Yep, with you Byron, sounds like its a nice motor. This thread's been in the back of my mind, I was gonna email Shell, but have been busy, so today I thought I'll just phone and ask, surprisingly quick and easy, ended up talking to to a pretty knowledgeable sounding person in customer support he seemed to know quite alot about petrol.... well I spose you'd expect that (lol) - jokes aside it was an interesting convo. Here's what I learnt, and it completely supports the assessment of yourself and Big Rob, E-10 wont detonate or cause damage in the combustion chamber, but, rubber hoses, seals, grommets etc that are not upgraded to modern E-10 spec will not like it and most likely perish.
So; the Federal Chamber of Auto Manufacturers published on their website, a list of all vehicles for fuel compatibility as Australia moved to unleaded. (I didnt bother to look it up, the bloke at Shell looked it up and quoted it to me) saying that for Holden, all models post 1986, and no models prior to 1986 are suitable for E-10. In further convo as I suggested this was a bit non-specific, he explained that The Chamber of Auto Manufacturers derived this list by talking to auto manufacturers, the problem would have been older fuel hoses and seals etc, there is no issue with detonation, fuel efficiency or damage to internal components of the block for any of these engines using either ULP or E-10, (as long as there is a lead substitute added) its just the "hoses and seals", so, in my mind that goes, all fuel hoses (including at the seperator near the tank), carby, fuel pump grommets, diaphram, etc. what have I left out?
Anyway, the Customer Support Officer from Shell also explained that ethanol adds extra oxygen, this means that apart from the non compatible rubber/synthetic hoses, seals etc, pre-86 Holden engines should actually run slightly better, and gain slight fuel efficiency because they are carburated. With E-10 at around 91-95 octane, they should lean out a little, giving a bit better efficiency than ULP and be very close to original spec. This efficiency gain (which would only be "slight") would not however occur with fuel injected engines.
He gave this information on the basis that I said I was a member of an online Sandman forum, and that most members were easily capable of replacing rubber components in their fuel systems should they decide to. Rubber compound or other, (non E-10 rated) synthetic engine parts are not recommended; he advised talking to the manufacturer of fuel hoses and seals (etc) and use components that are rated for E-10.
The Customer Support Officer also talked a bit about E-85 saying that that E-85 is a "very different fuel" Shell dont currently produce it but its something like 100 Octane, few engines not built for it can run on it although there are tuning kits available for some engines.
(It seems to me that whilst rubber components may break down relatively quickly on E-10, it could (imaginably, maybe) take longer for this to happen with newer but still non E-10 rated hoses etc, however Big Robs comment is pretty valid. You dont want a fuel pump diaphragm to suddenly leak, or granules of rubber from anywhere getting into the carby jets - perhaps late at night - on the highway - with no tools, and you wont know if or when it is going to happen.)
Also... according to the guy from Shell, Victoria has legislated a minimum of 6% ethanol in all auto petrol now anyway with NSW to follow suit, sounds like upgrading to E-10 rated hoses, carby and fuel pump parts, (etc) might be a good idea anyway - perhaps next carby overhaul.... (hmmn possibly made neccecary by using E-10... lol).
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks