Author Topic: Gasoline differences? (Read 1529 times)

Wolfala · « **on:** March 01, 2005, 02:30:43 PM »

I was thinking...

You see Shell stations, Exxon, 76, etc...then Arco and these other stations typically 15-20 cents less then those.

My question is - WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE between the big brands and whatever these guys carry? Has anyone done a test to see if engines will perform any differently over the life of the car with gas purchased at the places that are not big name?

Wolf

SOB · « **Reply #1 on:** March 01, 2005, 02:32:31 PM »

I've never noticed a difference in mileage or performance in my POS.

storch · « **Reply #2 on:** March 01, 2005, 02:33:22 PM »

none, zero, nada, zilch in fact they are distributed across the nation in the same pipeline coming from the same refineries. any "special additives" to make them brand specific are added to the fuels as they are pumped into the tanker trucks.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #3 on:** March 01, 2005, 02:55:58 PM »

Also note that putting a higher octane fuel in your car will do nothing for performance or reliability unless it requires it. Way to many folks put high test in a low compression engine thinking it will do some good.

Charon · « **Reply #4 on:** March 01, 2005, 03:02:20 PM »

They each add a proprietary additive package. Some are sophisticated and some are rather basic. I was never particularly sold on the value of these but some of the data can be impressive as far as cleaning deposits and keeping them off. The net result should be more power, more efficiency and more longevity with the better packages. The right gasoline can even make it easier for an automaker meet 100,000-mile emission testing standards.

I went to a media event at the Chevron Texaco campus last summer and met with their fuel engineers and North American V.P marketing celebrating their TOP TIER Gasoline rating (when they were about the first to earn it). This goes beyond EPA requirements and was developed by BMW, General Motors, Honda and Toyota as a “recommended” gasoline criteria for longevity and emissions, etc. I don’t go out of my way to buy branded gasoline, but I did get a bottle of Techron additive soon afterwards

FWIW, this is not a formal promotion of ChevronTexaco, but they do make an effort to be a leader in this category and they showed a real interesting before and after display using engine valves. According to their information a few tank fulls can clean away a lot of deposits. It seems the other majors are embracing “quality” gasoline again as well. Again, interesting but like many price tends to be king for me.

Charon

bustr · « **Reply #5 on:** March 01, 2005, 03:02:48 PM »

I wish that were the case here in kalifornia. We have our own state EPA setting standards for fuel and emissions. Our gasoline cost is higher. We still have MTBE in our gas and we get it from one pipeline coming up from Texas. The MTBE is a refinery added compound which makes our gas cost higher. Gov. Davis signed a bill eliminating the requirment, but we still have binding contracts for some time. Turns out the California EPA sciencenuts didn't do their homework on how toxic MTBE is. They were all atwitter on it being some kind of a way to recycle old oil in a freindly manner. We are stuck with it in our ground water now.

senna · « **Reply #6 on:** March 01, 2005, 03:02:59 PM »

of course theres a difference but you wont feel it driving around town. Im not sure about engine life but it does affect fuel milage. Also I noticed some gasoline brands provide more power on my bike. In situations like that its more obvious which brand is better but this is just my opinion,

so Id say the most noticable difference would be in mileage. I've noticed some brand get better milage but it all depends on which region you live and elevation and its always changing anyways. One brand might be great during this summer then suck next summer etc...

john9001 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 01, 2005, 03:06:10 PM »

other than octane the only difference is the additives they each put in their gas, in some cases the plain gas is delivered
in bulk to a common distribution
point and when the tanker trucks come in to be filled, the additives are added fore each brand.

Charon · « **Reply #8 on:** March 01, 2005, 03:17:18 PM »

I'm very familiar with MTBE bustr. IMO the ultimate blame for the additive falls with the ethanol lobby (and to some extent the MTBE lobby) that pushed for an oxygenate mandate in the Clean Air Act instead of setting a an emissions standard and letting the industry figure out how to meet it. The two oxygenates used to meet this forced requirement are ethanol and MTBE (which was much easier to use, and frankly, more profitable for the oil/petrochemical industry).

MTBE, and in some areas ethanol, are used as octane enhancers and in higher concentrations to make "reformulated gasolines" in EPA air quality non-attainment areas. A little MTBE can go an awful long way where unpleasant flavor is concerned, though the jury is still out on the health issues.

Charon

senna · « **Reply #9 on:** March 01, 2005, 03:25:21 PM »

When I go buy gas two things matter to me. 1st how much the gas cost me. 2nd how much the cigeretes cost me. Has nothing to do with btu etc...

unless Im buying gas for my bike. then I only go to two different gas stations. Sometimes I have to I get gas elsewhere but if it sucks I run mytank near emtpy before I go to my prefered gas stations again.

mora · « **Reply #10 on:** March 01, 2005, 04:04:10 PM »

As it was said earlier the difference is in the additives. Some additives don't lubricate the valves as good as others, and some don't clean up carbon deposits as good as others. If you are conserned, it might be good idea to fill up at a name brand station once in a while.

Doesn't any magazines do tests on different fuels over there? There has been a couple of test done here by running similar engines for a long time on different fuels and then cracking them open. Nowdays the differences are not that great, but 10 years ago the differences were huge. One particular brand even caused valves to stick open in certain engines.

Wolfala · « **Reply #11 on:** March 01, 2005, 04:06:05 PM »

Charon,

I did a little research on MTBE a few years ago and the main concern was with MTBE percolating down to the water table. The effects, thereafter were the main concern. I agree with you that as an oxygenate, it is far superior to ethanol and does less harm to the engine in the long haul - however since the jury is still out on the carcogenic nature of MTBE - the benifits did not justify the political fallout of keeping it in the pipe.

Wolf

Charon · « **Reply #12 on:** March 01, 2005, 05:03:00 PM »

Quote

I did a little research on MTBE a few years ago and the main concern was with MTBE percolating down to the water table. The effects, thereafter were the main concern. I agree with you that as an oxygenate, it is far superior to ethanol and does less harm to the engine in the long haul - however since the jury is still out on the carcogenic nature of MTBE - the benifits did not justify the political fallout of keeping it in the pipe.

Absolutely. No one wants chemical flavored water anyway, even if it won't kill you

It's amazing how little MTBE can go a long way in the water table. Even a car accident can raise concerns in an area where people rely on well water.

[edit: One notable issue short term with banning or replacement is making up the shortfall. The amount used as an oxygenate in required areas or as an octane booster may not be significant in general, but when you consider that we operate at 98 percent of refining capacity during peak periods it is significant enough to be a major problem.]

Charon

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 01, 2005, 05:27:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bustr
I wish that were the case here in kalifornia. We have our own state EPA setting standards for fuel and emissions. Our gasoline cost is higher. We still have MTBE in our gas and we get it from one pipeline coming up from Texas. The MTBE is a refinery added compound which makes our gas cost higher. Gov. Davis signed a bill eliminating the requirment, but we still have binding contracts for some time. Turns out the California EPA sciencenuts didn't do their homework on how toxic MTBE is. They were all atwitter on it being some kind of a way to recycle old oil in a freindly manner. We are stuck with it in our ground water now.

I thought by now everyone had banned MTBE?

oboe · « **Reply #14 on:** March 01, 2005, 06:00:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charon
I'm very familiar with MTBE bustr. IMO the ultimate blame for the additive falls with the ethanol lobby (and to some extent the MTBE lobby) that pushed for an oxygenate mandate in the Clean Air Act instead of setting a an emissions standard and letting the industry figure out how to meet it. The two oxygenates used to meet this forced requirement are ethanol and MTBE (which was much easier to use, and frankly, more profitable for the oil/petrochemical industry).

MTBE, and in some areas ethanol, are used as octane enhancers and in higher concentrations to make "reformulated gasolines" in EPA air quality non-attainment areas. A little MTBE can go an awful long way where unpleasant flavor is concerned, though the jury is still out on the health issues.

Charon

Charon I don't see how you can rightly blame the ethanol lobby for the MTBE disaster, since they were pushing the alternative to MTBE. It sounds like their lobbying backfired.

As far as health issues of MTBE contamination, honestly guys, what does your common sense tell you about drinking water that smells like turpentine?

In all seriousness, do you consider the jury still out on whether cigarettes cause lung disease?

Author Topic: Gasoline differences? (Read 1529 times)

storch