ZVBDQ

 Im sure there must be a product like this in the UK. Cheap insurance.

[Ardent]

E10 has been the standard in the US for a long time with no issues, even in older cars.  As for fuel mileage, ethanol free fuels are available (for a premium cost and very hard to find) but other than a few anecdotal reports, most people have reported no significant difference in fuel mileage. We tried a couple tanks of ethanol free, and saw no difference at all in mileage or performance.  We did see a reduction in the wallet as it cost more.

E15 is fairly common in many areas and is approved for cars built after 2001, but we have never tried it.

If you want to learn about a fuel additive that did cause problems, look up MTBE.  It was fairly common in the US starting in the late 1970's and required a lot of fuel system changes. If a car could handle MTBE, ethanol blends were no problem at all.

First things first.
I freely admit I talk from a point of belief, than actual indepth knowledge
But as a starting point.
How much of an issue is it, that, as I believe you have a few different grades of fuel.
We have 95 RON (lowest) and 97 and above.
I understand some of yours are lower than 95. 87?
Our cars (european) spec require 95 or above.
So not sure how well they can be directly compared to U.S.?  US? spec.
Could well all be in the ecu.
I do know. My 2 is much happier on 0% ethanol.

[1979scotte]

E10 has been the standard in the US for a long time with no issues, even in older cars.  As for fuel mileage, ethanol free fuels are available (for a premium cost and very hard to find) but other than a few anecdotal reports, most people have reported no significant difference in fuel mileage. We tried a couple tanks of ethanol free, and saw no difference at all in mileage or performance.  We did see a reduction in the wallet as it cost more.

E15 is fairly common in many areas and is approved for cars built after 2001, but we have never tried it.

If you want to learn about a fuel additive that did cause problems, look up MTBE.  It was fairly common in the US starting in the late 1970's and required a lot of fuel system changes. If a car could handle MTBE, ethanol blends were no problem at all.

First things first.
I freely admit I talk from a point of belief, than actual indepth knowledge
But as a starting point.
How much of an issue is it, that, as I believe you have a few different grades of fuel.
We have 95 RON (lowest) and 97 and above.
I understand some of yours are lower than 95. 87?
Our cars (european) spec require 95 or above.
So not sure how well they can be directly compared to U.S.?  US? spec.
Could well all be in the ecu.
I do know. My 2 is much happier on 0% ethanol.

The US uses a totally different rating their 87 is roughly our 95 I believe.

[Ardent]

Their gallon is different to our gallon as well as I believe, hence they get less mpg.

[Petrus]

The US uses a totally different rating their 87 is roughly our 95 I believe.

Correct but the difference is not thát large, more like 90/91 to our 95 and the root cause is a different manner of testing.
There is MON and RON in most parts of the world whereas USA and Canada use AKI.

Here an example of a comparative table:

[Petrus]

Their gallon is different to our gallon as well as I believe, hence they get less mpg.

Spanish galeons were way bigger still; they went round half the world on óne!

[1979scotte]

Their gallon is different to our gallon as well as I believe, hence they get less mpg.

Spanish galeons were way bigger still; they went round half the world on óne!

And got sunk lots by British privateers

[paulj]

Their gallon is different to our gallon as well as I believe, hence they get less mpg.

Spanish galeons were way bigger still; they went round half the world on óne!

They also produced less g/km CO2 than one of our cars.

[Petrus]

They also produced less g/km CO2 than one of our cars.

The snag being that the crew needed ´fuel´ too, resulting in them eating lots of rare wildlife into extinction. The lack of free lunch agaín. Darn ... ;-)

[SV-3]

They also produced less g/km CO2 than one of our cars.

The snag being that the crew needed ´fuel´ too, resulting in them eating lots of rare wildlife into extinction. The lack of free lunch agaín. Darn ... ;-)

At least they didn't have to rely on the 'wind'

[1979scotte]

What happened to yours?

I don´t háve english humor dûh.... ;-)

I'm not sure you have humour in any language that I understand.

[Roj]

MR2 will be fine. People run it on E85 elsewhere.

I see quite a bit of chat around E85 just now, UK based enthusiasts trying to make it more freely available over here. Some big power gains available if the car can be mapped to it. Not for the casual daily driver, to be fair.

All the tests I see relating to E10 are focused on efficiency, with varying results. But if you tune the engine to make the most of the extra oxygen content, there should be some performance benefit.

[Petrus]

MR2 will be fine. People run it on E85 elsewhere.

I see quite a bit of chat around E85 just now, UK based enthusiasts trying to make it more freely available over here. Some big power gains available if the car can be mapped to it. Not for the casual daily driver, to be fair.

All the tests I see relating to E10 are focused on efficiency, with varying results. But if you tune the engine to make the most of the extra oxygen content, there should be some performance benefit.

I posted a link to that some time ago in the search for more power by any means not subject to homologation.

Changing the mapping is a bit of an issue with the Toyota ECU.

E85 is like oxiginated RON 103 so yes, the engine can also cope with a lot higher c.r. too apart from having more oxigen in the fuel directly.

Thanks for reminding me about 103 octane; kéép forgetting to drop by the local ´airport´. Not for the MR but for the classics as alternative additive.

[shnazzle]

More E10 talk, less sniping please.
Let's keep it clean. Above the belt. No blows to back of head.

[fawtytoo]

This was going to be a lengthy post, but decided to simplify my questions.

Apart from mpg and performance, are there any real known damaging effects for our '2s (or any cars), or is this all conjecture? If the governments information suggests that most makes/models are cleared for using E10, then we shouldn't worry, right?

According to that government link, my Hyundai Coupe is cleared for use, but the owners club has just informed the members to NOT use E10 under any circumstances in any of the models.

[Ardent]

Might be too early to know for sure.

Being able to run on it, is one thing, complete with lower mpg and performance.
Good for the system as a whole, is another.

Most concerns, seem to revolve around seals etc in the fuel system.

Lots of stuff out there, that gives cause for concern. Only time will tell.
Covered a lot in the bike world, fuel tanks deforming, garden equipment all sorts of places.
If stored over winter, best to drain or at least put some proper fuel in.
Ethanol evaporates leaving a crystalline residue.
Check youtube

[Frank Rabbets]

Building Spanish galleons increased global temperature as they cut down thousands of mature trees.

[Ardent]

Never mind September, it has started already. Just been to juice up Alexa and there it was. (sains)

Maybe we could start some sort of our own table. To compare E5 mpg with E10. 2s and/or dailys doesn't matter really, going to get stuffed either way, just interesting to know by how much.

Some may know, I keep an mpg log of any car, not just the 2.
The 2 will only be ran on Super anyway, (because it has to) for the daily, Lexus CT200h
The last fill up was 20.12 litres and covered 240 miles, before the refuel light came on.
(using 1gal = 4.54L) MPG 54.16.

Have just put in 20.14L of E10.
As the old TV show BANZI! used to say. Place your bets now.
You cannot view this attachment.
You cannot view this attachment.