Bio Petrol E10

[Grey Beard]

Hi, a question about R1200GSA, 2008 model, fuel recommendation.

I normally use 95 Octane, as there is a big jump in price for the 98 octane in Germany. Recently a new 95 octane grade (E10) has been introduced and this apparently contains some bio ethanol.

I asked at my local stealer and he said that the bio petrol may not be even 95 octane and that performance would be better with 98 octane. Not sure I would have bought a GSA if I was primarily concerned about performance.

I have topped up the tank for the winter with E10 petrol, but added a fuel stabiliser to prevent any gumming up problems, which are probably worse with a bio petrol.

I see from forum searches, that the double overhead cam engines are recommended to run 98 octane, but is there a noticeable improvement in performance/fuel consumption with 98 octane fuels and pre double overhead cam 1200 GS/GSA engines?

I don't know if the E10 fuel is available outside Germany at present, but if it is in the UK, what are the Collective's thoughts on it?

Grey Beard

 

[slydog]

95

pre twin cam runs on 95 ron and can run on lesser as of the knock control technology . i could see no point in running it on 98 . high octane fuels arefor highly tuned engines . if i put 95in my old hayabusa it would knock or pink but the gs is 95 ron

 

[davegs]

Fuel

I've run my 1150 on 80 in the us when thats what was available no probs but a bit down on power when going up hills, good old motronic sorts it all out.
Dave GS

 

[Pablo1]

I always ran my 2008GS on 95, Ive upgraded to a 2010 and intend to use 98 as all feedback I read suggests a better performance from the twin cam on the recommended fuel grade.

 

[wessie]

E10 is sold widely in France, I believe.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ethanol_fuel_mixtures#E10_or_less the E10 will have a higher octane rating then standard (presumably 95RON) fuel.

Check the pump - every pump I've used in Europe has quoted the RON value. I've even used 91 RON fuel in Austria without any noticeable difference to my R1150GS.

The introduction of E5 & E10 fuels in Europe has been widely known for many years. All manufacturers of recent vehicle will make them capable of using these fuels.

From my anecdotal knowledge, the only people who should be concerned about the part ethanol fuels are those with older bikes fitted with non-metal fuel tanks as they may be damaged by the ethanol. The earliest Triumph Tiger 900 for example.

 

[sidestand]

List of bikes in relation to E10 Biofuel

http://www.acem.eu/cms/e10.php

 

[Deleted account 190920001]

I have read on several forums but don't know for sure if the following is true or not. You get less bang per volume (lower calorific value) with ethanol so you need to put more fuel in. A 10% mix of ethanol is supposed to equate to a 16% loss in economy. In some ways this makes sense. On the drag strip where pure ethanol is commonly used its poured in, in huge volumes in comparison to petrol. They use it because it has a massively high knock resistance so they can use very high compression, boost pressures and wild ignition timing so can get a lot of power from the engines that they simply couldn't get from even something like AVGas. But without changing an engine/fuel system it will actually lower power output simply because it is harder to make it go bang which in essence is what the RON figure tells. Where it doesn't make sense is that the powers at be think it is better for the environment, you get less CO and CO2 produced. That part doesn't make sense to me if your burning 16% more fuel? Of course they might include the fact that it is a renewable fuel and in growing the plants to make the fuel your capturing the CO2 again so making it more carbon neutral.
Anyway to the original question, yes it might have a higher RON value but it depends on what base they made the blend from so check the pump. If they started with 95 RON then its most likely 98 RON with the ethanol but if they started with 92 RON its probably 95 RON with ethanol. Its unlikely to give you more power though without burning more fuel which you cant do without changing the fuel system. 98 RON pure petrol would give you more power for less fuel than 98 RON E10.

 

[cookie]

I always ran my 2008GS on 95, Ive upgraded to a 2010 and intend to use 98 as all feedback I read suggests a better performance from the twin cam on the recommended fuel grade.

sorry to, er, *knock* your 100% research results, but i can't tell the difference except in the wallet.

 

[mcinlb]

98
No empirical evidence at all , BUT, my 2010 twin cam seems to pick up better on 98 and also a slightly better consumption / range...
Like I say, may be wishful thinking but time after time it appears so....

 

[D6]

Where it doesn't make sense is that the powers at be think it is better for the environment, you get less CO and CO2 produced. That part doesn't make sense to me if your burning 16% more fuel? Of course they might include the fact that it is a renewable fuel and in growing the plants to make the fuel your capturing the CO2 again so making it more carbon neutral.

it just looks good on the face of it, a bit like the electric car or the catalytic converter farces, they run clean, but at what cost to make them?

 

[Bones]

Touring/long distance commuting I get about an extra 5mpg when running with super unleaded(98). Makes no noticable difference apart from that. '06 12GS.

 

[(RIP) Sugar Ray]

My 2010 seems to get a few miles more per tankful on 98. I used it for much of the time whilst in France on holiday this summer as it doesn't seem to command the same premium as it does here. Apart from that I couldn't notice any difference. Needless to say, back home it's running sweetly on 95.

 

[slydog]

back of beyond

i mean these are world going adventure bikes im not sure in a small village somewhere in deepest darkest africa you would have the choice lol .

 

[Mark Hooton]

2006 GS & 2010 GSA twin cam

In my very humble opinion both bikes seem to perform and run better on 98 RON.

 

[trainman]

E10 is sold widely in France, I believe.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ethanol_fuel_mixtures#E10_or_less the E10 will have a higher octane rating then standard (presumably 95RON) fuel.

Check the pump - every pump I've used in Europe has quoted the RON value. I've even used 91 RON fuel in Austria without any noticeable difference to my R1150GS.

The introduction of E5 & E10 fuels in Europe has been widely known for many years. All manufacturers of recent vehicle will make them capable of using these fuels.

From my anecdotal knowledge, the only people who should be concerned about the part ethanol fuels are those with older bikes fitted with non-metal fuel tanks as they may be damaged by the ethanol. The earliest Triumph Tiger 900 for example.

what was the damage to the plastic tanks? the GS tank is plastic? is it related to fuel line seals and o rings?

 

[rodsharp]

Our VW car does run better on super, but cant tell any difference on twin cam GS

 

[wessie]

what was the damage to the plastic tanks? the GS tank is plastic? is it related to fuel line seals and o rings?

IIRC, the ethanol causes some composite materials to delaminate.

ADVRider has a thread referring to a lawsuit where Ducati was successfully sued in 2010 due to their tanks not being fit for purpose http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=742843

 

[Redboots]

what was the damage to the plastic tanks? the GS tank is plastic? is it related to fuel line seals and o rings?

If its plastic, as in GRP, the ethanol will degrade or delaminate it.
Ethanol is also hygroscopic, so not suitable for leaving it in a tank over the winter, full or not.
E10 is an option in most supermarkets here and most motorway services only have 95 in an E10 variant.
You will get less bang for your buck and therefore less MPG with E10... its political bollox.

John

 

[fizzer]

no dought about it ,my gs12 ,o5 plate ticks over alot smoother with 98 ron in it,but on the open road i cant feel any difference .

 

[Grey Beard]

Thanks for the replies everyone

The dealer did mention something about hygroscopic nature of ethanol, but I think if the tank is full up over the winter, tank breathing will be minimised and hence minimising the risk of water absorption. I did once have a car which seemed to run better in the rain - some car manufacturers even injected water into the fuel system to change the combustion reaction kinetics.

My dealer didn't mention any problem associated with ethanol and plastic BMW tanks. Something else to look at in more detail.

I didn't see a RON marking on the last E10 pump I used, but I thought 95 was what I had seen in the past. I would be surprised if it ever dropped below specification, as there would be stiff penalties for selling off specification fuel.

If there was a fuel efficiency improvement using 98 RON, then it may be cost effective, but I will have to monitor that on a long run in the summer.

The E10 environmental credentials will be based on the production of ethanol from plants, which grow over one year, as opposed to fossil fuels with have taken a few hundred thousand years to form. That is assuming the producers haven't wiped out the benefits by using large quantities of fertiliser, which need fossil fuels to produce. My wife is anti E10 bio fuels, because of the controversy surrounding the use of the land to produce fuel instead of food for hungry people. No real issue within the EU where land is set aside to minimise food overproduction though.

I was just attracted by the cheaper prices. The introduction of E10 fuel in Germany this summer was, in my opinion, handled very badly, with little education of consumers on the pros and cons of the E10 fuel.

Grey Beard