Mandatory E10 petrol

[chrisp]

I see the governemt has announced that, from September, all 95 octane petrol will have to be E10 (10% ethanol) rather than the current E5. This is supposed to be "greener", presumably because the ethanol component is renewable in the sense that it is made from crops grown recently (no doubt with the application of crude oil derived fertiliser), rather than petrol, which comes from vegetation that existed millions of years ago.
It is being said that E10 will not be compatible with the fuel systems of most pre-2000 vehicles, so our Cavaliers will not be able to use it.
Apparently E5 petrol will still be available, as the more expensive super 97 to 99 octane fuel that is available at some petrol stations.
Green virtue signalling by this government continues!

[Robsey]

This relates more to the fuel hoses, rather than the carburettors and pre-2000 fuel injections.

Some parts of Europe already use E10 on 80's vehicles... with the only penalty being that all fuel lines were replaced with ethanol-compatible lines and hoses.

I have been following this already as I am a member of a VW forum based around 80s Transporters.

Further to this, ethanol fuel is more hygroscopic, meaning that it absorbs moisture more quickly.
So vehicles that are run infrequently or stored for long periods will probably need to have the old water contaminated fuel drained out and refilled with fresh fuel in order to run properly.

[cavalier1990]

I think in the US thev've been using E10 for years, and most classics do ok on it, although I do agree with you Chris just too much green virtue signalling going on, it's getting mental!

[James McGrath]

I was worried that they would do this. I know there have been talks about it for a while.
Time to invest in some new fuel lines I think!

All they are doing is trying to appeal to young voters with this sort of stuff.
I doubt it would have any meaningful impact towards reducing emissions.
Why don't they do something that will benefit people rather than target motorists?
I've been saying for years that all new houses should be built with solar panels by law.
The energy companies won't like that though!

That turned into a bit of a rant didn't it, sorry about that.

[chrisp]

I think in the US thev've been using E10 for years, and most classics do ok on it, although I do agree with you Chris just too much green virtue signalling going on, it's getting mental!

Yes, the US has had E10 "regular" gasoline for some years and this is around 90 octane (or in some states less than this). You get worse fuel consumption with E10 than you do with non ethanol gasoline because ethanol is less energy dense than gasoline.
Use of E10 is presented as a "green" measure but in reality it is because of intense lobbying by mid West farmers and their congressional representatives. They grow vast amounts of maize ("corn" in US parlance) and can get more money from it by selling it to ethanol producers than by selling it for food.
When you take into account the large amounts of fertiliser used, and fueling the large farm machinery needed to prepare the ground and harvest the corn, I doubt that there is any net reduction in fossil fuel use for E10 versus non-ethanol gasoline.

[Envoy CDX]

It's been in the pipeline (yes, I know....) for the past 10-15 years, why it wasn't done sooner as if we can starve off going electric vehciles I'm all for it.

Start looking for the Vectra B and C fuel lines and re-purpose those where possible IMO they should survive the E10.