The introduction of new E10 fuel could increase motorists' fuel consumption by more than 10 per cent. The new fuel, which contains 10 per cent bioethanol, will be rolled out across the UK as part of the government’s commitment to reducing emissions.
But real-world testing by What Car? magazine found that vehicles running on E10 are less efficient than the current E5 (up to five per cent bioethanol) blend of fuel across every engine type tested. This means cars have to use more of the new fuel, costing drivers much more each year.
What Car? tested E10 against pure unleaded using a Dacia Sandero, Hyundai i30, Toyota Prius+ and a Mini Paceman. The Sandero registered a 11.5 per cent drop in economy, while the i30’s consumption increased by 9.8 per cent.
CO2 emissions also increased, although the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership told What Car? that increases would be partially offset by the renewable properties of bioethanol.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said that only 92 per cent of UK cars will run on E10, leaving 1.5 million petrol-powered vehicles at risk of not being able to use the fuel.
According to What Car?, the fuel had previously only been tested in laboratory conditions and the potential impact on fuel economy and CO2 emissions had not been communicated to motorists.
The fuel is expected to be introduced to the UK market later this year as part of the government’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and conforming to the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive. This requires 10 per cent of road transport energy to be from renewable sources by 2020.
What Car? editor-in-chief, Chas Hallett, called on the government to carry out in-depth tests to understand the financial impact on drivers. He said: “The US Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the detrimental effect of E10 on fuel economy is between three and four per cent, but even our small sample of tests proves otherwise.
“To lead consumers into E10 without fully communicating the significant impact on fuel economy, particularly for drivers least able to absorb the extra costs, is irresponsible.”
For an explanation of how What Car? carries out True MPG testing, click here.
Join the debate
Will86
News to Me
LP in Brighton
I think the emphasis is on "could" reduce
On the other hand, this does suggest that more and proper testing is needed before this fuel is released to market.
chrispinkney
E10 Fuel
Chefcook
E10 is available in Germany for years now...
We had the same rumors over here prior to the introduction of E10 and I do not know a single person reporting it being less efficient than E5.
scotty5
Very interesting
I just hope whoever does work out the mpg data isn't the same bloke who claimed my Focus can average 68mpg!
turbinecol
Older cars
Those interested should keep an eye on the FBHVC site. I understand that Super Unleaded remains at E5 for the moment.
DBtechnician
No surprise here then
More evidence can be found in the lack of support for wind turbines, offshore wave hub generators as well as other new technologies which could ensure we are less dependant on fossil fuels and importing fuel from overseas. Anything that ensures we burn more fuel such as speed humps & so called traffic calming measures is sanctioned by our government, who have no incentive to encourage us to burn less fuel as the motorist is just a cash cow for the treasury.
Has the public woken up to the fact that we are the ones who have to constantly cut back & use less energy in the home etc while it is clearly OK for our military to sail & fly half way round the world in order to secure more oil. How much Co2 do we as a nation spew out fighting this never ending war on terror.?
danturner99
well duhh....
Suzuki QT
Hmmm ...
Shane_2005
I used this on my brand new
I panicked and was terrified the car wouldn't start. Needless to say the car then proceeded across France just as happy as 95' petrol.
A non issue.
Pages
Add your comment