E85 is mostly ethanol - it has no sulphur

 

This is true, just thought I would include the video as we are on a post talking about why we should not be using ethenol. I plan on running my S Type R on E85 quite soon hopefully. Just am waiting for larger injectors & upgraded fuel pumps.

 

You missed the point, lovin 22: This post IS NOT ABOUT why we should not be using Ethanol.
I started the post to hopefully get a full picture of what E10 does and is.
In the process I actually discovered myself that it is especially AUSTRALIAN E10, which is designed to be unsuitable for use.
I discovered that there is more than the question of "Ethanol", when is comes to Australian E10.
It became clear that fuels in the rest of the world have pretty much a limit of 10ppm Sulphur, but Australian 91 RON and E10 contain 150ppm Sulphur (until the end of 2024).

>> If all of this nonsense [and with that you are referring to what I say about the dangers of Sulphur...] 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?
There is nothing nonsense about putting some facts regarding the dangers of Sulphur together.
As I wrote already: You are missing the point: Ethanol and Sulphur are two different things:
The source of the Sulphur is cruide oil. Sulphur occurs naturally in cruide oil. It needs to be removed, when producing fuels. Ethanol is not the source of Sulphur.
Australia uses dirty 91 RON petrol, which would be banned in pretty much all of the rest of the world. And Australia uses this same dirty 150ppm-Sulphur-91-RON fuel, adds 10% of Ethanol and calls it E10, just like it is called in the rest of the world. But it is definitely not the same: If you dig a little deeper, you find that Australian E10 has ONLY 94 RON (rest of world: 95 RON) and you have to dig really deep to uncover that Australian E10 contains stone-age-time 150ppm Sulphur, and then you have to dig again as to why that is really bad. This I did. And then I get a comment saying: "...explain to me why brazil has quite literally converted every gas powered car in the country to E85...". It's kind of like a comment saying that E10 looks nearly like the word "oil", when turned around 180° and then asking me to explain why synthetic oil is better than mineral...

PS: I am aware that E85 exists. It is available at a few fuel station in Australia. It is mainly used in V8 Racecars and in cars especially designed to use this kind of fuel. It is not something, which can be used in a Jaguar without severe modifications.

 

In that case it sounds to me like Australia has quite shoddy fuel quality. An E85 conversion would solve that problem, or even an E50 Mix but being as your fuel quality isn’t up to your standards it’d certainly be a better alternative. I’m not having to make “severe modifications” to run E85 just upgraded fuel pump, injectors & tune.

Here in the states at least anything from a pick up truck to race cars can run on E85 for the most part, as they have flex fuel sensors. There are kits for any car you can think of. Not just specialty race cars. Might suggest trying to find one for your jags as I’m sure there are solutions.

Apologies about the mix up.

 

> In that case it sounds to me like Australia has quite shoddy fuel quality.
Yes, that is the point I was making in the posts above. 95 RON (= 91 octane in the US) here have 150ppm Sulphur content, and so does E10.
95 RON and 98 RON here have 50ppm Sulphur content. Not good, but I can live with that, hence, I have to use 95 and 98 RON until the end of 2024, when the Australian government promised to fix this impossible situation. At the end of 2024 I will re-evaluate, what Australia came up with finally as "E10"-update, and decide for myself, if that is useable.
E50 and E85 would also not be an option for me, as we don't have E50 at all, and the next fuel station with E85 is quite a distance away. Plus, what sparked my interest in E10 initially, was that it is 8.5% cheaper than 95 RON, but that E85 at the far far away fuel station here is more expensive than 95 RON and has less energy content for all I know.

 

Honestly mate I think you're way overthinking it, and you're answering all of your own questions so I'm not really sure where this thread is going. So far I see a lot of talk about sulphur but no actual information on why it might be good or bad, just arbitrary numbers.. sure our 91 might be 3x higher in sulphur than 95, but what does that mean? I did a quick google (a very quick one) and read through about ten results; two or three of them said sulphur is bad for engines but not a single one explained why (they just used vague and unhelpful phrases like "To avoid operational issues, use fuel with 50ppm or less"), and the rest said sulphur only affects emissions and has no impact on engine reliability. One or two even suggest sulphur acts as a lubricant..

As for RON figures, 94 vs 95 is unlikely to be noticeable in any way... if you told me your butt dyno could feel 1RON, I'd tell you to get it calibrated. Using 91 in a car that requires 98 is likely to result in some knocking, but 1RON isn't going to blow your valves out the tailpipe.

Evaporation is a non-issue as evaporation requires air circulation. No air circulation = no concentration gradient = no evaporation. Try filling a saucepan halfway and putting the lid on tight, after a week it'll still be half full.

That was a long way of saying: use whatever fuel you want 🤷

 

Dan: Do your own research as to why Sulphur is very bad for everything, if you do not trust anything I post here.
As to your accusation that I am answering my own question - I explained that a few posts above, where I wrote already:
>> I started the post to hopefully get a full picture of what E10 does and is.
>> In the process I actually discovered myself that it is especially AUSTRALIAN E10, which is designed to be unsuitable for use.
So I had this question, I posted the question, and at the same time I have spent A LOT of time researching this myself, and I was glad to also get some useful input from the forum. At the verty start I did not know about Sulphur and I did not know know about the 10ppm in the rest of the world and what Australia does.

>> so I'm not really sure where this thread is going
If you can't see it, I will tell you: I have the answer, I was looking for meanwhile, as I have written multiple times now. Hence, for me this subject is closed, but while new questions seem to be popping up, I am still replying...

The answer to your question - as written multiple times before - is: corrosion, dying forests, massive health issues for humans, crumbling historic buildings.

Evaporation: A jerry-can is airtight, but not a tank in a car.

...and I WILL use the fuel, I want, as written above, and also explained which and why. As Spock, I do what logic dictates...

 

And I would like to add a funny story involving Sulphur:
Many many decades ago (4 decades!) - one of those things, one never forgets, happened:
Something hilarious was said by another student at school during Chemistry lesson in Germany:

Already back then our Chemistry teacher taught us about the huge environmental problem caused by industrial exhausts (e.g. from coal powered power plants) - about the immense destructiveness of Sulphur. He went on and explained kind of a solution for it:
By adding Calcium it is possible to "catch" the Sulphur before it escapes into the air and does harm. The resulting by-product is "Gips", which is German for "Plaster of Paris". Chemical formula of Gips: "CaSO4" or "CaSO4 - 2H2O"...
And then the teacher went on: But what are we going to do with all that "Gips" (Plaster of Paris)?
And a student replied: "Wir gipsen einfach alle vorsorglich ein!"
And everybody was rotfl (rolling on the floor laughing).
Translation:
"eingipsen" is the Verb used for the medical process of applying "Plaster of Paris" around one's arms and legs after he/she broke some bones...
Hence, the translation is something like:
"We'll just surround everyone's arms and legs with medical Plaster of Paris - just in case - as a precaution!"

 

My overall conclusions:

1. you're not going to use 91RON so its sulphur content is irrelevant to your car (but matters to the world, health, etc)

2. you could safely use 94RON (but sounds like you don't want to)

3. the problems you mention with E10 are very overstated and can safely be ignored for S-Types (evaporation not actually a problem, soaking up moisture in a hot country likewise, etc)

Now... about the plastic/rubber hoses in your car...

And the electrolytic capacitors...

 

> 1. you're not going to use 91RON so its sulphur content is irrelevant to your car (but matters to the world, health, etc)
I am not sure, if you were able to follow the train of thought...:
No, the S-Type cannot be fueled up with 91 RON.
But Australian 91 RON has 150ppm Sulphur content, and Australia used exactly that, adds 10% Ethanol and calls the result E10.
And that was my initial question - if I can put E10 into the S-Type in Australia. And my answer to this is NO - because mainly of the adverse effects (corrosion) of 150ppm Sulphur.
2. The question of using or not using 94 RON becomes academic, due to the unsuitability of E10 with 150ppm Sulphur.
3. We really drive very little and it is very hot here and I am a little bit concerned about Ethanol evaporation and a resulting RON number, that is than even lower than 94. And as written before: There are 2 Australian Government sources regarding use of E10 in Jaguar post 1992, and both sources are self-contradicting: In one paragraph they say it can be used, only to state in the next, that in can't be used (because 94 is simply not what the manufacturer recommends, but 95).

One of those Australian government sources is the fcai, as mentioned way above, the federal chamber of automotive industries of Australia.
Their arcticle about E10: https://www.fcai.com.au/environment/...l-blend-petrol
And I wrote an email to them asking them to clarify what it actually is now, what they are recommending regarding Jaguar and Australian E10.

I just received an answer, and I hope this answer will finally stop all comments of unbelievers that Sulphur is a bad thing for engine and environment.
This is what they wrote:

Thank you for your email relating to information provided on the FCAI website regarding vehicle compatibility with ethanol blended petrol.

The Fuel Quality Standard for petrol is determined by the Australian Commonwealth Government and can be found at the following URL

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2022C00758

This allows petrol to be supplied to the Australian market with two different minimum RON levels, 91 and 95.

In either case, the maximum Ethanol level is 10% v/v. This means any level of ethanol up to and including 10% is allowed.

Consistent with international best practice, maximum Sulfur content will be reduced to 10ppm from 15th December 2024 for all grades of petrol, but remains capped at 150ppm for 91 RON and 50ppm for 95 RON fuel until that date.

This information is consistent with that provided on the FCAI website.

FCAI’s understanding is that Jaguar Land Rover Australia (JLRA) recommends the use of 95RON petrol for your vehicle regardless of the Ethanol content.

The information on the FCAI website provided originally by JLRA is that all Jaguar models post 1986 are capable of operating on E10 fuel. This does not counteract their recommendation that petrol should be 95RON.

On the matter of sulfur content in petrol, sulfur is well known for being corrosive and a contaminant for catalytic convertors, oxygen sensors and other vehicle equipment and it has a detrimental effect on vehicle exhaust emissions performance.

This is the reason the Australian government is moving to reduce the sulfur content in petrol in line with the introduction of increasingly stringent exhaust emissions regulations.

Trusting this clears up any misunderstanding of the information contained on our website.

__________________
End of letter - so to sum it up: They do not see a contradiction, but confirm how very bad Sulphur is for the engine - This means, I would be mighty stupid, if I would accept that Australian E10 is suitable for Jaguars, well knowing about the corrosion damage caused by the Sulphur content.

 

50ppm is not a worry for your car as I see it.

The other items I listed are much bigger.

Also, if you drive little expect grief with the car (e.g. fuel pumps).

 

> 50ppm is not a worry for your car as I see it.
I haven't got any choice, do I?
I have to accept 50ppm (by choosing 95 RON or 98 RON), as there just is not anything with less Sulphur in Australia,
And I most certainly will not use Australian E10, as this has 150ppm.

Yes, I know about the fuel-pump issue and "petrol gone bad"... I have Ford Fairlanes 4.0L 1997 & 1998, and I am quite proficient & fast meanwhile in swapping the fuel pumps...

 

Earlier than that. The owners manual for my '85 clearly states that E10 is OK to use.

But Peter's main concern is the sulphur content in the E10 fuel being sold in his region.

Personally I'm not sure the worry is justified. But I haven't actually researched the matter so I'm in no position to assert anything.

Cheers
DD

 

Mclovin22 if you do go E85 be sure and post back on all you changed to do it?
I have the later 5.0L SC engine and Jaguar made some of those E85 compatible from the factory. But they seem to be rare. We have at least 2 guys on the forum with the yellow gas cap and all the labels for E85 usage!
.
.
.

 

Don’t confuse the word “recommended” with the word “required”

If the manual says 95 RON is recommended then you shouldn’t have a problem with 94 RON. The knock sensors will take care of anything that could harm the engine

 

Yes, but I think we established meanwhile, that for me here in Australia the question of octane rating (RON) has long since become purely academic, as some wise guys decided for Australia, that they ship only 91 RON and E10 fuel to petrol stations, which does plenty of damage to engine, catalyst, exhaust system, people's health, the environment and historic buildings due to the irresponsible high level of Sulphur in Australia in those 2 fuels.

Btw - an small update: The reply from the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries in Australia, which I received and posted above, was the reply on briefly asking about 94/95 octane and also asking, if I don't also have to worry about Sulphur levels, without going into any detail, and all the destructive consequences were mentioned by them first in their reply (while I found the same info meanwhile online). However, replying to that email and asking in more detail about that Sulphur and how it can be explained that Australia seems to be the only country (or at least one of the few) in this world since a very long time with a 15-times Sulphur level and no remedy planned until the end of 2024, I received no further response. Hence, they know, that this is very wrong.

 

I certainly shall, it’s something I plan on doing to the STR eventually. Tuner currently thinks the stock injectors can handle a E50 mix but we’ll have to check the duty cycle & flow rates currently to see how they’re holding up.

From my knowledge when cars are run on E85 it’s common to Upgrade the fuel pumps, as well as injectors as up to 30% more fuel is required.

Got a few other things that are taking priority on the STR at the moment unfortunately. Coolant leak that’s been pinned down to the DCCV that I’m currently trying to source the oem Bosch valve for. It’s also due for some new brakes so I’ll be ordering EBC Yellow brake pads & EBC rotors.

 

 

I've been using gulls 98 for a year in my 02 stype . Car loves it. Better milage than 95 . Jag website said fine. Cured o2 sensor fault. Drive every day.