E10 Ethanol Fuel - The definitive answer (3200/4200/GS)

T

TimR

Member
Messages
2,731
Zep said:
On carbs? I don’t doubt it. But it I assume it was also higher octane?
Click to expand...
No..FI. ( yes, I read the data sheet you posted a while back !!)
Due to higher compression ratio, yes, highest Octane rating available at all times...
It's all in your (my?) head !
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Zep
Zep

Zep

Moderator
Messages
9,229
TimR said:
No..FI. ( yes, I read the data sheet you posted a while back !!)
Due to higher compression ratio, yes, highest Octane rating available at all times...
It's all in your (my?) head !
Click to expand...

Who knows! :p
 
davy83

davy83

Member
Messages
2,821
Enz0 said:
I don't think replacing only the hardware makes 3200 compatible with E10.

High-performance petrol turbo engines are usually "knock limited". There are two problems with E10.
  1. E10 is 94 RON, lower-octane than 98 RON super-premium.
  2. Stoichiometric for E10 is 14.1, richer than 14.7 petrol. There should be no big problem as long as the fuel map is corrected with the lambda sensors. However, I think the old ECU used in 3200 will correct the fuel map only in low load situations, like idle or cruise. So, when the load is high, like when accelerating, the fuel mixture will be lean, and the lean mixture is a cause of knocking.
Click to expand...
The 3200 has knock sensors and the mixture and timing are tweaked to remove Knock, so the ECU will adapt and stop the knock from happening, so i suspect this is not actually that big a concern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zep
davy83

davy83

Member
Messages
2,821
UK government web site states
"If your petrol vehicle or equipment is not compatible with E10 fuel, you will still be able to use E5 by purchasing the ‘super’ grade (97+ octane) petrol from most filling stations."
So this is not an immediate problem.
 
davy83

davy83

Member
Messages
2,821
Oh an by the way, I think this whole carry on is deeply misguided. Ethanol is regarded as a renewable energy source because it is based on sugar from crops which we can grow. Its still carbon based and still generates CO2 when burned, so I am not sure I see the point. We are rapidly facing a lack of food in the world so using up the fields to grow petrol seems a bit daft. I mean we are not running out of oil, we just realise we need to stop burning it. So surely all the energy being used up to generate a carbon based replacement for petrol would be better spent on Hydrogen or some thing that actually helps and does not just **** everyone off.
I will get my coat now.
 
T

TimR

Member
Messages
2,731
Politically, there is no consensus to get anything meaningful done..
Just look at the grown men screaming 'foul' everytime Greta Thunberg opens her mouth to form a sentence, and you realise there never will be.
Careful what you wish for.....:no:
 
Oneball

Oneball

Member
Messages
11,106
davy83 said:
Oh an by the way, I think this whole carry on is deeply misguided. Ethanol is regarded as a renewable energy source because it is based on sugar from crops which we can grow. Its still carbon based and still generates CO2 when burned, so I am not sure I see the point. We are rapidly facing a lack of food in the world so using up the fields to grow petrol seems a bit daft. I mean we are not running out of oil, we just realise we need to stop burning it. So surely all the energy being used up to generate a carbon based replacement for petrol would be better spent on Hydrogen or some thing that actually helps and does not just **** everyone off.
I will get my coat now.
Click to expand...

Ethanol from crops is part of perhaps a 2-5 year carbon cycle so there is no net change in CO2 in the air over a short geological period.

CO2 generated from fossil fuels is releasing it into the atmosphere after being locked away for millions of years. So over a short geological period there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course it’s still part of the same carbon cycle and in the eyes of geological time not really any different but to our species it could be deadly
 
T

TimR

Member
Messages
2,731
Oneball said:
Ethanol from crops is part of perhaps a 2-5 year carbon cycle so there is no net change in CO2 in the air over a short geological period.

CO2 generated from fossil fuels is releasing it into the atmosphere after being locked away for millions of years. So over a short geological period there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course it’s still part of the same carbon cycle and in the eyes of geological time not really any different but to our species it could be deadly
Click to expand...
Not that Im knocking anyone willing to sully themselves with debate on the issue, but this is a somewhat simplified calculation. It's appeal is it's simplicity. If at any stage in the production process, dead dinosaur sh1t is used to manufacture the end product, by way of the production of fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides or indeed, the mechanical logistics of delivering these to the crop; not to mention it's manufacturing from vegetable to oil...it is nothing more than a sound bite of political cynnicism, designed and tailored to be the very vehicle to get past the attention span without scrutiny...
Until the quality of our lives is monetised.. clean air, clean water, the sights, sounds & colours of a vibrant world, driven by biodiversity; unless these aspects of human existence are quantified and costed, we will survive to be the only species on an otherwise barren world.
5% of the world's land mass is rainforest, for example. It is home to over 50% of the world's species, not to mention the medicine cabinet ( quite literally) of **** sapiens..And yet, we cut it down for palm oil and teak like its someone else's responsibility...
Ive always found that (over simpified ) statistic ( statistics; always wrong, sometimes useful) to be a startling indication of the capacity of **** sapiens to be stupefyingly ignorant....

seriously - you cant say 'h0mo' sapiens..?:D
 
davy83

davy83

Member
Messages
2,821
Oneball said:
Ethanol from crops is part of perhaps a 2-5 year carbon cycle so there is no net change in CO2 in the air over a short geological period.

CO2 generated from fossil fuels is releasing it into the atmosphere after being locked away for millions of years. So over a short geological period there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course it’s still part of the same carbon cycle and in the eyes of geological time not really any different but to our species it could be deadly
Click to expand...
So basically like I said its really a side show so why bother, its not the answer. The renewability of oil is not really a problem, because there is lots of it, its burning carbon based fuel is the problem so why can't we concentrate on the real problem.
 
Swedish Paul

Swedish Paul

Member
Messages
1,809
The Maserati dealers here have asked about the GS and say that HQ is keeping stum but the car will run fine on E10 but the rubbers and plastics may be vulnerable.
 
Zep

Zep

Moderator
Messages
9,229
Swedish Paul said:
Thanks for that.

I was trying to point out that Maserati are obviously not going to commit to saying E10 is fine, instead hinting that it should be fine. And they are taking the same line in more than one country.
Click to expand...

They haven’t hinted, they said it is safe to use but they recommend using the fuel stated in the manual.
 
Swedish Paul

Swedish Paul

Member
Messages
1,809
Zep said:
They haven’t hinted, they said it is safe to use but they recommend using the fuel stated in the manual.
Click to expand...
So why is this information not being passed through to the dealers? The Stockholm folk say they have asked, but no definitive answer is given by Maserati. The manual says E5, so it’s probably best to use as the bare minimum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.