I have already done quite a bit of research, but I am still unsure...

Octane-Intro - explanation of octane ratings:
I am sure this would have cause a lot of confusion already:
If we talk about octane ratings of petrol in e.g. Germany or Australia, we are talking RON (research octane number) - and amazingly this differs from the octane numbers used in the US, e.g.: 95 octane RON = 91 octane in the US.

Ethanol-Intro: The S-Type calls for 95 RON fuel. Regarding ethanol blended fuels I found out:
There is a government internet site in NSW/Australia, where I can check, if E10 (fuel blended with 10% of ethanol) can be used in my 2004 S-Type and the answer was YES. Other sources even state that all Jags starting with model year 1992 can use E10. E10 in NSW has 94 RON, possibly even slightly more.
Also: The internet say also that it seems to be common standard in the US to have ethanol in the fuel - I kind of have the impression that is not much choice in the US, not to use E10 fuels... Hence, I'd assume that you know a lot about E10 fuels in the US...

Question:
Thus, my question is not, if I "can" put 94 RON E10 into the 2004 S-Type 3.0L - as several sources say, I "can" - but my question is (as I am somewhat skeptical):
Are there any very good reasons and compelling arguments NOT to use E10 fuels in the 2004 S-Type?
Is there any chance that E10 94 RON fuel does any kind of harm to the 2004 S-Type 3.0L?

Water in Fuel?
I think I read something about ethanol being more prone to binding water in the fuel (water is in the air, condensing air would be a source of water in the fuel). Thus, this would be bad for steel-tanks (which is probably why pre-1992 should not use E10, as the tank will rust, while today's tanks are all plastic)... - but...: More water in the fuel??? Is that seriously of no concern to the engine itself and other components, if you run fuel with a higher water content?

 

So you know, E10 95 RON is standard in the UK.

No problems with it for me in the various cars it's been on, for maybe 200K miles.

I've seen it _claimed_ it's slightly lower MPG but I don't know if that's true but equally it would have to be a dramatic difference to make me buy non-E10 (a bit awkward to get & more costly).

(If there's a moisture issue it won't affect me as I drive 10s (small 100s) miles per week.)

I believe S-Types all have plastic tanks, almost sealed from the atmosphere anyway.

It would be tiny amounts of water - and I recall engines run happier with cool damp air so it can't be an issue, can it?

Jag do say E10 is OK...

 

Thanks, "JagV8".
I confirmed also via in google: E10 in England has 95 RON. So you are in the green.

Meanwhile I read again, what is written in the actual S-Type printed manual of my S-Type:
> The preferred fuel should have an octane rating of at least 95 RON.
> Take care not to spill fuels containing alcohol (ethanol is alcohol), because it can cause paint damage.
> Fuels containing up to 10% ethanol may be used. Ensure the fuel has an octane rating no lower then those recommended for unleaded fuel.

...so here is my problem again:
Even the S-Type manual tells me initially that I can use E10, followed by a little sentence, which basically says I can't (here in Australia)...:
Cause, IF I READ EVERYTHING, I can't use E10, because Australian E10 fuel (10% ethanol) is defined as a fuel having 94 RON, and 94 is lower then the recommended 95 and the manual says that the ethanol blend shall not be of a lower RON rating than the unleaded fuel (95 RON).

So I really don't know what to make of that...

The Australian government site provides an online compatibility checker, where I can check and see that I can use Australian (NSW) E10 for the S-Type, but at the same time, the same government site says:
> If the manufacturer has recommended that you use premium unleaded in the vehicle, this means you should fill the tank with either RON 95 or RON 98.
> Neither E10 (RON 94) or regular unleaded petrol should be used in those vehicles.
https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boati...ose%20vehicles.

Typical! What else would anyone expect from any government!?

Hence, if anyone has any wise words (i.e. wiser than the contradicting statements of the S-Type manual and the extremely contradicting statements of the NSW government site), please let me know below...

PS: Also, there is the fcai (federal chamber of automotive industries of Australia). And they are not any better:
https://www.fcai.com.au/environment/...l-blend-petrol

There it says:
> ...many modern vehicles require premium unleaded petrol (PULP) which has a minimum of 95 RON and a maximum of 50 ppm sulphur.
> ...in NSW the fuel is labelled as “Ethanol 94 (E10). However, as these blends use 91 RON unleaded petrol, they do not meet all fuel standards
for 95 RON and can have up to 150 ppm sulphur.
So clearly, this would be a definite NO for using Australian E10 in a S-Type, but further down in the document it says:
E10 is suitable for all Jaguar models post 1986. (That is the info in that big table).

I am also quite worried about the sulphur content (50ppm vs 150ppm (see just above)). So under the line, I have the information from the Australian government that I can of course use E10 in any Jaguar post 1986..., unless of course it has caused catastrophic failure of my engine - in which case they would refer me to the section, where it says, that I can't use E10...

 

I did an experiment with my STR years ago now, I compared MPG on a long trip from my home in NYC metro out to a place about 1/3 across Pennsylvania. That's a substantial drive mostly on interstate roads but there were some local roads traveled in PA.
I drove out on E10 gasoline and came home with alcohol free gas. It's just one test but I gained 2 mpg over the E10 gasoline. There's just less energy in E10.

 

Thanks Staatsof, I have been a passenger in a coach/bus from JFK to PA many decades ago. I most certainly have never before seen to many lanes in parallel on any one highway. And yes, I know about the reduced energy in E10 - but if that would be the only disadvantage, the reduced price of E10 would make up for it.

Meanwhile, I kept sucking up all kinds of information about E10: The more I read I come to the conclusion that E10 (at least in Australia) is a pretty bad idea.
And if the sources, I came across, are correct then: Amount of Sulphur in England in E10: 10ppm, in Australia in E10: 150ppm, in Australia in 95 RON: 50ppm.
Which means that there is way too much Sulphur in 95 RON in Australia already, and the Sulphur content in Australian E10 is just crazy.
Sulphur burns in the engine to Sulphur-oxid, which corrodes your engine, exhaust and sensors (esp. O2 sensors) and reduced the effectivity of your catalyst, possibly even damages the catalyst.

And then I found this:
https://cars4starters.com.au/the-sho...uth-about-e10/

There are tons of reason against using E10 given in that article.

Thus, I think I made my mind up: Australian E10 with 150ppm of Sulphur and only 94 RON would be very harmful to my Jag, and the 10% Ethanol would damage the rest (rubber fuel lines, fuel filter, seals, gaskets). Plus, what I make from all I read: Since I drive very little, the fuel in the tank has a lot of time to evaporate and with Ethanol's smaller molecular structure this means that the ethanol evaporates first, which - I conclude - would mean that what I have left in the tank, which was once filled with E10, would after some time be 91 RON, and that would clearly harm my engine, which requires 95 RON minimum.

Hence, Australian E10 is a clear no go for me, regardless of how much more expensive 95 RON is...

PS: I just googled again, as those Sulphur concentrations in Australia kind of shocked me, but what I found before was correct:
Australia allows 150ppm of Sulphur in regular unleaded petrol and 50ppm in premium unleaded petrol (that is 95 RON and 98 RON).
Also, I found: Germany allows since 2005 no more than 50ppm, while the German automotive industry demanded less than 10ppm. I could not find anything up to date about Germany, but I get a feeling that the German limit on Sulphur is now 10ppm.

 

I wouldn't worry (from your car's point of view) about sulphur as it doesn't use nikasil. Sulphur (oxides etc when inhaled) is bad for people, though.

I really doubt such amounts will cause any damage worth mentioning - O2 sensors fail anyway, for example.

You keep mentioning possibles - you're overthinking and going down rabbit holes as I see it.

It's got a lot of things in it that simply don't apply at all to a modern design like the S-Type. Real conspiracy-type stuff.

Not "shocking truth" as far as articles go!!

On 94RON, I mean really??? You think it'll be so critical? No chance.

Still, your car your choice.

 

I know quite well about the dangers of Sulphur regarding the Nikasil Cylinder-lining in XJ8 V8s. I have one of those and I am not sure, if the engine block with the Nikasil did get replaced back then.
Other than then that, the list of things I worry about is quite long (as detailed above). Maybe in other countries, but the below par low quality Australian E10 is clearly a no go. Plus the fact that the Australian government "says" in the same breath, where they say that I CAN use E10, that I CAN'T use E10.

 

I’ve never researched the sulphuric content of E10 as sold in the USA. Might be interesting.

As for E10 generally, and just FWIW, I’ve been using it in my 80s-90s vintage Jags for 20+ years without any problems or engine damage.

(shrug)

Cheers
DD

 

Well, yes, I a wrote: E10 might be OK for use in other countries, where it has 95 RON (=91 US octane) and where it has 50ppm or 10ppm of Sulphur only, but since Australia is offering only inferior E10 (94 RON / 150ppm Sulphur), I am not going to risk it.

I tried to google the Sulphur content in the US, but did not find anything.

Plus (FWIW), there are my own trains of thoughts (as written above) of what happens with E10, if you drive very little, i.e. the fuel has plenty of time to evaporate...
Maybe I am right in my personal suspicion that Ethanol's smaller molecular structure means that the Ethanol-part evaporates first and leaves a new kind of fuel in the car, which has a lesser octane number, which again would lead to knocking and engine damage. (Ethanol in the fuel increases the octane number, and with that evaporated....?). I tried to google this evaporation "question", and what I googled seems to confirm what I was thinking.

 

What makes you thing that E10 has resulted in a reduction of price? No f'ing way. It was always about an alternative method of reducing emissions in an effort to eliminate the use of MTBE. then, once the Midwest USA farmers got used to growing corn for ethanol it was damn hard to eliminate.

 

> What makes you thing that E10 has resulted in a reduction of price?

Looking at the price of petrol at the fuel station!

Today's prices at our local Shell station:
95 RON = 2.16 AU$/Liter
E10 (94 RON) = 1.99 AU$/Liter
Hence, mathematically, 95 RON is currently 8.5% dearer than E10, but this information does not help, as Australian E10 is designed to be unsuitable.

 

I think you are right about the sulphur content in the EU: https://www.transportpolicy.net/stan...-and-gasoline/

If the only difference in the fuels was just 1 RON, it wouldn't make any difference except that flat out the ignition would be slightly retarded and the engine would make a tiny bit less power.

Does sulphur content have any effect on these engines? 10% ethanol has been OK with Jaguars since 1992 so no big deal there. If you drive with a modicum of mechanical sympathy, I wouldn't expect 1 RON to be noticable or problematic. Try a couple of tankfulls and see if you notice anything untoward. If it actually runs badly, you can switch back.

 

Hi Neil, good - I had a feeling that Germany and EU are down to 10ppm of Sulphur (Schwefel) - now I know.
As I did explain above, Sulphur makes a lot of difference: Australian E10 has 150ppm of Sulphur - Sulphur causes corrosion everywhere: engine, sensors, O2 sensors, exhaust system, catalyst. Sulphur causes the catalyst not to be able to operate as designed - I don't think any car using E10 in Australia would have a snowball's chance in hell to pass ASU (the German Abgassonderuntersuchung, the exhaust fume test), but no one here would know, as we do not have anything like that.

Also, as mentioned above, we drive very little - evaporation of fuel is a big problem for us (it is extremely hot here, too), and I expect that the 94 RON of the E10 would get reduced to 91 RON after a few month (as the Australian E10 is 91 RON plus ethanol, which results in 94 RON).

 

I wouldn’t think so. I live in Texas and we have mostly nothing but 93 octane with 10% ethanol in it. I plan on having an E50 mix on my S type R soon as the benefits seem to be plentiful. Eventually plan on going to full E85 but need bigger fuel pump as well as injectors for that as you have to run about %30 more fuel than conventional 93.

Keep in mind I’ll be tuned for this though so it’s not something that I’m just keeping the car stock for.

 

How did you determine that 150ppm was enough to actually cause damage? (I'm asking, not arguing )

From very brief checking it looks like the USA the standard is down to 10ppm but not that many years ago used to be much higher, 500ppm

Cheers
DD

 

Maybe you should just wait 18 months: https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-new...rought-forward

My Jaguars, sit more than they drive and, admittedly with E5, after many many months of hibernation, the XKR fired up fine and ran smoothly on old fuel. The S-Type ran a little rough for a few miles and was then OK on the same tank of fuel. Petrol here at least doesn't seem to age to such a degree that it is cause any noticable issues. The summer here was quite hot but the cars were in garages all that time.

 

@ Doug: >How did you determine that 150ppm was enough to actually cause damage? (I'm asking, not arguing )
> From very brief checking it looks like the USA the standard is down to 10ppm
Yes, it looks like all the rest of the word used 10ppm Sulphur on fuel only (incl. the US), hence, even 50ppm would look high, but Australia uses unbelievably 150ppm in 91 RON and E10 fuels. It is correct that I cannot deliver a University thesis that proves that 150ppm would do considerable harm to my engine, etc., but is it my informed decision not to use Australian E10 in my Jag for the purpose of converting them into Guinea Pigs. Sulphur in fuel has corrosive effects - hence, more Sulphur in fuel (actually 15 times as much) has more corrosive effects. I do not believe that very many people here in Australia are aware of E10 and 91 RON here having 150pp Sulphur, plus, they also would not know, what all that is about. If they knew and understand, 91 RON and E10 would be un-sellable here.

@Neil: Good find - the link you found: https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-new...rought-forward
I have not found that kind of information. Good one! Yes, I will definitely wait 16 month and then re-evaluate the situation, see what kind of E10 will really be sold in Australia in 2025.

And btw.: Other than engine concerns regarding Sulphur: I assume everyone is aware of the damage Sulphur does to 1. people's health, and 2. acidic rain killing forests and 3. Acidic rain destroying the sandstone of historic buildings...

 

I think they're some of the reasons we have low-sulphur fuels...

 

don’t fall for pommie hysteria

jags have been e10 ready since like the 92 model year. turn over your tank at least once a year and you don’t get crusty stuff in it

 

And btw.: Other than engine concerns regarding Sulphur: I assume everyone is aware of the damage Sulphur does to 1. people's health, and 2. acidic rain killing forests and 3. Acidic rain destroying the sandstone of historic buildings...[/quote]


If all of this nonsense is true, explain to me why brazil has quite literally converted every gas powered car in the country to E85 if it’s so terrible? Don’t believe me watch the video. Also if you drive your more often than once a Millenium like they’re mean to be, you won’t have problems with it sitting.