So i've noticed this before, but i just put half a tank of E10 in my Ralliart (I hate it more than you, but it was $1.31 vs $1.47 E10 to premium, and i was only putting in $20 anyway), and on the drive home i noticed that it would go harder. Not just harder when i got up it, but overall. More torque throughout the rev range and everything. In 2nd it would be lightning.

Is anyone else noticing this, or am i just trying to justify putting the cheap crap fuel in my car?
Obviously fuel consumption is worse, but it can be as bad as 15L/100km if i drive like a dickhead everywhere even on 95/98. If i granny i can get 10.5ishL/100km.


Is there any reason E10 would provide a noticeable difference? Surely 10% Ethanol wouldn't make that much difference, or you could just add like a litre of methanol to a full tank. Even if it did, wouldn't a re-tune be needed?


Just wondering if there is any actual performance increase, or if it's all in my head here.

Methanal and Ethanol are different.
E10 has higher RON than regular however cars with out a knock sensor wont benifit. however i did feel that my car ran nicer on premium than regular (before my car was tuned)

E10 is great stuff, I never use anything else. But I'm sure you're imagining this, the same way other people with stock standard cars imagine that their car runs like arse on the stuff. I've really never noticed the difference between regular 91, E10 91, E10 95 or premium 95. I basically just use E10 because it's cheap and I'm not paranoid about damaging my (apparently) glass engine and paper fuel lines. :nuts:

I notice no difference at all between E10 and 98, power wise or fuel economy. I'll stick to E10 until I start doing more performance mods to my car...

I didnt think that the 6G7 series engines had knock sensors therefore wouldn't detect any performance difference ?

I will only use E-10 when I have no choice.. I have seen poor economy figures when using it... Its appears like its a less dense fuel and seems to get burned quicker..

I didnt think that the 6G7 series engines had knock sensors therefore wouldn't detect any performance difference ?

I will only use E-10 when I have no choice.. I have seen poor economy figures when using it... Its appears like its a less dense fuel and seems to get burned quicker..

From what I've seen/read/heard, its only the 6G72/6G74 in the 3rd gen Magnas & Veradas that don't have knock sensors. The 6G72 in the 2nd gens apparently did have a knock sensor, and I've seen a reference to Aus built USDM 2nd gen Diamantes (same as 3rd gen Magna) having a knock sensor (something I'd like to confirm...). 6G75 appears to have a knock sensor in all factory applications.

Without a knock sensor or E10 specific tune, fuel economy will be slightly worse (3.5-4%) due to the lower effective stoichiometric AFR applicable to E10.

Driving wise, I can't tell the difference between 91 RON ULP and 94 RON E10 (both Shell) with the stock tune.

Not all E10 is 94/95 RON - I understand most of the 91 RON "ULP" now sold in Qld is E10, and also in some parts of NSW (I'm sure there was a thread on here somewhere about this).

i put a tAnk of e10 95ron in my car, it started easier than normal. it was like two cranks and up she went. it drank it though, but no power change

e10 is crap full stop!!! i tryed 3 full tanks in a row and all resulted with about 480 -500kms per tank but seem to run smoother? using regular unleaded or premium i always get no less than 550kms per tank. TJ 5sp man. the money you save is about the kms you loose. better off puting the extra $5 in the tank.