See here for all vehicles
https://www.gov.uk/check-vehicle-e10-petrol.
Might help for those with more than one bike
https://www.gov.uk/check-vehicle-e10-petrol.
Might help for those with more than one bike
Can I use the new E10 petrol ?
- Thread starter golfy1
- Start date
Cook1e
Registered user
"All models are compatible with E10. However the number of octanes needs to be compatible with the model according to user handbook"
Number of octanes???
Number of octanes???
Cook1e
Registered user
I filled up with E10 in France some years ago. Performance was noticeably worse and mpg about 10% less. It was cheaper to pay the extra for premium fuel.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2015
- Messages
- 12,983
- Reaction score
- 4,912
The E10 has been around since 2009 in France
We have SP95 and SP98 which actually both contain up to 5% bio ethanol and SP95-E10 which contains up to 10%
Any modern bike engine will run fine on any of the unleaded petrols (SP = sans plomb = unleaded)
A new labeling system is now appearing on pumps in Europe for those who get over here one day:
SP95 = E5
SP98 = E5
SP95-E10 = E10
Diesel = B7
We have SP95 and SP98 which actually both contain up to 5% bio ethanol and SP95-E10 which contains up to 10%
Any modern bike engine will run fine on any of the unleaded petrols (SP = sans plomb = unleaded)
A new labeling system is now appearing on pumps in Europe for those who get over here one day:
SP95 = E5
SP98 = E5
SP95-E10 = E10
Diesel = B7
I would avoid E10 given the choice
On one trip to France I filled up with E10 and it caused some violent surging, which was most disconcerting entering wet roundabouts. I spent some time trying to see what the issue was, but ultimately the only different was the fuel I had used.
I may have had some water in the tank which affected it, but I guess I will never know now. Took about 2 full tanks thereafter and it was back to sweet running.
On one trip to France I filled up with E10 and it caused some violent surging, which was most disconcerting entering wet roundabouts. I spent some time trying to see what the issue was, but ultimately the only different was the fuel I had used.
I may have had some water in the tank which affected it, but I guess I will never know now. Took about 2 full tanks thereafter and it was back to sweet running.
On the Rockster I'm getting so much more range from 'high octane' fuel (98 or 99) than I do from regular, that I use the 98 almost every time now. It's a marked increase - something like 20 or 30 miles more range (previously reserve would would come on at 160-170 miles, now it doesn't come on until 200+).
I think it's partially that I'm riding with a pillion more (so less quickly), but I'm surprised that the pillion's extra weight doesn't seem to have much effect (she's only 55Kg or so tbh), and I'm not riding that much slower!
the same labelling has started in the UK
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2015
- Messages
- 12,983
- Reaction score
- 4,912
Wasn’t sure if Britain wasn’t going back to 4 Star now you are freed of the European shackles
on my S1000XR, I usually put in the 97+ RON fuel as it is tuned to benefit from the extra compression. When in France on my last trip in 2019 there were a couple of occasions where the SP95 E10 was the only choice. I noticed that the popping on the over-run was more dramatic with the E10 fuel. Perhaps I was opening the throttle more to get the same effect due to the lower calorific value?
As stated above, the biggest drawback with E10 is the reduced miles per tank. Ethanol has fewer calories per litre so you use more of the stuff to get anywhere.
So basically Wessie it’s the same a watered down pint for the same price in your local 
So basically Wessie it’s the same a watered down pint for the same price in your local
yes, E10 is just like Stella made in the the Magor factory (I'm loathe to call it a brewery) in Wales, 10% weaker than the real thing
So avoid if possible then 
I'm just back from Italy. I never fuel up with the E10. Did it once and as mentioned the range was seriously affected.
I got to Turin from North London in 2.5 tanks, solo, full luggage, on brand new tyres. Never had such efficiency before. Each time I filled up with shell v-Power (actually, that's what I aim to use all the time).
I did see some 104 octane fuel in Germany but it was eye wateringly expensive!
Return trip, two up, full luggage, I still did it in less than 3 tanks. Again I used the premium stuff all the time.
I agree it's a false economy using the E10. If you're stuck, use just enough to get to a better filling station!
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
I got to Turin from North London in 2.5 tanks, solo, full luggage, on brand new tyres. Never had such efficiency before. Each time I filled up with shell v-Power (actually, that's what I aim to use all the time).
I did see some 104 octane fuel in Germany but it was eye wateringly expensive!
Return trip, two up, full luggage, I still did it in less than 3 tanks. Again I used the premium stuff all the time.
I agree it's a false economy using the E10. If you're stuck, use just enough to get to a better filling station!
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
"All models are compatible with E10. However the number of octanes needs to be compatible with the model according to user handbook"
Number of octanes???
"Before you start
This only applies to petrol vehicles. Diesel and electric vehicles cannot use E10 petrol."
Jesus wept
When unleaded came out a Dublin city councillor wanted the busses to run on it. JJH
ELIMINATOR
Registered user
A study conducted by VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland indicates that there is practically no difference between commercial petrol grades 95E10 and 98E5 sold in Finland as regards fuel consumption in normal driving. The finding is based on driving tests conducted by VTT using six used cars of different make under laboratory conditions.
It has been frequently claimed in public that fuel consumption is significantly higher with 95E10 petrol than with its predecessor 95E or the 98E5 petrol currently on the market. The suspected higher consumption has deterred drivers of cars whose manufacturers recommend E10 from actually using it.
"The point of this study was to highlight how fuel consumption should actually be measured to give comparable results. Measuring fuel consumption very accurately is not as simple as it seems, because other factors affect consumption besides the fuel itself. In laboratory conditions, we can eliminate these other factors," says Juhani Laurikko, a Principal Scientist at VTT.
The VTT measurements show that the cars tested used an average of 10.30 litres of 95E10 per 100 km, as opposed to 10.23 litres of 98E5 per 100 km. The difference was 0.07 in favour of 98E5 on average, meaning that using 95E10 petrol, which has a higher ethanol content, increases consumption by 0.7%. Normalising measurement results of each individual test run with observed slight scatter in actual total work done over the driving cycle yields to somewhat higher overall difference, 1.0%.
An estimation of calorific values based on approximate fuel composition came out at 1.1% in favour of E5, which is highly consistent with the aforementioned 1.0% difference in consumption. Fuel consumption depends mainly on the calorific value of the fuel, i.e. its energy content per unit of volume or mass.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110606075634.htm
It has been frequently claimed in public that fuel consumption is significantly higher with 95E10 petrol than with its predecessor 95E or the 98E5 petrol currently on the market. The suspected higher consumption has deterred drivers of cars whose manufacturers recommend E10 from actually using it.
"The point of this study was to highlight how fuel consumption should actually be measured to give comparable results. Measuring fuel consumption very accurately is not as simple as it seems, because other factors affect consumption besides the fuel itself. In laboratory conditions, we can eliminate these other factors," says Juhani Laurikko, a Principal Scientist at VTT.
The VTT measurements show that the cars tested used an average of 10.30 litres of 95E10 per 100 km, as opposed to 10.23 litres of 98E5 per 100 km. The difference was 0.07 in favour of 98E5 on average, meaning that using 95E10 petrol, which has a higher ethanol content, increases consumption by 0.7%. Normalising measurement results of each individual test run with observed slight scatter in actual total work done over the driving cycle yields to somewhat higher overall difference, 1.0%.
An estimation of calorific values based on approximate fuel composition came out at 1.1% in favour of E5, which is highly consistent with the aforementioned 1.0% difference in consumption. Fuel consumption depends mainly on the calorific value of the fuel, i.e. its energy content per unit of volume or mass.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110606075634.htm
Cook1e
Registered user
My 16YO grandson's just bought his first bike - a Mash 50. It specifically states in the manual not to use E10. I've emailed Mash to ask why, and what can be done about it, given that his local garages only sell 'Regular' 95 octane, which will be E10 next month. I'll report here when I hear back.
Good and bad news
Good news, that E10 or E5, I used both of late and both said 95 Octane/Ron, is good to go on m 21 1250GSA. Bad news I didn't realise or engage the grey matter with regard to 98 Ron which though expensive may give better mileage and therefore be the same price as the 95. I shall try it out and see, particular noting improved performance if discernable though 98 is about 20% more than 95 here in Austria. Ouch.
Good news, that E10 or E5, I used both of late and both said 95 Octane/Ron, is good to go on m 21 1250GSA. Bad news I didn't realise or engage the grey matter with regard to 98 Ron which though expensive may give better mileage and therefore be the same price as the 95. I shall try it out and see, particular noting improved performance if discernable though 98 is about 20% more than 95 here in Austria. Ouch.
Similar threads
