Union Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari to E20 Petrol Critics: Show Me One Vehicle That Had Problems

Union Road Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari has responded forcefully to growing criticism around E20 fuel, challenging sceptics to provide a single example of a vehicle damaged by the 20 percent ethanol-petrol blend. His remarks come at a time when a significant number of motorists across India are reporting drops in fuel efficiency and performance issues after the shift to E20.

At a recent industry event, Gadkari dismissed such concerns as exaggerated or misplaced, suggesting that the backlash may be fuelled by vested interests. “Show me one vehicle anywhere in the world which had problems because of E20 petrol,” he said. He went on to suggest that the petroleum lobby may be behind the negative narrative, adding, “It appears the petroleum lobby is manipulating it.”

Growing Discontent Among Vehicle Owners

Despite the minister’s confident rebuttal, consumer experience tells a different story. Multiple surveys, including one with over 36,000 participants across more than 300 districts, suggest widespread dissatisfaction. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they were unhappy with the E20 rollout, with 44 percent demanding a complete rollback. More than 40 percent of vehicle owners claimed their mileage had dropped by 15 percent or more since the introduction of E20.

Online forums have been flooded with user reports highlighting issues beyond just reduced mileage. One car owner with a Maruti XL6 model documented not only lower fuel efficiency but also a case of rubber hoses being chewed by insects attracted to the ethanol smell, a safety hazard that came dangerously close to causing a fire.

The underlying science supports such complaints. Ethanol has lower energy content than petrol, around 30 percent less. This translates to more fuel consumption for the same distance, especially in vehicles not optimised for ethanol blends.

The Official Response and Its Gaps

In response to public backlash, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas released a statement calling the concerns “largely unfounded.” The ministry acknowledged the possibility of lower fuel efficiency but claimed the impact was minimal: a 1 to 2 percent drop in mileage for E20-compatible vehicles, and 3 to 6 percent for others.

However, these figures come from controlled laboratory tests and may not reflect actual road conditions. Independent experts and auto industry observers estimate real-world mileage losses of up to 6 to 7 percent, higher in older vehicles or those operating in varied conditions like stop-and-go city traffic or hilly terrain.

Another point of concern is the wear and tear on fuel system components. The government has admitted that rubber parts in older vehicles may need to be replaced after 20,000 to 30,000 kilometres of E20 usage. While described as routine maintenance, these are parts that generally last longer with conventional petrol, adding to the long-term ownership costs.

Ethanol's tendency to absorb moisture from the air makes it more corrosive, especially in humid regions. This can accelerate the degradation of key fuel system components such as injectors, seals, and pumps. Older cars, particularly those manufactured before April 2023, were not built to handle this type of fuel blend and may face long-term durability issues as a result.

Who Benefits and Who Pays?

The government has positioned ethanol blending as a win-win policy, reducing crude oil imports and boosting rural incomes by purchasing ethanol from sugarcane farmers. Since 2014, ethanol blending is reported to have saved over Rs 1.40 lakh crore in foreign exchange and earned Rs 1.20 lakh crore for farmers.

However, for the average vehicle owner, the economic picture is more complicated. Reduced mileage means more frequent refuelling, which increases the cost per kilometre. Compounding the issue is the lack of price benefit at the fuel pump. Although ethanol is cheaper to produce than petrol, these savings are not passed on to consumers. Motorists end up paying the same price per litre while getting fewer kilometres out of it.

In effect, consumers are footing the bill for a policy that benefits government energy targets and rural economics but leaves them with higher operating costs. This disconnect between macro-level benefits and micro-level burden is at the heart of the growing dissatisfaction.

Need for Balance in Policy Implementation

The Indian government is not the first to push for ethanol blending. Brazil and the United States have long histories with higher ethanol mixes. But these countries implemented the change differently. Brazil, for instance, uses flex-fuel vehicles specifically engineered to handle various ethanol-to-petrol ratios. Similarly, in the US, cars sold in ethanol-heavy regions come with software and hardware modifications to handle the fuel properly.

India’s approach has been comparatively more abrupt. While carmakers have been asked to manufacture E20-compliant vehicles from 2023 onwards, millions of older vehicles remain on the road. The sudden switch to a new fuel standard puts these vehicles at risk, both in terms of performance and longevity.

In light of this, Gadkari’s challenge, asking for proof of a vehicle damaged by E20, may miss the real issue. Most complaints are not about catastrophic engine failure but about long-term costs: lower fuel efficiency, component wear, and more frequent maintenance. These are slow-building problems that may not make headlines but affect millions of daily drivers.

A more balanced rollout could involve giving consumers a choice at the pump. Allowing both regular petrol and E20 blends, even if the former is priced higher, would enable the market to adapt more naturally. It would also provide an option for owners of older vehicles who are unwilling or unable to upgrade immediately.

Skirting The Issue

India’s ethanol blending programme has clear benefits from an environmental and economic standpoint. It helps reduce carbon emissions, supports agricultural incomes, and cuts dependence on imported oil. These goals are important and merit support.

However, their implementation must consider consumer impact. A policy that works well on paper can still generate discontent if it disrupts everyday lives. Until the government acknowledges the practical concerns of vehicle owners and provides real solutions, not just reassurances, the criticism is unlikely to go away.

Rather than framing the issue as propaganda, policymakers would do well to listen to the feedback on the ground and adjust the rollout accordingly. The success of the ethanol programme should not come at the cost of alienating the very people it is meant to serve.