Talk Morgan Forums Morgan Sports Cars Maintenance & Servicing E10 fuel

The ethanol free Esso seems to make a difference. Belle is running much smoother, probably just my perception but I will use it for at least 1 in 4 fills.

I shall be using that in my 4/4 once E10 arrives.
I used to add Valvemaster to the fuel in my '76 X-flow.

Yep, I use that or the Esso equivalent. I bung in a splash of Valvemaster Plus if I have to put E10 in.

I thought that this post by Allon White was rather useful on this subject
https://allonwhite.co.uk/car-blog/e...oftware&utm_term=E10%20compatibility

Esso Super it is then for now as it is 0 ethanol in most of the Uk

As I am close to finish the restoration of my 1984 Morgan 4/4 with Ford CVH engine, I have been looking into the E10 topic as well.
Please note that I do not claim to be an expert on this topic - this is simply a summary of my research on the topic:

In short: I will avoid E10 as long as I can - but will prepare my Morgan for it as good as I can:


CVH engine:
I was told that later CVH engines in Ford cars from 1992 will work with E10. This can also be found here
This is only valid for Ford cars with injection (sold from 1992). While earlier CVH engines should work with E10 - the carburetor and the rest of the fuel system need to be looked at.

Carburetor
The Weber 32/34 DFT 4B found on most earlier Morgan 4/4 CVH models is NOT E10 compatible. The old gaskets, float and O-rings have not been designed for Ethanol.
That said - Webcon stated on their facebook page that the Genuine Spanish Webers are 100% E10 tolerant. The pictures of the 32/34 DMTL jet after 6 months not being used clearly show an issue to be aware off. If you do choose to use E10 - better start your car regularly.

The material (gaskets, o-ring, membranes) in the newer service kits for the 32/34 DFT and DMTL looks identical to me. While there is no guarantee - I am quite sure that a rebuild 32/34 DFT (using the new kit and incl. float) should also cope with E10.

fuel line:
Hopefully, somebody in the forum here found a here as a more definitive answer, but I was told that the plastic fuel lines used by Morgan up to 1986 (and maybe later) are NOT E10 tolerant. The current E10 debate in the UK is reason for me to address this topic in my rebuild project again. Right now I used the old lines, in the same location. Once the interior is back in - it would be difficult to replace. Of course - you can mount/install new fuel lines outside on the chassis. Maybe, this is slightly better anyway.

Filter/pressure regulator:
Older paper based filter will have issues with E10 - but this is the easiest piece to replace anyway.
I went with a Malpassi Filter King and this works with E10. Recommendation: if you buy a Filter king get one that allows you to connect a pressure gauge....


Fuel pump:
While I am not sure if the old Bosch fuel pump on my Morgan was original or not - I found out it was not suited for E10. The Facet silver top I choose as replacement is E10 compatible and is a good recommendation.


Tank:
Even though it is not too long ago that I mentioned to Simon H. in a post here that I am happy with the fuel tank I just restored - it is most likely a good idea to switch to a stainless steel tank. As my restoration budget has been used completely - this will need to wait a while, but if you want to use E10 - this needs to be done.
As mentioned before here in the forum Ethanol is hygroscopic.


Again - I am just a fellow Morganeer and the above is the result of what I could find for my CVH based Morgan 4/4.
Hopefully, it helps others. If you drive a CVH based Morgan and don't have certainty on all components above in your Morgan - don't use E10 on a regular base. It should not kill your car if you mix it better fuel and use it quickly.

Regards
Tim

Well, I was polishing Mrs M's shopping tin-top and found this behind the fuel filler cap...very reassuring, thanks to Lexus

Whilst I do understand the concept of the E-number in unleaded fuel as well as the RON and the benefits both have for an engine, combined with the additional additives that the fuel companies put in their higher-performance versions, I am lacking in similar knowledge about Diesel fuel. Therefore my comments and questions are as follows:

1. I always use the higher-performance version available. Until recently I was very much a Shell V-Power man and have recently switch completely to Esso Synergy Supreme +99 as Esso clearly state that in most of the UK there is zero Ethanol in this fuel. I even use this in my lawnmower as it lasts far longer in the tank which is very helpful over the winter.

2. I have therefore blindly used the equivalent higher-performance Diesel in my Range Rover, however I have no idea what the B-number is and as Diesel doesn't have a RON I am beginning to wonder if there is a similar benefit in paying the extra for the allegedly better fuel. Is anyone able to assist me in understanding a little more about the make up and differences between regular Diesel and, say V-Power Diesel so I can make a more informed choice?

Just posted this in another thread. Observations on fuel, additives etc

Back in 2000 I bought a focus turbo diesel. My commute was 60 miles each way, mainly M4 in West Wales, Llanelli to Cardiff. A no-brainer at that mileage. I experimented with Miller diesel octane boost. From memory. £12 a bottle for multi dosing. Car ran fine, no noticable power increase ( I couldn’t feel on3).. When on bottle 2 I started mpg checks as bottle 1 primed the system. My mpg increased. I converted it to money value. Bottle cost £12, fuel saved over the period of bottle use £36. Net saving £24. The time per bottle was 2-3 months ( can’t remember which. A decent saving. A mate tried it in his car but no difference found. It was a Golf diesel so, in hindsight perhaps not a good comparison!
Plus 8 observations next. I had occasional MIL light come on. Fault was “ random intermittent misfire”. Car was running well with no discernible misfire. GEMS system and it does a stats check and requires a triggering for a fault at a predetermined detection level. I checked everything plygs, leads, connections, new filter ) but it still occasinally popped up. Fuel was not getting stale due to regular use. I tried V-Piwer. Bingo! No fault codes. I reverted to 95 octane and they restarted. So 97 it is as much as possible with 95 as a back up.
MOT history for the Plus8 showed lambda results just coming in ok towards top limit from previous owner historic files. Never had a fail since I owned the car. Last Nov MOT with V-Power with 5% ethanol gave the lowest lambda reading I have noted. Ethanol effect?
My next obs will be with Esso zero ethanol if I can get it easily. V-Power pre MOT though, you never know!
I have looked for data about ethanol effect on lambda in emissions tests but not found a good reliable source yet.

My car is ok engine wise for E10 according to the info given. However, the non engine parts MAY not be. Fuel lines, pump seals etc.
When I had my 1993 4/4 I replaced a failed fuel pump so changed flexi fuel lines at the same time due to their age but looking ok so just precautionary, and added a filter to protect the new pump. I can’t remember the actual spec of the rubber pipes though as it was back in 2014.

Cheaper 95 octane fuel caused lamba sensor issues in cold weather on the passenger side on my S1 Roadster. V power super & Esso super cured that.
I am lucky in that the nearest station is Esso and their super here is EtOH free