E10 is due to replace E5

[LongLensPhotography]

But someone will find a work around no doubt, for those that need it.

It is just new fuel lines needed I believe. Not a very complex nor a very expensive fix for a competent mechanic.

As far as I am concerned they may as well move to E100. Not all petrol cars burn fuel fully and cleanly so it is much better to have ethanol instead of petrol and all the other VOC vapour emissions.

I will keep on burning heavy oils till I eventually get electric.

 

[Cobra]

It is just new fuel lines needed I believe. Not a very complex nor a very expensive fix for a competent mechanic.

That certainly seems to be on the cards for the older classic cars and bikes.
But as before I'm OK according to the owners forums.

 

[LCPete]

It is just new fuel lines needed I believe. Not a very complex nor a very expensive fix for a competent mechanic.

As far as I am concerned they may as well move to E100. Not all petrol cars burn fuel fully and cleanly so it is much better to have ethanol instead of petrol and all the other VOC vapour emissions.

I will keep on burning heavy oils till I eventually get electric.

I don’t know about cars but bikes aren’t that straight forward, there’s rubber parts in petrol taps and carbs as well as engine seals

 

[woof woof]

I forgot about this. I meant to ask my friendly mechanic when my 2001 MX5 went in but I completely forgot. I'll have to tie a knot in something and remember as it's going in again in September.

 

[robj20]

I forgot about this. I meant to ask my friendly mechanic when my 2001 MX5 went in but I completely forgot. I'll have to tie a knot in something and remember as it's going in again in September.

Check the government site, it will tell you in seconds.

"E10 petrol is cleared for use in all models with petrol engines introduced in and from the year 2002, Mazda6 (GG/GY) and models with petrol engines introduced thereafter, namely:

*Mazda 2 (dy/de) *.Mazda 3 (bk/bl) *Mazda 5 (cr/cw) *Mazda mx-5 (nc) *Mazda cx-5 (ke) *Mazda 6 (gg/gy/gh) *Mazda cx-7 (er) *Mazda cx-9 (tb) *Mazda rx-8 (se)e)"

So you might be out of luck.

 

[robj20]

This seems ideal for people with older cars.

View: https://youtu.be/b9mLbuUSt-0

 

[Cobra]

This seems ideal for people with older cars.

Sounds a bit of a faff, on cars, but if its true would be handy for bikes or other things with small tanks.

 

[Krisstiffer]

Don’t know if the local Asda have already switched but after filling up the bike I noticed that my fuel consumption was down about 5% against my last proper ride.
So it’s either E10 or me giving it the beans with the throttle after a s*** week in work......

 

[Garry Edwards]

Something I saw on the magic box that may or may not be correct . . .
The person being interviewed stated that the benefit to the environment stems not from more efficient burning or lower emissions, but from offset. He explained that growing the crops that are used in the production absorbs CO2 and therefore makes a difference.

I didn't get that because the growing of any crops produces the same effect and it may make a lot more sense to grow arable crops instead, reducing travel miles.

 

[LCPete]

Something I saw on the magic box that may or may not be correct . . .
The person being interviewed stated that the benefit to the environment stems not from more efficient burning or lower emissions, but from offset. He explained that growing the crops that are used in the production absorbs CO2 and therefore makes a difference.

I didn't get that because the growing of any crops produces the same effect and it may make a lot more sense to grow arable crops instead, reducing travel miles.

Yes I see what you mean
It helps to save oil reserves but doesn’t nessarily reduce overall carbon emissions

 

[RichardC27]

I didn't get that because the growing of any crops produces the same effect and it may make a lot more sense to grow arable crops instead, reducing travel miles.

Yes I see what you mean
It helps to save oil reserves but doesn’t nessarily reduce overall carbon emissions

It's not that it saves oil reserves as such. The crops absorb CO2 as they're grown. When they are turned into ethanol and burnt in an ICE then that CO2 obviously goes back into the atmosphere, but an equivalent amount is absorbed by the crops still growing that are yet to be turned into fuel. So the theory goes, as the CO2 is emitted it is simultaneously being absorbed in an equal or greater amount somewhere else. So by increasing the amount of ethanol by 5%, you would expect to see an overall 5% CO2 reduction somewhere else.

I believe Ethanol puts out some fairly nasty emissions of it's own but since if something cuts CO2 it's green now that's all that matters. See also these absolutely mental plans to mine the seafloor for lithium to make EV batteries.

 

[LCPete]

It's not that it saves oil reserves as such. The crops absorb CO2 as they're grown. When they are turned into ethanol and burnt in an ICE then that CO2 obviously goes back into the atmosphere, but an equivalent amount is absorbed by the crops still growing that are yet to be turned into fuel. So the theory goes, as the CO2 is emitted it is simultaneously being absorbed in an equal or greater amount somewhere else. So by increasing the amount of ethanol by 5%, you would expect to see an overall 5% CO2 reduction somewhere else.

I believe Ethanol puts out some fairly nasty emissions of it's own but since if something cuts CO2 it's green now that's all that matters. See also these absolutely mental plans to mine the seafloor for lithium to make EV batteries.

Thanks see what you mean
Yes I know about the sea floor mining it’s so wrong, apparently once dredged the area never recovers does untold damage to an ecosystem that not even been fully studied and explored
EV cars are not as green as people believe

 

[Garry Edwards]

Yes I see what you mean
It helps to save oil reserves but doesn’t nessarily reduce overall carbon emissions

This. And it reminds me of the Drax Power Station greenwashing saga. There were repeated organised demonstrations against them burning coal and their answer to this was to switch to burning wood pellets instead, although many experts say that this created even more pollution. It got worse, because Drax couldn't source enough wood pellets and added straw to the mix. They didn't care about the cost because it was paid by the Government (you and me) and the cost of straw rocketed from around £10 per round bale to £25, creating massive economic problems from the farmers who needed it but could no longer get it. And, if that wasn't enough Drax then did the same thing with hay, causing even more problems.

I'm a cynical old b****r but I can't help wondering whether government departments are more concerned with looking good than actually doing good.

 

[Cobra]

I'm a cynical old b****r but I can't help wondering whether government departments are more concerned with looking good than actually doing good.

Add me to the cynical old b****r list

 

[Nod]

Cynical - but not as old as some of you old buggers!!!

 

[Nod]

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

I forgot about this. I meant to ask my friendly mechanic when my 2001 MX5 went in but I completely forgot. I'll have to tie a knot in something and remember as it's going in again in September.

What have you been getting done?