Yeti Owners Club banner
1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
428 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Have others found a lower mpg with this new fuel? I definitely have noticed a higher consumption,especially noticeable when under load,up hills etc.(5% at least)
Also I assume we are getting 5% less petrol for our money now,and 5% extra ethanol,so is the taxation rate on ethanol the same as petrol? We are certainly being stung now and heading for a £7 gallon,it’s already about £75 to fill a tank!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
Any fuel additive is fare game for taxation as a fuel, even the likes of injector cleaner.

The only non taxed fuel (that's for road use) is vegetable oil / biodiesel and there's a 2500L per rolling 12 months limit on that, this is also per household, and you have to keep records to prove the amount used.
 

·
Premium Member
Yeti S+ 2010 2.0TDi CFHA 110 2WD Manual
Joined
·
7,242 Posts
TOPGUN,
1) YES! Reduced mpg was predicted when the move to E10 was first made public several months ago. Reason being that volume for volume, ethanol has a lower energy density than regular 95-octane petrol (or gasoline if you prefer American).
I mention "gasoline" because most of the references in Wikipedia are Amurican in origin. For example:
a) "Ethanol fuel has a "gasoline gallon equivalency" (GGE) value of 1.5, i.e. to replace the energy of 1 volume of gasoline, 1.5 times the volume of ethanol is needed."

b) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

c) https://www.fleetpoint.org/fuel/green-fuels/the-pros-and-cons-of-ethanol-fuel/

2) Biodiesel by comparison is much closer to mineral oil diesel in its energy density, but has a whole heap of problems of its own. Those are not the subject of this thread.

3) YES! We are taxed at a rate per litre (or per gallon if you prefer) of standard fuel delivered by roadside or filling station pumps to BS EN 228. Not per litre or gallon of mineral oil distilled petrol. Nor are we taxed on energy content of those litres/gallons. Government can change the definition of BS EN 228 anytime they like. Witness a few years ago, before E5 became standard, BS EN228 did refer to 100% petrol. They are not obliged to change the tax rate per litre/gallon because the energy content is different. Who said taxation was ever fair?

4) My reference (1c) above also highlights a very important "lesser known fact" about E10 that I was planning to make anyway. That use of ethanol in road fuel uses a lot of agricultural crops that could otherwise be used to feed humans. In UK (and much of Europe, ethanol is produced commercially, normally by fermenting wheat and other cereal crops, rather than corn/maize used most in the US or sugar cane used in Brasil/Brazil. Which puts further pressure on the highly dubious arguments about the case for a move toward vegitanarism or veganism as a diet choice. Because less than 35% of agricultural land in UK is capable of growing combinable crops. 65% is more suited to grass - which humans can't eat successfully, but ruminants can. This is one of the key reasons why government has chosen to stop (for the moment) at E10, rather than move to E15. Brasil by contrast, has no/few restrictions on deforestation of rain forest to grow fermentable crops, so E85 is commonly available there.
(Hence that IS related to E10 petrol, before I'm accused of going off-topic or making a political point.) :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
428 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
TOPGUN,
1) YES! Reduced mpg was predicted when the move to E10 was first made public several months ago. Reason being that volume for volume, ethanol has a lower energy density than regular 95-octane petrol (or gasoline if you prefer American).
I mention "gasoline" because most of the references in Wikipedia are Amurican in origin. For example:
a) "Ethanol fuel has a "gasoline gallon equivalency" (GGE) value of 1.5, i.e. to replace the energy of 1 volume of gasoline, 1.5 times the volume of ethanol is needed."

b) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

c) https://www.fleetpoint.org/fuel/green-fuels/the-pros-and-cons-of-ethanol-fuel/

2) Biodiesel by comparison is much closer to mineral oil diesel in its energy density, but has a whole heap of problems of its own. Those are not the subject of this thread.

3) YES! We are taxed at a rate per litre (or per gallon if you prefer) of standard fuel delivered by roadside or filling station pumps to BS EN 228. Not per litre or gallon of mineral oil distilled petrol. Nor are we taxed on energy content of those litres/gallons. Government can change the definition of BS EN 228 anytime they like. Witness a few years ago, before E5 became standard, BS EN288 did refer to 100% petrol. They are not obliged to change the tax rate per litre/gallon because the energy content is different.. Who said taxation was ever fair?

4) My reference (1c) above also highlights a very important "lesser known fact" about E10 that I was planning to make anyway. That use of ethanol in road fuel uses a lot of agricultural crops that could otherwise be used to feed humans. In UK (and much of Europe, ethanol is produced commercially, normally by fermenting wheat and other cereal crops, rather than corn/maize used most in the US or sugar cane used in Brasil/Brazil. Which puts further pressure on the highly dubious arguments about the case for a move toward vegitanarism or veganism as a diet choice. Because less than 35% of agricultural land in UK is capable of growing combinable crops. 65% is more suited to grass - which humans can't eat successfully, but ruminants can. This is one of the key reasons why government has chosen to stop (for the moment) at E10, rather than move to E15. Brasil by contrast, has no/few restrictions on deforestation of rain forest to grow fermentable crops, so E85 is commonly available there.
(Hence that IS related to E10 petrol, before I'm accused of going off-topic or making a political point.) :)
TOPGUN,
1) YES! Reduced mpg was predicted when the move to E10 was first made public several months ago. Reason being that volume for volume, ethanol has a lower energy density than regular 95-octane petrol (or gasoline if you prefer American).
I mention "gasoline" because most of the references in Wikipedia are Amurican in origin. For example:
a) "Ethanol fuel has a "gasoline gallon equivalency" (GGE) value of 1.5, i.e. to replace the energy of 1 volume of gasoline, 1.5 times the volume of ethanol is needed."

b) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

c) https://www.fleetpoint.org/fuel/green-fuels/the-pros-and-cons-of-ethanol-fuel/

2) Biodiesel by comparison is much closer to mineral oil diesel in its energy density, but has a whole heap of problems of its own. Those are not the subject of this thread.

3) YES! We are taxed at a rate per litre (or per gallon if you prefer) of standard fuel delivered by roadside or filling station pumps to BS EN 228. Not per litre or gallon of mineral oil distilled petrol. Nor are we taxed on energy content of those litres/gallons. Government can change the definition of BS EN 228 anytime they like. Witness a few years ago, before E5 became standard, BS EN288 did refer to 100% petrol. They are not obliged to change the tax rate per litre/gallon because the energy content is different.. Who said taxation was ever fair?

4) My reference (1c) above also highlights a very important "lesser known fact" about E10 that I was planning to make anyway. That use of ethanol in road fuel uses a lot of agricultural crops that could otherwise be used to feed humans. In UK (and much of Europe, ethanol is produced commercially, normally by fermenting wheat and other cereal crops, rather than corn/maize used most in the US or sugar cane used in Brasil/Brazil. Which puts further pressure on the highly dubious arguments about the case for a move toward vegitanarism or veganism as a diet choice. Because less than 35% of agricultural land in UK is capable of growing combinable crops. 65% is more suited to grass - which humans can't eat successfully, but ruminants can. This is one of the key reasons why government has chosen to stop (for the moment) at E10, rather than move to E15. Brasil by contrast, has no/few restrictions on deforestation of rain forest to grow fermentable crops, so E85 is commonly available there.
(Hence that IS related to E10 petrol, before I'm accused of going off-topic or making a political point.) :)
So it sounds like as I thought we are being ripped off and it’s all to the benefit of the treasury. We get less economy,for the same price,(or more the way it’s going up) so we use more petrol and government gets millions more from us.I wonder how long until the add something to diesel to reduce its economy too?
 

·
Premium Member
Yeti S+ 2010 2.0TDi CFHA 110 2WD Manual
Joined
·
7,242 Posts
TOPGUN - You've got the agenda! Price ICE cars off the road, to make high CO2 emission EVs (double during manufacture, 50% during use) look more economical. :cry:

Treasury has to pay for the biggest ever government borrowing to spend on Covid measures somehow! (£billions of which went to friends of ministers with very little or no benefit to the taxpayer or the NHS in terms of PPE - see "The Good Law Project"). Car users are an easy target. :( Wait till they start on EVs. :oops:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
428 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Oh yes! Just wait till the Electric vehicle owners get clobbered with a big road tax bill like the rest of us,but what we are really heading for is a price per mile type system where everyone pays up.
 

·
Premium Member
Yeti S+ 2010 2.0TDi CFHA 110 2WD Manual
Joined
·
7,242 Posts
what we are really heading for is a price per mile type system where everyone pays up.
By far the easiest and fairest way for government to tax road vehicles would be to swap from a rate based on highly dubious figures for tailpipe emissions, to a tax based on kg of unladen weight.
Easy to measure. Undisputable.
Hard to cheat / Easy to check on cars actually leaving showrooms, unlike emissions.
Fair in terms of damage to road surfaces. (Rises exponentially with weight of vehicle. EVs are 50-100% heavier than same sized ICE cars. EV trucks would rightly be astronomical tax rate).
Also fair in Climate Change terms as the lowest CO2 emitters would automatically get taxed the least.
Smaller, lighter weight cars pay less than heavy, gas guzzling Chelsea Tractors. Like now. Therefore an element of fairness in that?
HUGE advantage over p/mile driven as massively cheaper to administer. Does not require constant monitoring of who has driven where by satellites. (That is one reason why it won't happen though, because it would do away with the hidden government agenda of monitoring everyone's movements in real time, 100% of the time. Or give an excuse to prise data on that out of Big Brother Google?)

Oh buxxer! :rolleyes: I've just ky-boshed the idea there by explaining it would be "fair"! Means it might never happen then? Can we live in hope?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
908 Posts
So it sounds like as I thought we are being ripped off and it’s all to the benefit of the treasury. We get less economy,for the same price,(or more the way it’s going up) so we use more petrol and government gets millions more from us.I wonder how long until the add something to diesel to reduce its economy too?
Try to think of the bigger picture. If you want to be kept healthy, safe and in a civilised society, taxes need to be paid. If you don’t pay taxes on fuel, you will have to pay more taxes for something else. You are not being ripped off. I have seen what happens to countries where no-one is paying taxes. It is not pretty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Llanigraham

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,758 Posts
We have our own petrol in Yorkshire - eehbaahgum10
 

·
Premium Member
Yeti S+ 2010 2.0TDi CFHA 110 2WD Manual
Joined
·
7,242 Posts
I have seen what happens to countries where no-one is paying taxes. It is not pretty.
Isle of Man is very pretty! I've been there many times. :ROFLMAO:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trilux

·
Premium Member
Yeti S+ 2010 2.0TDi CFHA 110 2WD Manual
Joined
·
7,242 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
428 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
What was the decision to add an extra 5% ethanol based on? Was it lower emissions? Is that the story we were told? Surely if we all have to burn 5% more fuel the go the same distance the emissions stay the same? Or was the real reason to raise extra revenue by charging us the same for less petrol,using more of it,hence more revenue?!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
580 Posts
Direct comparisons are not easy, since E5 and E10 refer to the maximum ethanol content (E5 contains between 0% and 5% ethanol, and E10 contains between 5.5% and 10% ethanol).

But let us assume we are comparing petrol containing 5% ethanol with petrol containing 10% ethanol...
Ethanol has approximately 70% of the energy density when compared to petrol, so E5 has 98.5% of the energy of pure petrol, and E10 has 97% of the energy.

If somebody is seeing 5% difference in their fuel consumption, then factors other than the energy density disparity are also present.

I like the idea of taxing vehicles by weight, Flintstone.
And not just because electric cars are really heavy!!

Edit: the rough and ready calculations above have assumed that pure petrol is indeed 100% petrol, but as we know there are other additives in the fuel we get from the pumps.
 

·
Premium Member
2015 Elegance Greenline II
Joined
·
6,893 Posts
What was the decision to add an extra 5% ethanol based on? Was it lower emissions? Is that the story we were told? Surely if we all have to burn 5% more fuel the go the same distance the emissions stay the same? Or was the real reason to raise extra revenue by charging us the same for less petrol,using more of it,hence more revenue?!
Pretty sure it's because ethanol is a renewable resource.
 

·
Premium Member
Kia Niro HEV2 and MG Midget
Joined
·
5,799 Posts
I see no-one has taken into account that in the last 2 weeks temperatures have dropped, which also increases fuel consumption.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
428 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
I see no-one has taken into account that in the last 2 weeks temperatures have dropped, which also increases fuel consumption.
Compared to the summers heights yes,but I have driven the Yeti through 7 previous winters with E5 petrol for comparisons.In fact economy is better in winter due to the air con not working hard.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
16,183 Posts
Less mpg was predicted before it was in use, when E10 came to the pumps there should have been a 2.5 per litre price reduction but it actually went up 1/2p
If anyone is worried about using it, as well as the option of using the posh petrol V power etc ECP included an additive in their email today which is supposed to take care of any potential problems. I didn't read the details but a bottle treats five tank fulls.
 
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top