The Truth About Gasoline

On the other hand, Toyota is a supporter (sponsor?) of the Top Tier gas standard.

While all gasoline sold in the US contains detergent additives, the manual doesn't promise that all gasolines by definition contain enough or the right kinds of detergents.

While the feds may specify a minimum level, Toyota's involvement with the Top Tier standard seems to indicate that they at the very least don't automatically trust fuels that don't meet the Top Tier standard.

And let's face it: if there's no penalty for not providing the detergents, and if the local weights and measures people aren't tasked for testing the fuel for the detergents, then Toyota is wise not to put its faith in the federal standard.

In fact, there are counties where the local weights and measures people look only at the accuracy of the pump's delivery in terms of quantity, and not at all whether the fuel delivered even meets the octane rating listed on the pump.

It might be worthwhile to look up that 1995 law that specifies the minimum amount of detergent additives, and see what teeth it has--if any.

And as has been mentioned before, the 1995 law actually got some fuel vendors off the hook--they suddenly could DROP the amount of detergents in their fuel and claim, "Well, we meet the standard!" Such is the result of unintended consequences, which always pokes its head up after lawmakers vote.

Hence the Top Tier standard. If the fuel vendor promises to meet that, then you stand a good chance of the fuel being so--and sufficient to do the job the detergents are expected to do. Absent that, you may or may not get even the minimum detergents.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dmckinstry @ Apr 15 2007, 02:09 PM) [snapback]423731[/snapback]</div>

It is. The "Top Tier" standards were set by four automakers, Toyota among them, because they reportedly saw that the amount of detergents in gasoline were being reduced by the companies (probably to save money). Ever cynical, I also think it may be a defensive move on their part to counteract some of the negative "sludge" issues they have had (GM, Toyota and BMW are three of the four automakers, IIRC, and all three have been criticized for sludge issues). But that aside, the gasolines that qualify as "top tier" do have the higher level of detergents that surpass the "standard" that was promulgated quite a few years ago.

 

Discovery did a whole show on gasoline distribution and how one brand is no different from another brand, except for these mysterious "additives". I get my gas where it is the cheapest -- I've done so my entire life without any negative impacts on my cars engine life, performance, or economy.

There's nothing wrong if you prefer BP, or Shell, or Chevron, or Circle K, or whatever... to each his own. But paying for more expensive gas with the expectation that gas is going to give you better performance or some other magical mojo is simply misguided.

 

Well, interesting discussion. I avoid ARCO gas. I have a Subaru that requires 91 octane fuel. When I used ARCO gas my engine would knock badly. When I use gas from Shell or Texaco or Chevron my engine would not knock. No ARCO for me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriusBoyAZ @ Apr 16 2007, 12:49 AM) [snapback]423863[/snapback]</div>

How do you know?

The real issue is fuel cost per mile. If you test fairly carefully, you'll see the results--whatever they are for your car in your area.

If you haven't tested at all, then you can't know.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kurtiosity @ Apr 16 2007, 01:46 AM) [snapback]423883[/snapback]</div>

Octane is boosted with additives, and there are multiple ways to achieve the same octane rating, plus there is no penalty, other than cost, for selling gas with a higher than advertised octane rating. Your experience is in no way incompatible with the information posted in this thread.

Alcohol is also an additive that is blended at the time of distribution, not at the refinery. That's one of the problems with gasohol; you can't ship it through the present pipeline system. If you try to send it through the pipeline system, the alcohol in gasohol absorbs water and also corrodes the pipes. This isn't too much of a problem with E10, since only 10% of the fuel must be trucked separately, but with E85 you have 85% of the fuel that can't go through the pipes. That will have to be fixed before E85 can be a serious contender for the fuel market.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(abq sfr @ Apr 14 2007, 11:05 PM) [snapback]423469[/snapback]</div>

Back in the late 70's/early 80's when I did the gas jockey thing as a teen at a Gulf Canada and then Petro-Canada station, we actually had 3 separate tanks (actually, there were 4, but one was for the old leaded-regular gas and was decomissioned and sealed after unleaded became universal).. I specifically remember asking the driver about the difference between the grades and in our case, we had regular unleaded and *mid-grade* pumped into the tanks.. The premium was created by pumping mid-grade and then the driver would add a canister of additive to the tank to create the "premium" mix.. We never had any octane ratings posted on our pumps at the time, so perhaps in reality the "mid-grade" of the time was the same as today's premium, but I do know that at least for our chain of gas stations at that time, that was how the various grades were created..

 

The comment about gas stations having only two tanks came home to roost yesterday morning when I was filling up the anti-Prius (see below). I get a lot of practise with that vehicle re refueling.
I fill up at a Husky (Cherry Grove Husky in Edmonton) as:
they are close
they price their fuel lower than most stations
it's a new station run by a "car guy"

The pumps are the ones with the large square buttons to select which "grade" of fuel you want, and you get it from the same hose whichever one you select. You can choose 87, 89, 92, or 94 octane rated fuel. All but the 87 is "at least 5% ethyl alcohol content". Not sure about the 87 now.

Anyway, as I was filling, and filling, and ... I noticed just above the quantity/price readout tiny mechanical counters (standard pump counters for cumulative fuel pumped). There were only two. I was getting 89 octane and both were turning.

Just confirmation of the OPs original info. - the pump "blends" the fuel from two tanks to give you the "octane rating" you desire.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(phidauex @ Apr 15 2007, 02:33 PM) [snapback]423698[/snapback]</div>

I still think that the OP's description of the info recited reflects a gross oversimplification of "fuel reality." EDIT: I do agree about the blending part. Nothing magical there. One might question the calibration of the mix, but the fact that mid-grade fuel is blended from high and low octane fuel is neither a surprise, nor is something to worry about. My Prius has occasional bouts of slight pinging on acceleration, and a tank of 89 vs my usual 87 silences the ping every time.

Many seem to be forgetting that while the fuel industry is certainly involved in the "Top Tier" thing, the original impetus of the program was car makers who were concerned about the impact that low quality fuel could have upon advanced engine designs, their fuel injection systems, emissions controls, and so forth. Think about it for a moment -- when an owner of a relatively recently build car has a problem, he will usually be back at the dealership bugging them about it, not the fuel supplier.

TT is, IMO, a quality issue, as the add package is designed to offer an improvement in quality over those fuels that meet the bare minimum gov't standards. Of course, if you get a fill of truly "bad" gas (aged, contaminated with diesel, kero, or some other such cruder fuel), the additional TT additives aren't going help.

Ultimately, of course, it's a free country, and owners should use whatever fuel they feel works for them. I do wonder, though, how many of these often-heard cases of poor running, emissions test failures, and so forth, are a result of the use of minimum quality fuel, contaminated fuel, etc.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cc9150 @ Apr 16 2007, 03:05 AM) [snapback]423896[/snapback]</div>

That's like asking "how do you know you're not doing irrepairable damage to your body by drinking tap water vs. bottled water". You just know -- water is water, gas is gas. I've filled up at Shell, Arco, Chevron, Costco, Circle K, all of these places, and the effect is the same -- my car runs the same, gets the same overall mileage, and the only difference is to my pocketbook. You can buy canola oil under the Wesson brand or the generic store brand -- both are the same. You can buy Sudafed or generic Sudafed, both are exactly the same. But the reason people buy the nationally branded product is because they've heard of it, seen it on TV, and think it's somehow better even though the ingredients are identical.

Why do you think companies like Shell, Chevron, BP, Arco, etc., spend so much money on advertising? It's all about branding your product and spreading the perception that there is something magically better about it when, in all reality, there isn't. People love to align themselves with brands -- it gives them a feeling of community, and at times, a false sense of security. Gas companies know this. They probably spend more on marketing than they do on R&D.

 

I agree with the general consensus that there is not a significant difference between gas brands/companies and the ultimate product they produce.

I refuse to buy from Exxon because of the outragous retirement package they gave their outgoing CEO at the height of gas prices a couple years ago. I will also not buy from Citgo.

My preferred brands are Sunoco and Shell.

 

??? "Water is water"?

You don't drink straight from the river. Now it comes down to the treatment.

In the case of gas, the additives.

But anyway, so you haven't tested?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriusBoyAZ @ Apr 18 2007, 11:32 AM) [snapback]425366[/snapback]</div>

Can you taste the difference between Pepsi and Coke? I can. Can you taste the difference between Diet Coke and unbranded diet cola? I certainly can (though I can't say any of the off-brands that I've occasionally encountered were necessarily "bad").

The fact that your car runs the same, to your subjective perception, in the short term, does not prove that the additive packages are not making some difference, especially in the long term. So, what was in it for the car makers, who again, were the driving force behind the creation of the top tier standard?

Sure, some people buy nationally branded products because of advertising stimulation. Of course oil companies spend ridiculous amounts on blather-filled advertising campaigns. Your beliefs about fuel marketing do not prove that there aren't differences between the fuels (particularly after the pipeline product is additized.

Some people align themselves with brands, without proof of superiority, because it makes them feel good. Some people declare themselves above it all, and assert that "they're all the same" with no more proof than those who play the "brand religion" game. Isn't it a tad hypocritical to smugly look down on those who buy into brand loyalty without any real evidentiary foundation, when you yourself have no such foundation for your own declarations?

BTW, I dont' do brand loyalty, but generally stick to the TT fuels if I can (in my area, that usually means Chevron, Shell, or Tex). Even the cleanest running gasoline engines are over time likely to build up combustion chamber, and intake valve deposits over time. If the TT fuels perform as the TT spec is designed, that problem should be reduced. Since the additional cost of TT fuel is virtually negligible, I see no reason not to use those fuels (though I don't lose any sleep when I need gas and they're not available).

 

zing!

 

I think gasoline is gasoline and we need to use less.

 

It's interesting to note that gasoline branding only seems to cause price differences in the US. In Canada (well, at least, everywhere I've been, which is Saskatchewan and west of that), everyone is selling at the same price in a region -- Chevron, Shell, Esso, that cheap guy down the road, etc. I was floored to find 20 cent/gallon differences between stations just across the road from each other when I moved down here.

 

I wasn't sure if there were a difference so I decided to run an experiment. I used my Graham scanner to record the engine torque, rpm and fuel consumption climbing the same, local hill at 55 mph. The following graph shows the results:

The data suggests Shell 87 in Huntsville AL has more energy per unit of fuel than the other brands tested.

About six months later, I repeated the test using several other brands and got:

Again, there appears to be a measurable difference and Shell, along with Chevron and Exxon, had higher energy ratings compared to BP. However, the energy differences were not as much as the spring data. I understand there are winter and summer blends that have different energy content.

I suspect the gasoline distribution practices across the country may be different. I would expect west coast gas to be different from southern and east coast gas. Heck, even midwest gas using Canadian feed-stock could be different. These results are unlikely to be universal but I wanted to share there are ways to measure the energy content of gasolines.

Bob Wilson

 

An earlier post did not speak very well of Quick Trip. Being from Tulsa (the home of Quick Trip) I feel that I need to put in a good word for them. Quick Trip is a very well run company with employees that are top notch. Their stores are very clean and always full of customers. It is truly amazing. All of our cars including the Prius and all of our company vehicles run on Quick Trip Gasoline.

 

Sad thing is that there is no Quick Trip here in El Paso, TX. But on the bright side my son is going to collage in Iowa and his Toyota RAV4 he uses Quick Trip.