E0 or E10 for direct injection?

[Patman]

Is is true that a fuel with 10% ethanol can actually keep engine deposits lower than ethanol free fuel? And if so, could it be beneficial to run E10 fuel in direct injected applications over E0? (I know the fuel never touches the intake valves, but I'm also thinking of the fuel vapors that circulate through the system)

I've been trying to run nothing but E0 fuel in my Corvette, as we can get ethanol free 91 octane at Shell and Costco up here, and I thought having ethanol free fuel was better for the engine but now I'm hearing it might be better to run fuel with 10% ethanol in it, in which case I'll switch to running Petro Canada Ultra 94 or Esso/Mobil's 93.

 

[StevieC]

Pat,

Chatting with Terry regularly I know he says that Ethanol Free fuel is better and advises folks to use Shell V-Power in our neck of the woods the premium gases here all seem to have more detergents than the lesser octane offerings so this could be why.

My cousin uses 87 Octane in her Veloster (first gen) with direct injection and turbo and it suffers from valve gunk build-up just the same as premium as we tried different fuel brands and octanes to see if it would solve the problem with her build-up.

So now we just have a catch can installed (for whatever it can help) and we do the CRC intake valve cleaner regularly. Hasn't needed valve cleaning since.

 

[sloinker]

The consensus seems to be to use a low volatility oil with relatively shorter change intervals and top tier gasoline that contains higher amounts of detergents. I see where you think the 10% ethanol would act as a detergent and you may be right. If you can find a top tier gasoline that also has the ethanol it may be worth using.

 

[LotI]

I've been primarily running top-tier E15 in my GTI since I bought it in May. 23k miles so far with 35k on the car. E15 has VW's blessing and I get the same mileage as with E10 or E0 so I figure what the heck. No issues with my DI engine but I haven't opened up the intake to peek at the valves. I have no symptoms of buildup like a rough idle or hard starting. I know it's a sample of one.

Ford says to stay with E10 or less for my truck. Bikes and OPE get E0.

 

[Cujet]

There is a very interesting you tube channel called "project farm". He uses the most basic of methods to test all manner of common things. From various epoxies to fuels and oil additives. Clearly, Project Farm not performing scientific lab testing to standards appropriate for a nuclear powerplant. He uses the tools he has at hand, and the results may or may not be valid for your situation.

With that in mind, it sure seems to me like many of his "real world" results are valid.

In this video, it sure looks to me like the fuel with ethanol created more carbon and did not run as well.

 

[MNgopher]

I've used both E0 and E10 91 octane in my 2016 F150 with the 2.7 Ecoboost engine. I can monitor how the engine is reacting to the gasoline by monitoring the Octane Adjustment Ratio (OAR), which essentially is an adjustment that allows the timing, etc... to be modified based on the fuel, so the truck can take advantage of higher octane fuels. (Ranges from +1 (bad) to -1 (Great). Using regular 87 octane, I usually come in around zero, meaning the baseline is more or less 87 octane fuel (as allowed by the owners manual).

The interesting thing is that when running premium fuel, I get much different OAR's. Running E10 91 octane, I get OARs always -0.5 or more, up to -0.8 using Shell and sometimes Superamerica (though I have not used that since it changed to non-top tier Speedway). Running E0 91 octane, I've never gotten higher than -0.4. Doesn't matter the source. I can source 87 octane E10 that will deliver the same apparent affect.

Does that mean the E10 is better than the E0? Not in terms of cleanliness or anything else other than it appears the the Ecoboost likes the Ethanol in terms of how it adjusts to deliver more power. Other areas with different fuel sources may vary...

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by Cujet
There is a very interesting you tube channel called "project farm". He uses the most basic of methods to test all manner of common things. From various epoxies to fuels and oil additives. Clearly, Project Farm not performing scientific lab testing to standards appropriate for a nuclear powerplant. He uses the tools he has at hand, and the results may or may not be valid for your situation.

With that in mind, it sure seems to me like many of his "real world" results are valid.

In this video, it sure looks to me like the fuel with ethanol created more carbon and did not run as well.




Didn't he say he didn't notice much difference in carbon? Also - that's a small equipment engine without electronic engine management.

However, since Top Tier was mentioned, the apparent requirement for the certification testing 8-10% ethanol in the testing fuel. They can apparently ask for permission to use less ethanol if it will match the fuel sold. However, I understand that the majority of these tests are conducted by the additive companies with test results that the fuel seller can submit. Since E10 is pretty much the standard these days, there's likely no incentive to pay for a new test with lower ethanol fuel. And the standard can be met with enough detergent used.

Quote
https://www.toptiergas.com/documents/15/TOP_TIER_GASOLINE_Performance_Standard_revE_2017-03.pdf
The base fuel shall have the following specific properties after the addition of ethanol:

1. Contain enough denatured ethanol such that the ethanol content is no less than 8.0 and no more than 10.0 volume percent as measured by ASTM D 4815 or D 5845. In markets with lower fuel ethanol content, fuel matching the market conditions of fuel ethanol content can be used upon approval.

 

[555]

I would go with higher octane for that application. Top Tier of course.
I will offer my data free opinion that sedate driving will increase deposits more than E10.
Nice car, by the way. Wish I could fit in one!

 

[ARB1977]

Running E10 87 top tier in my wife's 18 CRV 1.5LT. No change in fuel miles compared to 89.