Since we had the fuel additives thread I thought this would be better as its own.
Car in question is a 17 ND RF. I normally use ethanol free 93 as it's the same price as other 93's around the house. Does ethanol free really actually matter in a car as new as this? I understand in older cars and other small engined things that sit.
Also it isnt a top tier station, it's a quality plus gas station.
Would top tier gas make that much of a difference?
Heck of a question. And I might steal it for the Fuel Tips bit in the magazine. Then we can see what our scientist-friend has to say.
Last time he and I chatted, we discussed Top Tier gasolines. I had heard that tem before but didn't realize that it was an official certification. It's something discussed in the upcoming issue.
I don't think it will make a bit of difference. Ethanol-free gas is for weed whackers and boats.
Gasoline is a commodity and they used the same pipelines and storage facilities to move it around. The only difference is the additive package that is applied pretty late in the distribution cycle. I'm skeptical that the detergents and additives make any difference from a performance standpoint.
Be glad that you live in a state where you can get 93 octane and enjoy the drive.
In my experience, it depends. My neon would pick up 2mpg on ethanol free. No matter the brand or octane.
My mazda6 likes bp, by a consistent 1.5 mpg. Doesn't care about ethanol.
The impala got better mpg with ethanol.
So, track the mileage and make the decision based on your numbers.
In reply to Dusterbd13-michael :
Seems to be 38ish indicated using ethanol free and 36ish indicated using grocery store gas station 93. Haven't used enough top tier to see if that has any difference.
Basically unless you're in the middle of nowhere, or buy from cheap mom-n-pop type stations, you are getting Top Tier gas.
DI engine with high compression. Any ethanol is better than no ethanol. Atleast if you care about performance, or potentially warding off knock.
If all you care about is mpg, or if you have a hatred for ethanol. Then go ethanol free.
z31maniac said:Basically unless you're in the middle of nowhere, or buy from cheap mom-n-pop type stations, you are getting Top Tier gas.
Neither station I use normally is on that list.
I use it in my 2000 Mustang 3.8L. The engine has so much more power on E0 than on E10 that people at autocross think it has a V8. It gets 2 MPG more on E0 but that wasn't worth the extra cost of the fuel.
The engine is an old design and doesn't use a knock sensor so I think that is what makes the difference. I wouldn't even try E0 in a modern engine. All my small engines get E0 only, it really helps the ones built in the 60's and earlier.
Modern cars are designed for both. And I've tested both fuels over and over and over and over again, and there's not much difference. The biggest thing I notice is a slight decrease in NOx, which takes place in the first 30 seconds of a car running.
As a side note, it really makes me angry that power products get away with blaming the fuel for them not being robust to the most common fuel in the market. As I've pointed out before, the auto industry has had to be robust to it for well over 30 years now- so how they remain to keep that excuse is beyond me. The solution to be materially robust is incredibly well known- just don't use crappy materials. In the end, they manage to blame the consumer for using the wrong fuel, and the consumer just takes it. Stop already- they should be totally required to be robust to the national standard fuel.
AAA did a study on top tier gas. Yes it matters for direct injection engines. It has detergents which reduce carbon buildup on valves. On a port injection, it doesn't matter.
As far as I have seen, there is no data suggesting remotely modern cars are impacted by E10, etc. gas. Most of the anti-small percentage ethanol crowd (from a gas quality perspective) are the echo camber types.
ND OEM tune makes use of 91. 93 is likely money out the tailpipe.
MrChaos said:z31maniac said:Basically unless you're in the middle of nowhere, or buy from cheap mom-n-pop type stations, you are getting Top Tier gas.
Neither station I use normally is on that list.
I have no issue finding top tier gas, but Murphy USA the Wal-Mart and Sam's Club brand is not top tier..
Lots of brands are top tier, but the mom and pop comment is not true.
Snrub said:ND OEM tune makes use of 91. 93 is likely money out the tailpipe.
The ND makes use of whatever you give it, just like my focus ST. On both cars you will see a drop in throttle response on the lower octane. I drove my ND on both and could tell a difference in throttle response. I also can tell on the focus and now that I'm driving a lot less, I generally run 93. But when I was commuting 2k miles a month to work I ran 87 M-F and put 93 in the Friday before an event.
MrChaos said:Also it isnt a top tier station, it's a quality plus gas station.
I fill-up at our local QP and found the gas to be quite good. Getting 36-38mpg with a 2.0 Focus. On a recent trip I was getting 38+ with QP gas. When I filled up at an off-ramp gas station. Mileage dropped to 33.5. So QP is pretty good stuff. I use the regular with ethanol, but non-ethanol premium for the FX16 as it sits a lot.
In reply to MrChaos :
How adaptable is your car? Can you use E85?
This magazine found that on a pretty stock Miata E85 made something like 7-8 more horsepower
I know my pickup truck ( with flex fuel) really comes alive with E85. No Dyno test but seat of the pants it actually will smoke the tires on the on ramp!
50 more horsepower? It’s a serious amount.
Yes it costs me some mileage, about 2 mpg if I can keep my foot out of it. On the other hand there is no power advantage ( according to that same butt) between 87 octane and 92 octane ethanol free.
I don’t drive consistently enough to tell if there is a fuel mileage advantage either between 87 octane 10% and 92 octane ethanol free.
Gas prices here
87 octane 10% $2.69
92 octane ethanol free $3.29
E85 $2.09
In reply to frenchyd :
literally 0 e85 stations within 100 miles
Ethanol became standard in '07 right?
Our newest gas burner is an '05. We currently have, and have had, newer cars but they're all diesel.
We have a Gulf station that has ethanol free 87, and that's all we fuel our gas burners with unless we're caught away somewhere and need fuel.
I know this is all anecdotal, but...
I've got a '95 Volvo 850, that went through 2 new fuel pressure regulators, that I'm quite sure was due to ethanol. First one lasted from new until 2012-ish the second one died around 2016. After the 2nd one, I made a serious effort to avoid ethanol, as they only seem to last 4-5 years on E10.
My '97 Jeep is gutless regardless of fuel, but slightly less so without the corn juice.
SWMBO dailies our '05 Grand Marquis and claims she can go longer without filling up on the no ethanol. I've not calculated a difference, but for her to notice, there must be something there.
All of our small engine lawn equipment stuff gets the same Gulf 87, but with Stabil too. My FIL left corn juice tainted fuel in his pressure washer over the winter, the carb corroded beyond repair.
I'm not a fan of the corn juice.
Ethanol does slightly hurt fuel economy. And some small engine manufacturers are bad about using crappy parts that dissolve at the sight of alcohol. But personally, I've never had an issue with stabilized ethanol gas. It does do a good job of removing bits of dirt and traces of water from a fuel system FWIW.
Fuel-wise, most modern cars will run just fine on either. Basically anything OBDII shouldn't care other than possibly a tiny fuel economy difference. Jeep burns a little less gas on E0, but runs a hair better on E10. I've never put E0 in the BMW, so I wouldn't know.
I'm sure looking forward to the article.
MrChaos said:In reply to frenchyd :
literally 0 e85 stations within 100 miles
What state are you in ? Here in the Midwest there are more than 4300 gas stations selling it.
bigdaddylee82 said:Ethanol became standard in '07 right?
Our newest gas burner is an '05. We currently have, and have had, newer cars but they're all diesel.
We have a Gulf station that has ethanol free 87, and that's all we fuel our gas burners with unless we're caught away somewhere and need fuel.
I know this is all anecdotal, but...
I've got a '95 Volvo 850, that went through 2 new fuel pressure regulators, that I'm quite sure was due to ethanol. First one lasted from new until 2012-ish the second one died around 2016. After the 2nd one, I made a serious effort to avoid ethanol, as they only seem to last 4-5 years on E10.
My '97 Jeep is gutless regardless of fuel, but slightly less so without the corn juice.SWMBO dailies our '05 Grand Marquis and claims she can go longer without filling up on the no ethanol. I've not calculated a difference, but for her to notice, there must be something there.
All of our small engine lawn equipment stuff gets the same Gulf 87, but with Stabil too. My FIL left corn juice tainted fuel in his pressure washer over the winter, the carb corroded beyond repair.
I'm not a fan of the corn juice.
Ethanol sure get a bum rap from those who don’t like it. Your gas has 87 octane ethanol is 114 octane
Cars that race at the Indy 500 use pure ethanol
NASCAR uses 15% ethanol
Most race cars move into a faster class when they burn ethanol Or are prevented from using it because of the performance advantage it gives.
This magazine tested E85 and it made 7-8 more horsepower than 93 octane did .
Hot Rod magazine shows the power potential of using E85. Heck a lot of publications point out that if you want power you want the corn juice.
I use old carbs. My source for them is a junkyard full of cars that went off the road decades before ethanol came out. Yet the inside of those carbs often have marks from water in their fuel bowls.
You see gasoline even in the 30’s and 40’s had water in it ( And still does ) want proof? Look at the engine compartment of a lot of cars from that era. That glass bowl you see? That shows you how much water is in the gasoline. ( and usually has a peacock to drain it out)
Now this will shock you but a little water in the fuel makes your car run smoother, quieter,, cleaner, and faster. Next time you drive in the rain ( assuming your wiring is good) notice how sweet the engine sounds.
I recently ran a tank of 92 non E through my Fist. I ran some unscientific tests which I will repeat
I now have a tank of Sunoco 87
As far as seat of the pants feel while diving I can't say I feel any difference.
I will report on my tests when I do them on the 87. Need to wait until the temps get back to normal
They say cars after like 08 were designed with blended fuel in mind...i run top tier blended in my acura, but all the bimmers I only run clean premium. They are a few years older than acura but they run remarkably better and mpg improves significantly as well(+4mpg on 01 740 and +3 mpg on 95 m3). I'm down to pay the premium on price bexause my cars tell me they love it, if I didnt notice any differences I would def not be paying nearly $5/gallon
Many years ago in my big single sc300 I ran e85 bc of octane, made just over 700whp on e85. Fun
alfadriver said:Modern cars are designed for both. And I've tested both fuels over and over and over and over again, and there's not much difference. The biggest thing I notice is a slight decrease in NOx, which takes place in the first 30 seconds of a car running.
As a side note, it really makes me angry that power products get away with blaming the fuel for them not being robust to the most common fuel in the market. As I've pointed out before, the auto industry has had to be robust to it for well over 30 years now- so how they remain to keep that excuse is beyond me. The solution to be materially robust is incredibly well known- just don't use crappy materials. In the end, they manage to blame the consumer for using the wrong fuel, and the consumer just takes it. Stop already- they should be totally required to be robust to the national standard fuel.
Agreed with you- however another factor may also be at play. From what I've seen, there are a lot more people still rocking older power equipment than they are driving old cars. The only newer power equipment I own are my Husky weedwacker and my Stihl chainsaw. Everything else is from the 90's or earlier.
And I run regular old E15 in the chainsaw and weedwacker, though they both use 2 stroke mix that supposedly has additives and E36 M3 for the ethanol gas.
The other things is...power equipment tends to sit a lot between uses. Cars, not so much. As I understand it, the sitting issue contributes to the problems as well. Older gas was supposedly good for 3 to 6 months; the stuff with Ethanol is supposed to be used in less than a month. So the guy who used to fill a 1 gallon jerry can with chainsaw gas and have it last all season may start to have issues.
In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
I ran older power equipment for years without problems. Seems like there are more problems with new ones- and I was even warned about it when I bought a chipper/shredder in 2012 or so. Which was more than enough time to switch materials. Heck, I used to have a gas trimmer that I used once every third year or so, and never had a problem.
Sitting may be a problem, but it's also a very solvable problem. So it becomes an excuse to be cheap.
Especially since oxygenated fuel really appeared on the market back in the 80s- and auto companies were forced (by consumers mostly) to be robust to it way back then. This is hardly new or even a surprise to power product makers. I just don't understand how they manage to get away with not being robust to THE common fuel in the market. Nobody else would be able to do that.
(and given that new power equipment is sold every year, I suspect that the actual amount of pre-2008 hardware out there is less than post that)
You'll need to log in to post.
