Skip to main content

Eco fuel economy

A study conducted by VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland suggests that there is practically no difference between commercial petrol grades 95E10 and 98E5 sold in Finland with regard to fuel consumption during normal driving. The finding is based on driving tests conducted by VTT using six used cars of different make under laboratory conditions. It has been claimed in public that fuel consumption is higher with 95E10 petrol than with its predecessor 95E or the 98E5 petrol currently on the market. The su
April 19, 2012 Read time: 3 mins
RSSA study conducted by 814 VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland suggests that there is practically no difference between commercial petrol grades 95E10 and 98E5 sold in Finland with regard to fuel consumption during normal driving. The finding is based on driving tests conducted by VTT using six used cars of different make under laboratory conditions. It has been claimed in public that fuel consumption is higher with 95E10 petrol than with its predecessor 95E or the 98E5 petrol currently on the market. The suspected higher consumption has deterred drivers of cars whose manufacturers recommend E10 from actually using it.

“The point of this study was to highlight how fuel consumption should actually be measured to give comparable results. Measuring fuel consumption very accurately is not as simple as it seems, because other factors affect consumption besides the fuel itself. In laboratory conditions, we can eliminate these other factors,” said Juhani Laurikko, a Principal Scientist at VTT.

The VTT measurements show that the cars tested used an average of 10.30 litres of 95E10/ 100km, as opposed to 10.23 litres of 98E5/100km. The difference was 0.07 in favour of 98E5 on average, meaning that using 95E10 petrol, which has a higher ethanol content, increases consumption by 0.7%. Normalising measurement results of each individual test run with observed slight scatter in actual total work done over the driving cycle yields to somewhat higher overall difference, 1.0%. An estimation of calorific values based on approximate fuel composition came out at 1.1% in favour of E5, which is highly consistent with the aforementioned 1.0% difference in consumption. Fuel consumption depends mainly on the calorific value of the fuel. VTT obtained all the fuel used for the test runs at the same time from the Otaniemi Neste Oil service station in Espoo. So as to ensure that ethanol contents was in accordance with the specifications, the ethanol contents of both fuel batches was determined by the Finnish Customs Laboratory.

The results showed 4.7% for the E5-grade and 9.4% for the E10 grade. VTT performed the comparison test under controlled laboratory conditions, because of practical difficulties in measuring a car’s fuel consumption accurately and repeatability in normal driving. Therefore, the claims concerning differences in fuel consumption may be due to any number of other factors besides the type of fuel used. The study involved six petrol-driven cars loaned by VTT employees. The cars were of model years between 1999 and 2010 and, according to their manufacturers’ recommendations, compatible with E10-fuel. The cars were checked to ensure they were free of any faults or malfunctions that could have influenced the test results. VTT measured fuel consumption using the simplest and most reliable method: measuring the weight of fuel consumed. As the density of the fuel grades was known, establishing the volume of fuel consumed was simple. The driving programme used for the test drives was the FTP72 programme, which features more aggressive accelerations and a high average speed than corresponding EU cycle. Two drivers were used for the tests, both of them experienced and qualified for conducting accredited exhaust emission tests. Each car was driven by the same driver in all tests. Two tests were conducted on consecutive days for each petrol grade. The running order of the fuels was random. The study is a part of the five-year TransEco research programme launched at the initiative of VTT to make road traffic energy use more efficient, develop emissions-reducing technologies and commercialise the results of the development work.

Related Content

  • June 28, 2012
    Volvo Trucks develops I-See to save fuel
    Volvo Trucks has announced it has developed I-See, which operates like an autopilot and takes over gear-changing and utilises gradients to save fuel. The system, which will be available on the market next year, is linked to the transmission’s tilt sensor and obtains information about the topography digitally. The fact that the system is not dependent on maps makes it more dependable since it always obtains the very latest information. I-See can recall about 4,000 gradients, corresponding to a distance of 5,
  • August 5, 2013
    Idaho finds the right formula for winter maintenance
    Idaho’s use of key performance indicators to determine the effectiveness of its winter maintenance programme put it on the Best of ITS America shortlist. Idaho Transportation Department’s budget for winter maintenance is more than $25m – almost half of which is spent on snowplough operations. The State’s geography ranges from desert to mountains and Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has a 500+ strong winter maintenance fleet to undertake snowploughing and spreading salt, salt brine, magnesium chloride a
  • December 16, 2015
    Trials show fuel savings with connected vehicle technology
    American and European trials point to fuel and emissions reductions. A trial by University of California-Riverside (UC-Riverside) has shown connected vehicle technology has the potential to reduce fuel consumption (and therefore emissions) by up to 18% compared with an uninformed driver.
  • July 19, 2018
    Cost benefit: Toronto retimings tame traffic trauma
    Canada’s largest city reckons that it is saving its taxpayers’ money simply by altering the way traffic lights work. David Crawford reviews Toronto’s ambitious plans to ease congestion Toronto, Canada’s largest metropolis (and the fourth largest in North America), has saved its residents CAN$53 (US$42.4) for every CAN$1 (US$0.80) spent over a 2012-2016 traffic signal retiming programme, according to figures released by its Transportation Services Division. The programme covered 1,275 signals (the city’s