I had just seen this

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/what-is-e10-fuel-and-how-could-it-affect-you/

All petrol Mk3 Fabias should be E10 compliant (by EU standards requirements for some years now). It should also say so in the manual, and the filler door label.

Will my 1959 Austin A40 survive or should I give it to a museum?

@RickW

I take it you have the head so it can run on unleaded.

 

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/472443-e10-petrol

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/455229-e10-fuel

 

No,not yet,I use an additive.

Officially they say fuel economy suffers around 1.5% on E10 c/w E5 due to the reduced energy content of Ethanol. Independent testing over the last decades show a minimum of 3% penalty. Recent tests on modern cars show many suffer up to 10% penalty. Other countries address this economy penalty by charging lower tax on E10.

 

Afaik the plans are to move premium 95 E5 to premium 95 E10 early next year. Super unleaded 97/98/99 E5 will continue to be available unchanged.

I love Ethanol.  Lovely stuff in the right vehicle. I would run ethanol if i could afford it, but 102 ron is expensive enough in the UK, less so on mainland europe.

If it is only 5% ethanol for now in 99 ron then adding more will be fandabbydozzy.

Page 121 of the manual says that E10 is ok.

 

The Mk 2 Fabia manual also says that E10 is permitted.

 

From memory, all cars sold in the UK after either 2011 or 2012 were required to be able to use E10

For older cars like your Austin, and My Mog, the issue can be the fuel system components. The rubber can struggle to cope with the ethanol.  The lack of lead and the replacement additives are not the issue here. What is less clear is how more modern but relatively old cars can cope with like my late nineties Rovers.

Drove over Europe last September in the Roomster using E10. It was a few Euros cheaper than E5 95 RON. No issues.

4 hours ago, edbostan said:

Drove over Europe last September in the Roomster using E10. It was a few Euros cheaper than E5 95 RON. No issues.

Was fuel economy affected? I imagine 1-2% is unlikely to get noticed too much, though....

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/472443-e10-petrol

 

12 hours ago, briscaF1 said:

Was fuel economy affected? I imagine 1-2% is unlikely to get noticed too much, though....

To be honest I did not notice as we were in the Austrian Tirol and the mountain roads were not too friendly towards fuel consumption. Driving across Germany and the Netherlands which is rather flatter if there was any lack of power or lesser fuel consumption it must have been minimal.

As it's the same octane, there's only really two things that can happen, depending on the setup of the ECU and sensors in and around the engine systems.

 

Higher fuel consumption, with the same power output.

Same fuel consumption, with slightly less power output.

 

It's not going to gain power, it's still only 95 octane, it won't knock less and as such it won't advance timing to suit.

 

What i'm thinking is that as 95 octane E10 should be significantly cheaper to make than 95 octane E5 (not only is Ethanol cheap, but it's also cheaper to make a lower octane petroleum than it is a higher one)

Will we ever see any of the cost savings it should introduce? Probably not, at least not in the UK, where £0.70 is pure tax.

 

For people reporting whether they see or feel any difference, it's very unlikely. You won't feel 2% less power. You won't see 2% higher consumption. At 50mpg average, you'd decrease to 49.9mpg. There's so many other factors what affect economy. People who say different are simply put "male-cow-pooping".

There IS a difference, but it's so small you won't actually feel or see it, anything you do see or feel, is caused by other factors. The other day i managed a whopping 34mpg on a 50 mile motorway trip. Normally i manage 45-50, so what happened there you may ask? Did i put E10 in? Nope. I simply had the cruise control at 95mph (in my defense.. it was 2am and i saw a grand total of 2 other cars the whole journey, one of which overtook me!).

http://fleetnews.co.uk/smart-transport/news/government-to-fund-building-of-bio-fuel-production-plants

The UK producers of bioethanol were complaining last year the government were not helping them stay in business by not legislation quick enough on Bio.

They needed to be producing and selling more and getting paid more for it.

Growing crops & using waste products to produce fuel is not cheap if no market big enough

, bringing oil and gas out the ground as and when the price is high and limiting production when there would be too much is the Middle East trick, and the one Russia is prepared to mess up for other Oil Producers and especially for the US and their Oil Sands which is not cheap to extract.

On 12/03/2020 at 13:53, FabiaGonzales said:

 

For people reporting whether they see or feel any difference, it's very unlikely. You won't feel 2% less power. You won't see 2% higher consumption. At 50mpg average, you'd decrease to 49.9mpg. There's so many other factors what affect economy. People who say different are simply put "male-cow-pooping".

 

Oh aren't forums like this absolutely populated by 'male cow poopers'? But then that rather reflects the online society we live in.....