ROFL - "Its the boogey man!".
Its all about the way you use your motor, and the state of tune its in.
Would you fill you aeroplane up from the local 7-11? Even with E0?
Would you fill the wife's car with $15/litre ELF racing fuel for a trip to the shops?
Its all about the way you use your motor, and the state of tune its in.
I won't run E10 in my bikes because I've still got unanswered questions about its compatability with non-castor 2T oils, but The Wife and I must have done 250,000+kms in various cars on E10, without a hint of drama - even those that don't get the tick on the fcai website.
Maybe I'm doing it wrong?
Similarly, I know plenty of people running E85 in race and serious performance cars without a drama - and they're getting way more power than they would on 98 octane.
AvGas is crap for performance piston motors. All of the rally guys with properly built AvGas rally motors who decompressed them and retuned to run 98, got an extra ~10% power. As Wasp says, its only positive feature is that its super-consistant. It is very detonation resistant, but only because it burn impossibly slowly... I mean, running your engine on straight water would stop it detonating too...
The energy density per dollar of E10 vs E0 is virtually identical. Notable that ALL of my cars have gotten marginally better fuel economy on United E10 than on 91/92 octane E0 - even the crappy old carby XF ute (this doesn't make sense, but we proved it repeatedly).
The Volvos (that depend heavily on the O2 sensor and knock sensor) significantly better fuel economy, as the extra octane of the United E10 (was 95, now 94) allows a leaner tune than 91/92 - it more than compensates for the supposedly lower energy density.