Fuel Price

... and gets about 12L /100klm on the commute from Ipswich to Brisbane. I have done about 30 000klm on E85 in the two years since I bought it. The car has 58k on it now. No flex fuel option on a reflashed ECU.
Hi.

From this reference: https://afdc.energy.gov/files/pdfs/e85_driver_training.pdf
p.11 - [E85] Fuel economy up to 75%-85% of gasoline’s MPGs based on fuel volume
p.20 - Lower heating value (~27% less energy) • E85: 87,250 BTU/gal • Gasoline: 114,000 BTU/gal

So to approximately compare your 12Lt / 100km on E85 to usual petrol fuel on a volume consumption basis.
12 * 0.8 = 9.6 Lt / 100km Note: I used 80% as it is midway between 75% & 85%

To approximately compare your 12Lt / 100km on E85 to usual petrol fuel on a calorific engery consumption basis.
12 * 0.73 = 8.76 Lt / 100km

I assume that circa 9Lt / 100km is at the higher end of what a petrol ICE would achieve in an urban commute.

Cheers.
 
When I wrote 12L /100 it was really at the top end of the fuel usage. Commute varies between 10.5 to 12 depending on what shift and traffic. My run is about 30 mins at night but regularly blows out over an hour to travel 38 klms during the day.
I mostly ride a motorcycle, only using the car when it is raining. It uses 3.6L/100 for the same trip.
 
similar but different, four plastic, tyre valve caps in a bag ,Bunnings today $3.99 ,?
 
Today Biden is stating what consumers feel - the oil companies are ripping American consumers. His figures are the last time oil was $US96 a barrel pump price was $3.62 a gallon, now $4.31.
 
Hah, filled the Megane with Diesel today at Costco 2.08.7 a litre (208.7 cents per Litre). For petrol users 98 RON was the same price as Diesel and ULP was 196.7 cents a litre. I offered my Niece a fill a few months back due to her help with some family things, at that time her car was pretty full of fuel so she was waiting till the tank was empty, so now I have offered to pay for the next fill :sick: Hers is only a small toyota so I hope it is a cheap fill at those prices...:D and better for her of course.!!

Ken:D
 
Hers is only a small toyota so I hope it is a cheap fill at those prices...:D and better for her of course.!!

Ken:D
Mmm, might get a cup of coffee with the change out of a greenback.🤔
My little Berlingo is $97.50 to fill up on E10.😪
 
With Costco, you have to put in what you estimate your fill will cost, and that prefill amount is immediately deducted from your card, and if your full tank doesn't reach that amount the prefill is refunded and actual cost of the fill is substituted. with the Megane I usually do $60 for a top up and $80 if it needs nearly a full tank. I usually like to run it full tank to full tank, so you get a rough idea of the economy on each fill. As it needed three quarters of a tank, I punched in $80 as that usually fills the tank, with a bit of money to spare. but of course this time the $80 actually cut out neatly.... Probably not quite a full tank :rolleyes: though the instrument panel fuel indicator does show full, probably should have put in $90 for the prefill !!

Ah well I'll know for the next time...:rolleyes:
 
I'm thinking the way fuel pricing's going it will be only a matter of time before you won't be able to pump fuel anywhere until you've "paid" first.
Already starting to hear about more and more "drive off" shoppers in my neck of the woods.

I'm leaning towards buying a scooter for those "duck into town" errands, which for me is a 40km round trip. I have a few motorbikes already but none are practical load carriers.
Looking at a Honda MW110 Benly commercial scooter. Single seat, twin OHC, fuel injected 110cc single. Rear rack is designed to take a 60kg load and the one I'm going to look at has quite a large lockable box on it already. Can't find performance figures on it, but figure the power and weight are pretty much the same as a postie bike and they'll do 90/95kmh and cruise OK at 85/90kmh.

My necessary journeys (work) are 400kms a fortnight but I actually travel 700kms a fortnight in my daily drive (the Berlingo). It uses 10L per 100km, the Benly is rated at 1.7L per 100km (which by all accounts is the real world figure too).
So 300km x 8.3L x 26 fortnights at current pricing means the scooter would use $1300 less fuel than the Berlingo (per annum) on those "social" trips. It would take 18 months to recoup the initial purchase price of the bike.
From what you read the fuel prices haven't nearly finished going up yet (at least $2.50 per L for unleaded's the talk) so that estimate could end up being even more favourable.🤔

Before I changed careers my drive to work was in the opposite direction to my current job, so all flat running. I used to ride a postie bike to work back then, and the roads around here are still pretty quiet.

Plus I like riding motorbikes, even slow ones.🤷‍♂️
 
Today Biden is stating what consumers feel - the oil companies are ripping American consumers. His figures are the last time oil was $US96 a barrel pump price was $3.62 a gallon, now $4.31.
The cost of a barrel of oil is just one factor in the cost of petrol at the pump. The cost of shipping, refining , and distribution are also significant parts of the end cost of of fuel at the bowser.
Ocean freight costs have tripled in the last couple of years and the increased cost will of course be passed onto the consumer.
The cost of transporting the fuel from the refinery/fuel storage has also increase significantly.
While there might be some price gouging, it's not anywhere near as bad as people think.
 
The cost of a barrel of oil is just one factor in the cost of petrol at the pump. The cost of shipping, refining , and distribution are also significant parts of the end cost of of fuel at the bowser.
Ocean freight costs have tripled in the last couple of years and the increased cost will of course be passed onto the consumer.
The cost of transporting the fuel from the refinery/fuel storage has also increase significantly.
While there might be some price gouging, it's not anywhere near as bad as people think.
When I had a taxi-truck super used to cost 8c to 10c per litre........if anyone was to suggest to me that the oil barons are currently starving I'd say that is absolute bulltish. Creative accounting, a little inflation and offshore tax havens make up the difference between then and now
 
Ocean freight costs have tripled in the last couple of years and the increased cost will of course be passed onto the consumer.
Container shipping rates have tripled, bulk tanker rates haven't done much at all. 2021 was a bad year for bulk tanker lines.
 

Attachments

  • NEW-stocks-768x300.jpg.optimal.jpg
    NEW-stocks-768x300.jpg.optimal.jpg
    47 KB · Views: 97
There are always reasons why the price to the consumer must rise while the price to the producer may stay the same or fall. The oil industry is vastly profitable, politically powerful, opaque and the ACCC weak.
 
Mmm, might get a cup of coffee with the change out of a greenback.🤔
My little Berlingo is $97.50 to fill up on E10.😪
Hi.

If reducing the cost of running your vehicle on E10 is your objective, then the rule of thumb is that the cost per litre of E10 needs to be more than 3% lower than petrol. There is approximatly 3% less calorific heating value in E10 compared to (91, 95 & 98) petrol on a volume basis.

I might give it a go. My vehicle uses 95 RON, but can use 91, as E10 is 94 I am confident it will be OK.

 
Hi.

If reducing the cost of running your vehicle on E10 is your objective, then the rule of thumb is that the cost per litre of E10 needs to be more than 3% lower than petrol. There is approximatly 3% less calorific heating value in E10 compared to (91, 95 & 98) petrol on a volume basis.

I might give it a go. My vehicle uses 95 RON, but can use 91, as E10 is 94 I am confident it will be OK.

I've been told not to use it in older cars as carby seals don't like it.
 
Hi.

If reducing the cost of running your vehicle on E10 is your objective, then the rule of thumb is that the cost per litre of E10 needs to be more than 3% lower than petrol. There is approximatly 3% less calorific heating value in E10 compared to (91, 95 & 98) petrol on a volume basis.

I might give it a go. My vehicle uses 95 RON, but can use 91, as E10 is 94 I am confident it will be OK.

Ethanol is an excellent solvent. If your car is a few years old, and you have not regularly use E10 in the past, you may find that E10 mobilises dirt/sludge that was lying harmlessly on the bottom of your fuel tank. This may only mean changing fuel filters more frequently for a while, but can block the in-tank strainer.

This happened to me with a Xantia Turbo CT - ECU would detect a lean mixture under acceleration, and cut power to the coil and injectors, requiring me to turn the key off then restart. Took a while to figure out what wax happening, as it just seemed to cut out randomly at first...
 
Hi.

If reducing the cost of running your vehicle on E10 is your objective, then the rule of thumb is that the cost per litre of E10 needs to be more than 3% lower than petrol. There is approximatly 3% less calorific heating value in E10 compared to (91, 95 & 98) petrol on a volume basis.

I might give it a go. My vehicle uses 95 RON, but can use 91, as E10 is 94 I am confident it will be OK.

I just did an exercise on my Berlingo thread (as suggested by another member) to see if the lack of power was due to the lower octane E10 ramping back the ignition advance.

I have very routine travel paths with no variations due to idling in congestion.

486km of driving requires exactly 48L of E10.

I just performed an ECU reset and put a tank of Shell 98 octane through it. Not only did the performance remain completely unchanged but when I fuelled it up it had used exactly 48L of 98 octane to travel 484 km.🤷‍♂️

The 2km difference is due to using two different servos to refuel.
 
I just did an exercise on my Berlingo thread (as suggested by another member) to see if the lack of power was due to the lower octane E10 ramping back the ignition advance.

I have very routine travel paths with no variations due to idling in congestion.

486km of driving requires exactly 48L of E10.

I just performed an ECU reset and put a tank of Shell 98 octane through it. Not only did the performance remain completely unchanged but when I fuelled it up it had used exactly 48L of 98 octane to travel 484 km.🤷‍♂️

The 2km difference is due to using two different servos to refuel.
Hi. Interesting exercise. I am not surprised to see that result.

3% of 48Lt is 1.5Lt, so I would consider that volume to be on the margin of measurability at a fuel pump refill. Even though you have a routine travel path, the prevailing wind can affect engine load and consequently fuel consumption between runs. So it is difficult to obtain empirical information over a single tank of fuel. You likely paid approximately 11% more for 98RON than E10, and your test could not even illustrate a 3% reduction of fuel consumption based on calorific heating value difference, let alone the many other claims made by the fuel supplier. So based on this you would be better off keeping the 11% cost difference in your own pocket, and use E10.

As many here already know, an engine needs to have a knock sensor for the ECU to be able to change the parameters to enable use of lower or higher RON fuels. According to the following website, your Berlingo does not start to be compatible for E10 until 2014 production. https://www.nsw.gov.au/topics/e10-f...results?make=CITROEN&model=Berlingo&year=2014.

Most older vehicles don't have a knock sensor, so are unable to take advantage from higher RON fuel. I have just checked my own vehicle owner's manual and it specifically says 98RON is only needed in the high performance version engine, that I don't have. My engine does have a knock sensor and will run on E25, E10, 91RON or 95RON, with the engine being designed to run on 95RON. There is no advantage either performance or fuel consumption for me to use 98RON in my engine, so I don't.

It has been my belief, based on various sources of information, that 98RON petrol is massively overrated. There are very few vehicles on the road that can tangibly take advantage of the 98RON over 95RON, so my view is that the main benefit is more profit for the fuel supplier, with a warm and fuzzy feeling in the stomach for those owners that accept the marketing.

If you read the information on the fuel suppliers website, there are many marketing phrases and inferred/implied benefits - I will highlight them in red font with my comments in Blue font below:

From here: https://www.shell.com.au/motorists/shell-fuels/shell-v-power-premium-fuels/shell-v-power-98.html

FUEL THE FEELING WITH SHELL V-POWER 98
Shell V-Power Unleaded 98. The premium fuel with the cleaning power to keep your engine running like new.

Cleans​

Shell V-Power is formulated with powerful cleaning agents to help prevent the build-up of gunk on key fuel system components, such as fuel injectors and inlet valves*. [so do all uleaded fuels]

The same cleaning agents help to remove gunk that has been left behind by other fuels, so your engine can burn fuel more efficiently and more completely* [so do all uleaded fuels]

Protects​

Shell V-Power contains Friction Modification Technology (FMT), developed to reduce friction in the engine so it can operate more efficiently and deliver greater power to the wheels*. [this didn't manifest in the test above]

FMT is also designed to form a protective film on metal surfaces, decreasing the rate of wear and corrosion that can adversely affect precision fuel system components*

*The science behind Unbeatable Protection & Best Protection

As measured using industry standard and Shell proprietary tests, Shell V Power offers unbeatable protection against gunk and corrosion – it helps to protect key fuel system components such as intake valves [It can't do this on a direct injection engine] and/or fuel injectors from the build-up of performance robbing deposits (gunk) and corrosion. It contains friction reducing molecules help critical parts of your engine. Unbeatable protection against gunk and corrosion is measured using industry standard and Shell proprietary tests: [These tests are not available for us to review]

Gasoline testing supported by industry standard laboratory injector flow tests and bench engine tests. Multiple vehicle testing was derived from on-road testing from 10K km to 25K km. Unbeatable protection against corrosion based on the corrosion test outcome using industry standard laboratory tests.

Best protection against friction and wear is based on industry standard and Shell proprietary tests.
[Here follows the get out of court clause] Actual effects and level of benefits of the product in your vehicle may vary according to usage, vehicle condition and driving style.
 
According to Citroen's UK website all petrol and hybrid models manufactured since 2000 are E10 compatible.

Mine is a 1999 model, TU3JP engine, has a knock sensor, says to use 98 octane in the owners manual, but the engine tune-up data sticker under the bonnet says to use 95 octane?
This engine in this tune is used in several Citroen and Peugeot models and is not unique to the Berlingo.

My local independent fuel supplier states their E10 is 95 octane.
A different independent chain in the next town has 94 and 98 octane E10.

The attached Australian Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries link states all Citroens manufactured since 1998 are E5 and E10 compatible?



 
Top