Apologies if this has already been covered.
Will E10 or equivilent fuel hurt my stock 253 if I continue to use the Lead replacement additive. Generally this fuel is 94 octane so similar to the old Super but will it hurt anything inside the old girl?
Any advice/share of experience greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance
Steve
Only the rubber fuel lines, maybe the fuel pump if it is an older one. Plus possibly any rubber seals in the carby if they aren't E10 compatible. I don't think it will do any internal damage, I used to run it is my WB tonner with a red 202 in it back in the late 80's-early 90's. Make sure it is a HT-HJ or blue 4.2L compression levels though as these are all 9:1. HX-HZ are 9.4:1 and might not like it. The difference is the pistons, the HX-HZ have a dome top, others are flat tops IIRC.
Agree with HK 100%. It won't hurt the actual engine as long as the octane rating is enough for the compression ratio.
It will however eat away all the rubber seals and hoses in the car that it touches over time.
I personally wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, I only use BP ultimate (if I can get it), or Shell V-power, or Caltex 98 in any engine I own.
Vans.... This is the 2nd time round the block, 40 years later! talk about turning back the clock!
Its a really good question. If it helps, http://www.shell.com.au/products-ser...hanol/faq.html, I wonder, for engines which are affected, whether we could find a timing setting for 202, 253 and 308 that Shell (or other petroleum producer) recommends?
Thamks everyone. appreciate the feedback
I use E10 all the time in my 2011 SR5 Hilux and in the 2011 RX350. Both seem to get the same economy regardless of whether I use E10 or 95 or 98. The only fuel the Hilux doesn't like is normal 91 and haven't tried it in the Lexus. So I can't justify the 15-25c/litre more for 98 over E10 for no gain. I run a tank of 98 maybe every 7-8 tanks to give it a flush. When I get a chance to get the new exhaust on the Hilux and put the twin tune XEDE processor in I plan to get it dynoed with maybe 1/8 of a tank of E10 in it, and then flip the switch to the 98 fuel position and dump 20L of 98 into the tank and dyno it again. Will be interesting to see what difference it makes.
As I said I used to use Bogas E10 in the late 80's - early 90's in the Hunter area. They were making E10 way back then. I remember pulling the head off the 202 in the WB tonner and noticing how clean it was, the denatured Ethanol (metho) used in the E10 was doing a great job of keeping the combustion chambers clean. Not sure if the actual ULP fuel quality that was blended with the denatured ethanol was better back then than it is today, as I've heard some cars actually cake up with carbon using E10 today.
I was wondering about detonation, my 95 econovan definately used to ping going uphill on E10 (that was the 1.8 lt ... mazda F8 motor from memory... dunno what shape the top of the pistons are) but seems you have no probs on 202 Byron? Thats why I was wondering about timing settings. Whether there is any recommended change for 253 and 308. Good to know about that piston shape, and the 202 is pretty tough after all for what it is.
My understanding is that some engines on E10 are typically more likely to knock under load, because the drivers response to slowing down in a traffic condition (say beginning a hill whilst towing) is typically to increase the throttle, if the fuel burns slower than designed for that engine, then the main burn would happen closer to TDC than it would have on (say) super or standard unleaded, untill the increased fuel burn enables the engine to recover and overcome the load. This only holds true if E10 burns slower than super of course, but I think it may do. Detonation is not something you want.
Whilst Byrons experience shows a 202 (flat piston) handles this, it would be good to find out if it is the same for 253 and 308. I reckon, call Shell Australia and ask? Someone there will know, probably they have a list they can provide for 70's and 80's Holden engines. Tell them you're writing for this site and ask if you can display the list here, (and then ask for a free mars bar), you probably wont get the mars bar, but you should get the answer! lol!! They do want to sell petrol after all.
It was a dish piston Dave, don't know the exact compression ratio, probably around 9-9.4:1 like most reds from that era. It was a rebuilt red 202 40 thou over with Yella Terra head and 30/70 cam, extractors and standard 202 inlet and Stromberg with HEI dizzy. The bigger cam than standard may have helped it not ping, plus the dizzy would have ben from a lower compression blue motor so the spark curve may have helped. The engine used to run a 390 4BBL Holley in my Torana but when I took it out for the 1980 WB I made it look all proper pollution-like to pass rego. The WB was a VK EFI trimatic too which may have helped it not ping as it used to change down pretty well in the tonner, seemed happy with the vacuum source signal and the electric knockdown seemed setup right.
E10 is normally around 94-95, very close in RON to 95 ULP. When I got my Cross8 tuned (and exhaust) it could no longer run on normal ULP as it was tuned for 95 or E10, ran happily on either.
Yep, with you Byron, sounds like its a nice motor. This thread's been in the back of my mind, I was gonna email Shell, but have been busy, so today I thought I'll just phone and ask, surprisingly quick and easy, ended up talking to to a pretty knowledgeable sounding person in customer support he seemed to know quite alot about petrol.... well I spose you'd expect that (lol) - jokes aside it was an interesting convo. Here's what I learnt, and it completely supports the assessment of yourself and Big Rob, E-10 wont detonate or cause damage in the combustion chamber, but, rubber hoses, seals, grommets etc that are not upgraded to modern E-10 spec will not like it and most likely perish.
So; the Federal Chamber of Auto Manufacturers published on their website, a list of all vehicles for fuel compatibility as Australia moved to unleaded. (I didnt bother to look it up, the bloke at Shell looked it up and quoted it to me) saying that for Holden, all models post 1986, and no models prior to 1986 are suitable for E-10. In further convo as I suggested this was a bit non-specific, he explained that The Chamber of Auto Manufacturers derived this list by talking to auto manufacturers, the problem would have been older fuel hoses and seals etc, there is no issue with detonation, fuel efficiency or damage to internal components of the block for any of these engines using either ULP or E-10, (as long as there is a lead substitute added) its just the "hoses and seals", so, in my mind that goes, all fuel hoses (including at the seperator near the tank), carby, fuel pump grommets, diaphram, etc. what have I left out?
Anyway, the Customer Support Officer from Shell also explained that ethanol adds extra oxygen, this means that apart from the non compatible rubber/synthetic hoses, seals etc, pre-86 Holden engines should actually run slightly better, and gain slight fuel efficiency because they are carburated. With E-10 at around 91-95 octane, they should lean out a little, giving a bit better efficiency than ULP and be very close to original spec. This efficiency gain (which would only be "slight") would not however occur with fuel injected engines.
He gave this information on the basis that I said I was a member of an online Sandman forum, and that most members were easily capable of replacing rubber components in their fuel systems should they decide to. Rubber compound or other, (non E-10 rated) synthetic engine parts are not recommended; he advised talking to the manufacturer of fuel hoses and seals (etc) and use components that are rated for E-10.
The Customer Support Officer also talked a bit about E-85 saying that that E-85 is a "very different fuel" Shell dont currently produce it but its something like 100 Octane, few engines not built for it can run on it although there are tuning kits available for some engines.
(It seems to me that whilst rubber components may break down relatively quickly on E-10, it could (imaginably, maybe) take longer for this to happen with newer but still non E-10 rated hoses etc, however Big Robs comment is pretty valid. You dont want a fuel pump diaphragm to suddenly leak, or granules of rubber from anywhere getting into the carby jets - perhaps late at night - on the highway - with no tools, and you wont know if or when it is going to happen.)
Also... according to the guy from Shell, Victoria has legislated a minimum of 6% ethanol in all auto petrol now anyway with NSW to follow suit, sounds like upgrading to E-10 rated hoses, carby and fuel pump parts, (etc) might be a good idea anyway - perhaps next carby overhaul.... (hmmn possibly made neccecary by using E-10... lol).
Last edited by SLR_dave; 29-11-2014 at 03:58 AM. Reason: spelling
Why can't you use E-85? Higher octane won't hurt an engine. You just don't get any benefit unless you up the compression ratio. Or is there another reason?
The other point to consider, especially in cars that don't get driven regularly is ethanol attracts water. If you leave it sitting for periods the water will seperate from the fuel, research phase separation.
So you can save a dollar, bugger all your hoses, maybe rust out your fuel tank or worse run the separated ethanol through the engine.
Why spend up to 50k doing up a Sandman and then try to save 40 cents on a tank of alternative fuel?
Try this link
https://www.boatus.com/Seaworthy/SeaApr10Ethanol.pdf
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks