 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / BMW Cars / August 2008More on Top Tier gasoline
Usually I get 24 miles to the gallon for stop-and-go city driving with the '06 Camry LE, but this last tankful I got 28 city. I really babied the accelerator pedal this time and, of course, have plenty of air in the tires. I had Shell V-Power premium in the tank this time (for its exceptional detergent levels), but usually I just put in a regular grade. I had Hy-Vee Grocery Store premium in there two tankfuls back, and thought the car was idling kinda rough sometimes while stopped, so I thought some Shell V-Power was in order to help clean out any minute amounts of potential gunk I might have gotten from the Hy-Vee gas. When I asked him, the Hy-Vee manager said his gas met the Top Tier standard, but Hy-Vee is not on the list of Top Tier stations at toptiergas.com, so I doubt Hy-Vee is Top Tier. On Hy-Vee, the car once idled at only 600 rpm; I've never seen it idle so low. Usually 650 to 700 is the lowest it'll idle at. It could have been a coincidence that the one 600 idle happened under Hy-Vee. Quoting the Break Time page at the MFA Oil web site: "TOP TIER Gasoline is a new class of gasoline with enhanced detergency. It meets new, voluntary deposit control standards developed by four automotive companies - BMW, General Motors, Honda and Toyota - that exceed the detergent requirements imposed by the EPA. "TOP TIER Gasoline keeps engine parts cleaner by reducing fuel-related deposits, resulting in better performance. A lower level of detergent may cause a buildup of deposits on critical engine parts. These deposits can cause stalling, rough idling, lowered acceleration and other unnecessary problems in your vehicle--and your life. "TOP TIER Gasoline: * Improves fuel efficiency * Prevents driving upsets (rough idle, hesitation, stalling and surge) * Improves acceleration * Provides more power * Reduces emissions * Cleans dirty engines and keeps new engines clean MFA Oil Company is proud to join industry leaders by requiring TOP TIER Gasoline with higher levels of detergent in all grades and every gallon of gasoline at Break Time Convenience Stores. Link: http://www.mfaoil.com/index.cfm?show=10&mid=14&pid=4 > I had Hy-Vee Grocery Store premium Ugh. This is about the same as Getty, Gibbs, Hess, etc regular. It's usually bottom of the barrel gas. I like my cars a lot better than that... > > I had Hy-Vee Grocery Store premium > > ======== [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I like my cars a lot better than that... ======== That was the first and only time I'll use Hy-Vee gas. They're regular grade is 89 octane, just like their mid-grade and priced the same. But my car was using their 91 octane premium. They lost a customer....good place to buy groceries, though. >>> I had Hy-Vee Grocery Store premium >>> ======== [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > premium. They lost a customer....good place to buy > groceries, though. Do you know what terminal they get their gas from? Wonder if it is Conoco, Exxon, or Shell? > Do you know what terminal they get their gas from? > Wonder if it is Conoco, Exxon, or Shell? Do you know additives they put in? They weren't the same ones used by Conoco, Exxon, or Shell retailers. >> Do you know what terminal they get their gas from? >> Wonder if it is Conoco, Exxon, or Shell? > > Do you know additives they put in? They weren't the same ones used by > Conoco, Exxon, or Shell retailers. How do you know that? In article <651bc804-021d-483c-9d29-8e6b10ec2514@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > I had Hy-Vee Grocery Store premium in there two tankfuls > back, and thought the car was idling kinda rough sometimes > while stopped, so I thought some Shell V-Power was in > order to help clean out any minute amounts of potential > gunk I might have gotten from the Hy-Vee gas. More likely that the engine computer got used to the grocery store gas than anything else. Two tankfuls isn't enough to cause THAT much problem with deposits. After reviewing the list of TOP TIER Gasoline Retailers at their website, http://www.toptiergas.com/retailers.html , I couldn't help but notice that Valero, one of the largest independent refiners in the eastern US, was not on the list. Here in Delaware, the Valero refinery in Delaware City was built in the mid 1950's specifically designed to handle sour crude. It is still in operation, providing numerous retail operations in this region, including Shell (which IS on the list) with their gasoline. If suppliers like Turkey Hill Minit Markets and Qwik Trip are identified as being Top Tier gasolinr retailers, why isn't Valero? Especially if they are supplying gasoline to companies that ARE on the list? > Usually I get 24 miles to the gallon for stop-and-go city > driving with the '06 Camry LE, but this last tankful I got [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Link: http://www.mfaoil.com/index.cfm?show=10&mid=14&pid=4 > If suppliers like Turkey Hill Minit Markets and Qwik Trip are > identified as being Top Tier gasolinr retailers, why isn't Valero? > Especially if they are supplying gasoline to companies that ARE on the > list? It's a matter of additives which are mixed with the gasoline at a later stage (at the distribution center). So, by adding specific additives/detergents, a company that receives plain gasoline from Valero can claim that their gas is "top tier". Valero choses not to include those detergents in sufficient quantities at their retail locations, hence they didn't make the list. Pete >After reviewing the list of TOP TIER Gasoline Retailers at their website, >http://www.toptiergas.com/retailers.html , I couldn't help but notice that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> driving with the '06 Camry LE, but this last tankful I got >> 28 city. I really babied the accelerator pedal this time Hi Doug, You have hit on a problem with sites like this. Nowhere on their web site is the owner of the web site listed. They state that gasoline must meet their requirements but their site doesn't list their requirements. Could the major requirement be paying to be listed? Most gasoline sold in any major metro area comes from just a few refineries. The Toledo, Ohio metro area has just two refineries that supply over 90% of the gas sold in NW Ohio. The oil companies say that they have their own additive package that is added to the tanker as it's filled. That may be true, I don't know. But one thing I do know is that no gas station in my area sells bad gas. If they did, they wouldn't stay in business. You will get good gasoline almost anywhere you buy it so don't pay any attention to web sites that purport to rate gasoline or oil companies. And don't waste your money buying premium gas if your car doesn't need it, you won't get better mileage and your car won't run better on it. Jack >You have hit on a problem with sites like this. Nowhere on their web >site is the owner of the web site listed. They state that gasoline >must meet their requirements but their site doesn't list their >requirements. Could the major requirement be paying to be listed? According to the NIC, the toptiergas.com site is registered by GM. --scott  Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >>You have hit on a problem with sites like this. Nowhere on their web >>site is the owner of the web site listed. They state that gasoline [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >According to the NIC, the toptiergas.com site is registered by GM. >--scott Thanks Scott. Now, what are their requirements in order to be listed? Jack "doug" ... > After reviewing the list of TOP TIER Gasoline Retailers at their website, > http://www.toptiergas.com/retailers.html , I couldn't help but notice that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > as being Top Tier gasolinr retailers, why isn't Valero? Especially if they > are supplying gasoline to companies that ARE on the list? It is all in the additive package added to the tanker truck after/during/before the same base gas is transferred to the trick. Same gas, different additives. I, for one, am not convinced that this Top Tier stuff has any meaning at all anyway. Tomes Actually one of our car mags here in the UK have just run an article on BP hi-grade gas & Diesel. They state that the claims for extra mileage is true but the most convincing for me at least is the test using an Audi V8 adapted to run one bank on regular gas/petrol and the other bank on BP Ultimate. They fitted cameras to the inside of the combustion chambers and the regular fuel side is a shitty as hell and the BP Ultimate side is like a new stainless steel sink with no deposits and sparkling clean. You might see pics on the web "Car Mechanics" or "Kelsey Publishing" try - http://www.kelsey.co.uk Hugh >Usually I get 24 miles to the gallon for stop-and-go city >driving with the '06 Camry LE, but this last tankful I got [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > >Link: http://www.mfaoil.com/index.cfm?show=10&mid=14&pid=4 SignatureSir Hugh of Bognor The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys. Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it! Hugh Gundersen hsg@h-gee.co.uk Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK > Actually one of our car mags here in the UK have just run an article on BP > hi-grade gas & Diesel. [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] >> >> Link: http://www.mfaoil.com/index.cfm?show=10&mid=14&pid=4 It all depends on how you look at it. Unless you are racing or pulling a heavy load up a hill it won't matter what the octane rating is. Top tier refers to the additives that prevent build up of deposits, especially on the intake valves. As far as getting extra mileage with higher octane? I don't buy it, either the argument or the product. A friend of mine would always by premium fuel, it ranged from 15 to 20 cents more per gallon. I suggested he try regular instead, but it wasn't until we did the math that he tried it. It went something like 300K miles divided by 25 miles/gal = 12K gal times 18 cents = 2160 dollars. To me it's all about what it costs to get a mile down the road, total expenses. Fuel, tires,insurance repairs, maintenance. You can drive a Caddie or Lexus and it's going to cost you more per mile, you can go to the other extreme and drive a used tin can and get down the road pretty cheap. I've found Honda Accords and Toyota Camerys to be a pretty good all around cars, comfortable enough, right size enough, economical enough to get me that mile down the road without breaking the bank. I use regular in them, top tier regular if it's there but I don't worry all that much about it. The EPA has standards for fuel which must be met and deposit problems are addressed by them. I stay away from ethanol. The only preignition or knocking I've encountered in a long time are with a couple of lawnmowers and a motorcycle. Quit kidding yourself, Do the math and get yourself some free money. > As far as getting extra mileage with > higher octane? I don't buy it, Octane is not the issue. Cleanliness of the fuel injectors and intake valves and combustion chambers is the issue. Get 'em clean first--either by adding an off the shelf cleaner like Techron, or by using Shell's or BP's highest octane fuels. It's not the octane that you're looking for, it's the EXTRA cleaners that they charge for by putting them ONLY inside their highest octane fuels. Your choice. Once clean, keep everything clean--by using a Top Tier gas. Any octane rating. THEN you'll find that your fuel cost per mile is lower by using a Top Tier gas than by using grocery store gas, for example. Don't calculate mileage, calculate the true fuel cost of driving a mile. Gasoline from a Top Tier vendor such as Shell may be a bit more expensive to buy, but I found that in the end it costs less per mile to use. You can buy on price, or you can buy on value. If you buy on price, you'll probably spend more per mile to fuel your car. On Jul 29, 7:13 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote: > In article <488ef841$0$4014$bbae4...@news.suddenlink.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > You can buy on price, or you can buy on value. If you buy on price, > you'll probably spend more per mile to fuel your car. I think you hit the nail on the head, Elmo, at least on certain types of cars. I've had my 98 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP for a little over ten years now, and follow the gas mileage carefully. Using 92 octane, I will get a full mile per gallon better than using mid-grade. Using 87 octane will cost me 3-4 mpg, so it costs me a LOT more by using the cheaper gasoline. The difference in acceleration is very noticeable as well. Of course, with the 3.8 supercharged engine, the owners manual states that premium unleaded is required, and I can see why. Based on these experiences I would not even consider running anything other than premium in my Trans Am. I am curious as to what, if any, difference that running premium in my 06 GP (3.8 not supercharged) would make. I have only used 87 octane since I bought it two years ago. Even with gas prices as high as they are, I am tempted to try a couple of tankfulls to see if it makes a difference. <coachrose13@hotmail.com> wrote in message I am curious as to what, if any, difference that running premium in my 06 GP (3.8 not supercharged) would make. I have only used 87 octane since I bought it two years ago. Even with gas prices as high as they are, I am tempted to try a couple of tankfulls to see if it makes a difference. ******************************************** My last 3 GM cars had the 3.8. No difference with the higher grades in both performance or mileage. They are well tuned for regular it seems. >On Jul 29, 7:13 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Of course, with the 3.8 supercharged engine, the owners manual states >that premium unleaded is required, and I can see why. Well of course you'll get better mileage using the grade of gasoline recommended by the manufacturer. That's a given. There are a lot of reasons why this is true and almost all have to do with pre-ignition, not with the additive package. In most cases, the premium grade will have the exact same package as the regular grade. >Based on these experiences I would not even consider running anything >other than premium in my Trans Am. > >I am curious as to what, if any, difference that running premium in my >06 GP (3.8 not supercharged) would make. I have only used 87 octane >since I bought it two years ago. Using a grade of gasoline that is above the manufacturer's recommendation is a waste of money. The manufacturer knows what his product was designed to do and what it's requirements are. You should follow his recommendations. Jack >>On Jul 29, 7:13 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> >>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>cost me 3-4 mpg, so it costs me a LOT more by using the cheaper >>gasoline. The difference in acceleration is very noticeable as well. I'm interested that you say you get "a full mile per gallon better". That suggests that you normally get results which are consistent to within a fraction of an mpg, such that a difference between fuels is significantly greater than the difference between successive tank-fillings on the same fuel. My experience, with both petrol and diesel cars, is that the variation between one tank filling and another is about +/- 3 mpg, depending on factors such as the type of driving (mainly urban / mainly high-speed / some mixture of the two) and different points that different fuel pumps cut off when they sense that the tank is full. My figures are for filling the car to the pump cut-off point and then running it until the tank is fairly low - typically for fillings of about 50 litres (11 gallons UK / 13.5 gallons US) and journeys of around 550-650 miles. I've noticed a difference in the smoothness of the engine and the acceleration between supermarket diesel and BP Ultimate diesel, though some of this could be wishful thinking to compensate for the extra cost of BP Ultimate - when you pay gold-plated prices maybe your brain thinks it can see extra gold-plated performance! > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:17:58 -0700 (PDT), coachros...@hotmail.com > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > greater than the difference between successive tank-fillings on the same > fuel. When I say "a full mile per gallon better ", I mean that driving under the same type driving conditons, speed, weather, pay load, highway or city, air conditoner use, etc if I drive the SAME way, I will get one mile per gallon better on a consistent basis. Have done so for years. Maybe not a noticeable difference, but the higher octane gasoline is better for my particular automobile. > My experience, with both petrol and diesel cars, is that the variation > between one tank filling and another is about +/- 3 mpg, depending on > factors such as the type of driving (mainly urban / mainly high-speed / some > mixture of the two) and different points that different fuel pumps cut off > when they sense that the tank is full. Of course, if I am driving 85 on the interstate, I will get less mileage than if I am cruising at 70 (which is the speed I usually use to test my gas mileage), even less if I slow down to 65 or so. > My figures are for filling the car to the pump cut-off point and then > running it until the tank is fairly low - typically for fillings of about 50 > litres (11 gallons UK / 13.5 gallons US) and journeys of around 550-650 > miles. I use my car's on board mileage calculator, which I have tested and found to be extremely reliable. > I've noticed a difference in the smoothness of the engine and the > acceleration between supermarket diesel and BP Ultimate diesel, though some > of this could be wishful thinking to compensate for the extra cost of BP > Ultimate - when you pay gold-plated prices maybe your brain thinks it can > see extra gold-plated performance!- Hide quoted text - I feel the same way about using Shell's Premium. My car runs a little better on it than on other brands. (At least I THINIK it does!) > - Show quoted text - >>On Jul 29, 7:13 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> >>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > not with the additive package. In most cases, the premium grade will > have the exact same package as the regular grade. Thomas Plucinsky, BMW Product and Technology Communications Manager told us the type and quality of additives the gasoline companies include in the fuel. Premium gasolines may have better additive packages which are more effective keeping fuel systems (particularly injectors) clean and working efficiently, than those in regular grade fuels or off-brand products. Using lower octane or off-brand fuel could be degrading the fuel system over time, setting you up for a repair bill down the line. > Well of course you'll get better mileage using the grade of gasoline > recommended by the manufacturer. That's a given. There are a lot of > reasons why this is true and almost all have to do with pre-ignition, > not with the additive package. wow, how uninformed can one person be. > In most cases, the premium grade will > have the exact same package as the regular grade. And it gets even worse. > Retired VIP <jackj.extradots.180@windstream.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > And it gets even worse. IMO, he's the one that's right and you're wrong. http://www.state.mn.us/mn/externalDocs/Commerce/Gasoline_Octane_Facts_1029020522 27_OctaneFacts.pdf and http://dnr.louisiana.gov/sec/execdiv/techasmt/ecep/trans/b/b.htm and http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/679412.page and http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1186410.page All support his assertions. FloydR I hate to bring up the Direct injection thing again, but its related to top tier gas. True or False? Fuels without more detergents/cleaners wont affect a direct injection engine as much since the intake valves dont carry gasoline since the fuel is injected via nozzles. In article <f34d91bc-3500-441e-abc5-bac6ceaa760b@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, > Fuels without more detergents/cleaners wont affect a direct injection > engine as much since the intake valves dont carry gasoline since the > fuel is injected via nozzles. The injectors themselves can get crudded up, so yeah, it's still something to worry about. >I hate to bring up the Direct injection thing again, but its related > to top tier gas. > True or False? > Fuels without more detergents/cleaners wont affect a direct injection > engine as much since the intake valves dont carry gasoline since the > fuel is injected via nozzles. As Elmo says, you've got to keep the injectors clean. Diesel engines have major problems when the fuel is dirty, so I would expect similar problems, although somewhat reduced due to gasoline's viscosity and other problems. However, I have seen a recent post on roadfly on the E90/92 forum about at least one early 335i having trouble with deposit buildups on their intake valves. Since gasoline is injected into the cylinder (rather than intake manifold before the valves), and "bad" things are happening as far as valve deposits: http://forums.roadfly.com/forums/bmw/bmw_3_series_e90/8991298-1.html As with any anecdote, caution is in order, especially since this isn't the first direct injection gasoline engine around. FloydR > > Retired VIP <jackj.extradots.180@windstream.net> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > IMO, he's the one that's right and you're wrong. Right or wrong about what? Pre-ignition is not the same thing as knock (detonation). It is just one of several things that lead to detonation. Also the information you supplied is out-dated. Most modern cars have knock sensors that adjust engine tune to avoid knock. That actually means many cars (probably most cars) get improved mileage with higher octane fuel even though the engine doesn't knock on lower octane fuel. This is because the computer adjusts timing and A/F mixture in response to the way the fuel burns. And it takes a while to learn the ideal response. Of course better mileage doesn't mean cost efficient. To determine that you need to weigh the higher against the actual measured mileage. The only way you can tell if your car (any car) gets improved mileage with premium is to test it with different octane and different brand fuels under controlled driving conditions. That isn't something most drivers are able or willing to do. This is further complicated by the fact that the main octane booster that is being used today for gasoline in the USA is ethanol. Ethanol is added at the terminal to the base fuel (base fuel is the same for all brands) and thus varies from one brand to another. From what I have read ethanol is being added to gasoline rather willy-nilly in most places in the country. This because no one is actually regulating or monitoring etanol usage. Spot checks by some investigators have found huge variations in the amount of ethanol in pumps labeled E10 (some are way too high and some way too low) and in many places there is no labeling of ethanol content at all. So the octane ratings at the pump are in reality a bit of a fiction. -jim > http://www.state.mn.us/mn/externalDocs/Commerce/Gasoline_Octane_Facts_1029020522 27_OctaneFacts.pdf > and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > FloydR ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > Floyd Rogers wrote: >> > Retired VIP <jackj.extradots.180@windstream.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > To determine that you need to weigh the higher against the actual > measured mileage. The MN citation is from 2004. The cartalk forum stuff is from 2008. Only the LA "test" was from 1991. Here's a FTC citation from 2005: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt064.shtm "At the Pump: Use the Octane Level You Need Your owner's manual recommends the most effective octane level for your car. For most cars, the recommended gasoline is regular octane. In most cases, using a higher octane gas than the manufacturer recommends offers no benefit. Unless your engine is knocking, buying higher octane gasoline is a waste of money. " Since most cars are tuned for 87 octane, they won't get better mileage on 91. In fact, I have checked our Highlander and Camry ("best" performance on 89) and it gets the same mpg on both. And our 2001 & 2007 BMWs get the same on 91 or 87; but with significantly less power. > ...This is further complicated by the > fact that the main octane booster that is being used today for > gasoline in the USA is ethanol. Ethanol is added at the terminal to > the base fuel (base fuel is the same for all brands) and thus varies > from one brand to another. Ethanol at the common 10% levels decreases our economy by about 1/2 mpg from pure gasoline. That's about 0.5/25.0 or 2%. Ethanol is an entirely different discussion from octane. The decreased mileage is due to the lower energy content. Note that both premium and regular gasoline have the same ENERGY content (which affects mpg), even though they have different octane ratings. FloydR > > Floyd Rogers wrote: > >> > Retired VIP <jackj.extradots.180@windstream.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Since most cars are tuned for 87 octane, they won't get better mileage on > 91. That ignores the reality that most modern cars are tuned on the fly. > In fact, I have checked our Highlander and Camry ("best" performance on 89) > and it gets the same mpg on both. And our 2001 & 2007 BMWs get the same > on 91 or 87; but with significantly less power. I suspect if you tested this in a truly controlled way you would find otherwise. Drive the same route at the same rate everyday. And as said you really don't know what is in the pump. The base fuel for regular is 83 octane nowadays add 5% ethanol and you have 85 octane. Add 15% and you have 89 octane. Most cars will get better mileage on the 89 octane because most cars run like crap on 65 octane, but you have no idea what is in the pump. Yet you come up with your fantasy numbers. > > ...This is further complicated by the > > fact that the main octane booster that is being used today for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ethanol at the common 10% levels decreases our economy by about 1/2 mpg > from pure gasoline. OK you made that up out of mixture of thin air and wishful thinking. > That's about 0.5/25.0 or 2%. Ethanol is an entirely > different discussion from octane. Wrong and a good indication you aren't paying attention. Ethanol is the method of boosting the vast majority of gasoline sold in the US up to the necessary octane level. But that assumes somebody remembered to add the right amount. Most of the base stock fuel being produced at refineries is too low octane for most cars on the road to run very well and ethanol is for the most part the only available additive that can boost the octane sufficiently and is economical and permitted. > The decreased mileage is due to the lower > energy content. Wrong again. Decreased mileage is usually due to very poor gas (~83 octane) that was supposed to have ethanol added but doesn't. It may or may not be labeled as having ethanol added even though it might not have any ethanol. Labeling at the pump is not much of an indication because mislabeling results in no penalty and the fact is the retailers often don't know anymore than you do about what is actually in their tanks. So your claim that you know how much ethanol affects your mileage is a fantasy. > Note that both premium and regular gasoline have the same ENERGY > content (which affects mpg) Actually no that isn't true. Even if we are talking about base fuel stocks coming from the refineries before any ethanol is added, then premium base has usually less energy than regular base stock. Usually it is about 3%-5% less energy in the higher octane base stock. Look it up if you don't believe me - the API has statistics. Even though there is less energy in high octane everyone knows there are some cars get significantly better mileage with premium. So no you are wrong, energy content does not predict what a vehicles mileage will be. There is a pretty simple reason for this: The ICE used in autos wastes around 75% of the energy content of the fuel. Therefore how efficiently a vehicle can use a particular fuel determines mileage not its energy content. An engine that wastes 70% of the fuel it burns will get 50% better mileage than the same engine if it would waste 80%. And that is pretty much what the range of efficiency of most of the engines on the road today. So the actually energy content is not anywhere near as important as how efficiently a car can use the fuel. And if you think octane plays no role in efficiency you simply aren't paying attention. At most gas stations what you get at the pump is anybody's guess nowadays, because of a whole variety of mixing strategies that occur at the terminals. As I said nobody is regulating this. The epa regulates what arrives at the terminals thru the pipelines but the states are supposed to be keeping track of where the ethanol goes. And dealers are playing fast and loose with octane at the pump largely because of the politics and mystique surrounding the use of ethanol. According to the Feds more than 50% of the ethanol that is delivered to terminals fails to show up in the reports the states are required to make that are supposed to be keeping track of where the ethanol is going. Again look it up if you don't believe me. The states have no incentive to account for ethanol because ethanol is exempt from highway taxes and thus a contributes nothing to the amount of money the feds distribute to the states. So everybody is just like you (the average driver) with their heads buried in the sand when it comes to finding out exactly what it is that is coming out at the gas pumps. -Jim , even though they have different octane ratings. > FloydR ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- >> Since most cars are tuned for 87 octane, they won't get better mileage on >> 91. > > That ignores the reality that most modern cars are tuned on the fly. Yes, but they are tuned for horsepower. How much HP do you use at 70mph? It's constant; doesn't matter whether you're running 91 or 87. And, since the energy content is the same, you'll use the same amount of fuel. >> In fact, I have checked our Highlander and Camry ("best" performance on >> 89) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > otherwise. Drive the same route at the same rate everyday. And as said > you really don't know what is in the pump. It varies so widely in different parts of the country, that you're bound to be wrong. I know AS A FACT that up here in Seattle that only a couple of brands (Arco and Union 76) have 10% in all. Others don't. >> > ...This is further complicated by the >> > fact that the main octane booster that is being used today for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > OK you made that up out of mixture of thin air and wishful thinking. No. I didn't. Seattle used to have 10% ethanal in all brands for air pollution in Dec/Jan/Feb for ozone reduction. That's quite a long enough period for me to get very valid numbers of before and after. > Wrong and a good indication you aren't paying attention. Ethanol is > the method of boosting the vast majority of gasoline sold in the US up [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that can boost the octane sufficiently and is economical and > permitted. Boy, are you not paying attention. >> The decreased mileage is due to the lower >> energy content. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > in their tanks. So your claim that you know how much ethanol affects > your mileage is a fantasy. Alcohol has less energy content than gasoline. Pure and simple. Get out a CRC and look it up. FloydR > Floyd Rogers wrote: >> The MN citation is from 2004. The cartalk forum stuff is from 2008. >> Only the LA "test" was from 1991. Here's a FTC citation from 2005: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> Since most cars are tuned for 87 octane, they won't get better mileage on >> 91. So, I see that you also believe that 2004 and 2005 is not recent, and that authorities sources are not believable. FloydR > So, I see that you also believe that 2004 and 2005 is not recent, and > that authorities sources are not believable. This has been the conventional wisdom for ever you act like it is something they just determined in 2004 and 2005. These same authorities would have said exactly the same thing in 1964 and 1965. Laboratories that have done research recently on new cars say different then those authorities that parrot textbooks written 50 years ago. -jim ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > wow, how uninformed can one person be. I wonder - just how uninformed are you? The 3.8 supercharged engine uses a knock sensor to vary engine operation - higher octane permits it to run at full optimization. Unless you have a foot of pure lead, this results in increased engine efficiency/fuel economy. > > wow, how uninformed can one person be. > > > I wonder - just how uninformed are you? The 3.8 supercharged engine uses a > knock sensor to vary engine operation - higher octane permits it to run at > full optimization. Unless you have a foot of pure lead, this results in > increased engine efficiency/fuel economy. That's right and true of most modern cars. The only question is will the increased gas mileage offset the increased $/gal. And even if you have a lead foot you are likely to get better mileage if you drive the same way on the same route. For some cars that may be the class of drivers that benefit the most. -Jim ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- >> wow, how uninformed can one person be. >> > I wonder - just how uninformed are you? The 3.8 supercharged engine uses > a knock sensor to vary engine operation - higher octane permits it to run > at full optimization. Unless you have a foot of pure lead, this results > in increased engine efficiency/fuel economy. Yeah - I know. But - real world experience... I owned a 3.8L Supercharged Buick. I saw no significant difference in mileage or performance between 87 octane and high octane. The engine adjusts itself to the gas, and optimizes for what's in the tank. Granted - that will be somewhat lower for 87 octane than for high octane, but I never saw enough of a difference to make a difference. Don't know about the other poster Doug - but I'm informed. Beyond what the spec sheet says. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >>> wow, how uninformed can one person be. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >difference. Don't know about the other poster Doug - but I'm informed. >Beyond what the spec sheet says. Today's cars don't tune themselves for better performance if you put in higher octane gas than they need. They have a default point of operation which is usually their most economical operating tune. Only if the fuel doesn't meet the engine's requirements does the computer de-tune the engine. It the engine is designed to run on 87 octane gas, the engine efficiency will be at it's best if you use 87 octane gas. You can burn 89 or 91 octane gas in a car designed for 87 with no drop in performance or mileage but there won't be any increase over what 87 octane provides. Octane is a measurement of how hard it is to catch the fuel on fire, not how much heat energy the fuel contains. The heat energy will be about the same in all grades of gas. If ethanol is used as the octane booster then 91 octane will have slightly less heat energy since ethanol contains about 30% less heat energy than gasoline. The octane requirement of an engine is determined by the engine's compression ratio, valve timing, ignition timing, fuel/air mixture, etc. The engine computer can control some of these in all engines but it can only de-tune to compensate for a fuel that doesn't meet the engine's requirements. A supercharged or turbocharged engine runs at an effectively higher compression ratio under boost than it's spec sheet ratio. Boost forces more fuel/air mixture into the engine which will raise the effective compression ratio. So a boosted engine will almost always require premium fuel. Jack >>>> wow, how uninformed can one person be. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Jack In the past, Ford claimed that the 5.4L V-8, which was intended to run on regular fuel would have slightly higher fuel economy and slightly more power if premium fuel was used. Their claim was a maximum improvement of around 3% increase in fuel economy and maybe an extra 5 horsepower. I don't think must people could reliably detect either change. I owned 2 Expeditions with the 5.4L V-8 and tried both regular and premium for extended periods and I never could see any difference in mileage between the two. And there is no way I'd ever be able to tell the difference between 265 hp and 270 hp just by driving. I have also compared regular and premium in my Nissan Frontier (4.0L V-6). Nissan says the truck is designed to run on regular fuel, but that for maximum economy and performance premium should be used. The first time I ran premium, the mileage records indicated a significant increase in fuel economy, However, when I switched back to regular, the mileage stayed the same. Since then I have tried premium for other extended periods, and the mileage has not shown any improvement compared to regular. One factor you guys don't seem to be considering is the effect of the driver. Knock sensors adjust the engine parameters based on detecting knock. The PCM doesn't know the type of fuel, only how the engine is reacting as indicated by the presence of knock. What do you suppose happens in the case of a driver who is very gentle and never provokes the engine to knock even when running on regular? I am guessing it will adjust the engine parameters in the same manner as if the engine was running premium. I suspect this might be why some people claim significant difference when running premium, while other (like me) see no difference. Chevron used to have a really good set of web pages discussing gasoline. Unfortunately they have replaced those with some advertising inspired drivel. As I recall, the old Chevron pages addressed the question of energy content of premium and regular. They claimed premium contained around 3% more energy than regular on average, but that the energy content of gasoline in general varied by around this same amount, so in some cases a particular batch of premium might have less energy than a particular batch of regular. At least in North Carolina, gasoline samples are routinely checked to verify the octane. The gasoline FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part1/ is an interesting, if not always accurate source of information on gasoline. Regards, Ed White > "Retired VIP" <jackj.extradots.180@windstream.net> wrote > In the past, Ford claimed that the 5.4L V-8, which was intended to run on > regular fuel would have slightly higher fuel economy and slightly more > power if premium fuel was used. Their claim was a maximum improvement of > around 3% increase in fuel economy and maybe an extra 5 horsepower. I > don't think must people could reliably detect either change. Yeah, I agree. There's a very nice article on Dinan's website about dynonometer testing that has a section on 93 vs. 91 octane fuels. They measured an 11 HP (IIRC - can't get to their website right now) on an E46 M3 - but that's only 3%. Important on the racetrack, but inconsequential in everyday driving, as 343 hp is more than sufficient. > One factor you guys don't seem to be considering is the effect of the > driver. Knock sensors adjust the engine parameters based on detecting [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > premium. I suspect this might be why some people claim significant > difference when running premium, while other (like me) see no difference. I completely agree. Although it's likely that, in very well-controlled experiments premium fuel may give someone with an engine designed for high-octane fuels a little more mpg, in everyday driving you're not likely to notice any differences. As I've mentioned in other sub-threads, the effect on blends, especially of ethanol, is likely to be more noticeable. The faq gives some nice info on how closely experiments must be controlled, particularly temperature. Also, I hadn't really considered the fact that the high operating temperatures that BMW's are set up for also increase the need to run them on premium, for max performance. It's too bad that Jim won't read and believe the faq. FloydR On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:17:58 -0700, coachrose13 wrote: >> You can buy on price, or you can buy on value. If you buy on price, >> you'll probably spend more per mile to fuel your car. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > cost me 3-4 mpg, so it costs me a LOT more by using the cheaper > gasoline. The difference in acceleration is very noticeable as well. I kept a book in the glove for a '95 Tercel I owned. I started with 89 Octane, and changed to 93 Octane. There was a difference, and I figured over the period I owned the car I paid $225 LESS for Premium. > I use regular in them, > top tier regular if it's there but I don't worry all that much about > it. The EPA has standards for fuel which must be met and deposit > problems are addressed by them. That's the issue: no, deposit problems are NOT addressed with govt standard level additives. >> I use regular in them, >> top tier regular if it's there but I don't worry all that much about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's the issue: no, deposit problems are NOT addressed with govt > standard level additives. Then what is this all about ? http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/1996/July/Day-05/pr-23484.txt.html >>> I use regular in them, >>> top tier regular if it's there but I don't worry all that much about [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Then what is this all about ? >http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/1996/July/Day-05/pr-23484.txt.html Agreed - most gov' agencies lay down standards but they are NEVER top tier as you put it. Take mobile/cell phones for one - basic standards exist - to make and receive phone calls. Some makes/models do it better than others and some have bells and whistles like movie cameras and 10Meg Pix still cameras and Internet access etc and probably in the not too distant future a ray gun or two and a tea maker and some have quad band access so I can use mine over there in the USA and Japan as well as Euroland and the UK. SignatureSir Hugh of Bognor The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys. Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it! Hugh Gundersen hsg@h-gee.co.uk Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK >>>> I use regular in them, >>>> top tier regular if it's there but I don't worry all that much about [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > some have quad band access so I can use mine over there in the USA and Japan as > well as Euroland and the UK. If I buy Nike shoes can I run and jump faster? > >> I use regular in them, > >> top tier regular if it's there but I don't worry all that much about [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Then what is this all about ? > http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/1996/July/Day-05/pr-23484.txt.html They set a standard. So what? The standard was set on behalf of gas company lobbyists, whose handlers didn't want to increase the cost of doing business. The standard is a minimum. That doesn't mean it's effective. >> I use regular in them, >> top tier regular if it's there but I don't worry all that much [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's the issue: no, deposit problems are NOT addressed with govt > standard level additives. Opinion or fact? If fact, please cite a reference. I know GM and others recommend top tier gasoline. Ford recommends BP. The US EPA claims that all US gasoline contains the minimum about of a fuel system cleaner to be effective (see http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/1996/July/Day-05/pr-23484.txt.html ). There is some question about what is being controlled. Apparently the EPA is only concerned with fuel injector and valve deposits and not with combustion chamber deposits. The top tier gasoline standard does address combustion chamber deposits but not in the manner you might think.....see http://www.toptiergas.com/deposit_control.html : "The base fuel from 1.3.1.2 treated with additive at the concentration meeting the standard found in 1.3.1.3 shall not result in more than 140% of the average CCD weight for the base fuel without additive." So for top tier gasoline you are allowed to have greater combustion chamber deposits than is the case for the base fuels...very strange. I believe you are incorrect when you say "deposit problems are NOT addressed with govt standard level additives." I suggest you read the EPA reference cited above. It has a lot more detail than I am willing to quote. A couple of key points - 1) not all gasoline is the same when it comes to deposit forming characteristics, 2) the required properties of gasoline vary for different regions (different blends are required in different areas), 3) the EPA has established national limits for deposit fighting additives, 4) the minimum level specified by the EPA is based on an "average" gasoline, thus in some areas the amount of fuel system cleaners in the gasoline may far exceed the need while for other feedstocks it may actually be insufficient (but the theory is no one car is going to continually get gasoline with too low a level of fuel system cleaners), 5) the use of ethanol may reduce the effectiveness of some fuel system cleaners. The following statement is from the EPA Rule: " (i) Detergent additives for the control of port fuel injector deposits (PFID) and/or intake valve deposits (IVD) in gasoline engines may not be transferred or sold for use in compliance with this subpart unless such additives have been certified according to the requirements of this section. (ii) Except as provided in Sec. 80.169(c)(8), PFID and IVD control additives may not be added to gasoline or post-refinery component PRC) for compliance with this subpart unless such additives have been certified according to the requirements of this section. (iii) Gasoline may not be sold or transferred to a party who sells or transfers gasoline to the ultimate consumer unless such gasoline contains detergent additives which have been certified according to the requirements of this section. " (2) Beginning August 1, 1997, all gasoline sold or transferred to the ultimate consumer must contain detergent additive(s) which have been certified, according to the requirements of this section, to be effective for the control of PFID and IVD in gasoline engines." I don't see where the "Top Tier" gasoline program requires anything more stringent than this when it comes to "control of PFID and IVD in gasoline engines." They do address combustion chamber deposits (by allowing them to be 140% of the level for untreated fuel?????) and valve sticking. I suppose Top Tier gasoline may have some advantage, but it almost seems to me that it is more of a marketing ploy than a real performance standard. Years ago (I am talking about the early 1990's) it was common for branded gasolines to advertise that their premium grades included higher levels of fuel system cleaners than their regular grades. I also know that prior to the implementation of the EPA requirements that unbranded gas often did not contain fuel system cleaners. But the situation today is not so clear. By rule all gasoline must include an effective level of fuel system cleaners. As I read the EPA information, it is possible that some gasoline that are more likely to create deposits than others might not have as high a level of fuel system cleaner as necessary to prevent deposits, but that it is not likely that any one vehicle would consistently receive this type of gasoline. I would hope that all premium gasoline is not the type that is likely to be the deposit forming variety, and therefore the EPA mandated level of fuel system cleaners is more than sufficient for premium grades. So it seems that there is no reason for refiners to add extra fuel system cleaners to premium gasoline. And in fact, I rarely see it claimed that this is the case these days. Furthermore, based on my reading of the Top Tier Gasoline standards, it appears that fuel system cleaners might actually increase the level of combustion chamber deposits (why else would the TT standard allowed increased levels of CCDs?). So I think having to high a level of fuel system cleaners in gasoline might actually be a bad thing. A few opinions: - Unleaded gasoline is a commodity. Just because the station says Shell or BP on the pumps does not imply that the gasoline was refined at a Shell or BP refinery. I hope that having Shell or BP or whatever on the pumps guarantees that the gasoline being sold meets the brand's quality standards, contains the brand's standard additive package, and is of consistent quality. - Top Tier Gasoline may in fact meet additional standards, but I suspect it is more of a marketing ploy than anything else. At most, it is a way for car manufacturers to encourage car owners to stay away from crappy gas and a way for refiners to differentiate their products so they can charge a few extra pennies. I am not going out of my way to look for Top Tier gasoline. - Unless your vehicle requires premium you are wasting your money if you buy premium. I know many vehicles with knock systems can adjust the engine parameters to improve performance and increase mileage when premium gas is used, but you are never going to increase the mileage enough to recoup the higher cost of the gasoline. - Mid-grade fuel is a total rip off. - At least where I live, there appears to be no downside from using unbranded gasoline, or gasoline from second tier suppliers. Although I occasionally buy gas at a BP or Shell station, for the most part I use Costco, Wilco, Raceway, and Pantry gasoline. I keep a log book and I see no deterioration in fuel economy. I can detect no decrease in performance. I have not had the heads off,or looked at the valves to verify that there are (or are not) deposit problem, but why would I do something like that? My Sister recently sold her 1997 Civic with 140k miles. The car was a rolling piece of junk, but the engine ran fine. She never bought anything but the cheapest gas she could find. I suppose in other areas there may be gas which is more likely to form deposits, and therefore cheap gas may cause problems, but at least in my area (central / eastern NC) that does not appear to be the case. Ed > I know GM and others recommend top tier gasoline. Ford recommends BP. That's hilarious, because the local lawnmower shop specifies NOT to use BP under any circumstances. This place has been around for 50 years, and they've said that for as long as I can remember. >> I know GM and others recommend top tier gasoline. Ford recommends BP. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This place has been around for 50 years, and they've said that for as > long as I can remember. But why did they say not to use BP? And which "BP" didn't they like? I've been around gas stations for more than 50 years. My Cousin ran a Sinclair station when I was a little kid. I hung around getting in the way. Sometime in the 60's BP bought out Sinclair (at least in the east) and the station remained a BP station for years - but the gasoline came by the same old trucks from the same old terminal and was actually refined in Yorktown,Va at an Amoco refinery. Later BP took over Standard of Indiana (aka Standard, Boron, Amoco, American, etc. depending on the market). All of the Amoco station around here are now BP stations, but they say they sell Amoco gasoline. They also have a lot of advertising material that claims their gasoline (premium only???) is higher quality and contains less contaminates. I suspect that there is not a lot of difference between any of the major brands (or the no name stuff for that matter). I suspect your friendly lawnmower shop is just full of it. At the best I suspect they are basing their recommendation on gasoline from decades ago before the EPA got into the business of regulating gasoline. Ed > > This place has been around for 50 years, and they've said that for as > > long as I can remember. > > But why did they say not to use BP? Gunks up the engine. Sure, a car will run--but after a couple of weeks, a lawnmower won't. They were saying it long ago, in the Sohio days. >>> I know GM and others recommend top tier gasoline. Ford recommends BP. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > But why did they say not to use BP? And which "BP" didn't they like? I read somewhere that BP is not a good gas. The formerly named British Petroleum operates only Amoco and Arco in the US. Not the top names or on the Tier 1 list. So I guess your shop is probably right. However, BP does have excellent lubrication products like Castrol oils and the likes of GT Low Moisture Activity brake fluids. Maybe their European gas is Tier 1 equivalent? Don't know. On Jul 29, 9:59 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote: > That's hilarious, because the local lawnmower shop specifies NOT to use > BP under any circumstances. > > This place has been around for 50 years, and they've said that for as > long as I can remember. In article <9d8bed45-4cca-4b78-abf2-3a9ea8e7341f@a8g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > The formerly named British Petroleum operates only Amoco and Arco in > the US. Really? Then who operates that BP station a mile from my house? And all the others around town? >> Actually one of our car mags here in the UK have just run an article on BP >> hi-grade gas & Diesel. [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] >couple of lawnmowers and a motorcycle. > Quit kidding yourself, Do the math and get yourself some free money. Actually the maths work better here in the UK than there in the US as our gas is 3 x the price of your gas. SignatureSir Hugh of Bognor The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys. Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it! Hugh Gundersen hsg@h-gee.co.uk Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK >Actually one of our car mags here in the UK have just run an article on BP >hi-grade gas & Diesel. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >fuel side is a shitty as hell and the BP Ultimate side is like a new stainless >steel sink with no deposits and sparkling clean. Don't you guys have 'truth in advertising' laws in the UK? How did they fit a camera inside the combustion chamber? Do you have any idea of the conditions, both heat and pressure, inside the combustion chamber of an operating engine? Do you actually believe this claim? Jack > >They fitted cameras to the inside of the combustion chambers and the regular > >fuel side is a shitty as hell and the BP Ultimate side is like a new [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > combustion chamber of an operating engine? Do you actually believe > this claim? Read more carefully, old man. They took pictures of the combustion chambers, sure. With the engine off. Go back and re-read what he wrote. YOU put words into his mouth when you ASSumed "camera inside with engine running". >> >They fitted cameras to the inside of the combustion chambers and the regular >> >fuel side is a shitty as hell and the BP Ultimate side is like a new [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Go back and re-read what he wrote. YOU put words into his mouth when >you ASSumed "camera inside with engine running". Maybe YOU should learn to read Elmo. "They fitted cameras to the inside of the combustion chambers" His words, not mine. Why in hell would they 'fit' cameras inside the combustion chambers if they just wanted pictures of the combustion chamber with the engine off. It would be a lot easier to pull the head and photograph the chamber! If they used a fiber-optic camera, fed through the sparkplug hole, then say that. Don't say you fitted a camera. jezzz Jack > "They fitted cameras to the inside of the combustion chambers" Combustion chamber viewing was used for the last 100 years to assess fuel quality. Sir Harry Ricardo was the first to play with it on a single cylinder variable compression engine with a 1" thick optical micah viewing port. Pre-ignition and detonation were seen as yellow colored, and led the the quantification of gasoline's detonation properties via the octane-heptane ratio. Many gasoline test engines (variable compression, viewing port with high speed cameras) are still in use in industry and academia, but are somewhat obsolete with the introduction of ultra-fast pressure and temperature sensors and computer modeling. hth, Ben |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.