test results of a week of running "non-ethanol" 89

[YY1]

Well, I bit the bullet and ran the Citgo non-ethanol 89 octane last week.

I waited until I was on fumes, and then put in 1/2 tank, and kept using it each time I added more.

I noticed...absolutely no difference in perfomance versus the normal 87 octane I usually run, and...a sligt DECREASE in MPG according to my OBD II factory EVIC, which I have verified to within .5 MPG over 2 full tanks.

I usually get 13.9-14.2, and last week I got 13.8.

The non-E 89 is $.40 more than the 87, and about $.25 more than "regular" 89.

Maybe Chavez is trying to pull a fast one off all the hype about ethanol.

I also noticed that NASCAR is making more of a big deal about the HIGH ethanol content they are running.
They almost mention it every time they talk about the EFI or anything fuel related.

Anyone else get different results?

 

[70rr-brian]

Which one of your cars did you do the test in?

 

[Cranky]

The mileage went down on my 2000 Durango with just the E10....lost about 1 mile per overall.

 

[Propwash]

Ever since "The children of the corn" came up with the great idea to burn vegetables, I now have the lovely task of dropping the fuel bowls on my sleds carbs every year..Such fun! Great idea...lets burn our food. Only drives up food costs and gunks up the fuel system's. Geeezzzzzz. I've even seen thoughts about converting barley.....

"You're not getting my Bud Light man!"

 

[tpodwdog]

i hate to say this but.....octane does not increase or decrease gas mileage of your car. your carburetor is sucking the same weather theres 87-89-93-103 octane or kool-aid for that matter. it does not know the difference. your driving habits have EVERYTHING to do with gas mileage.

for those that dont know...OCTANE resists combustion believe it or not. it controls pre - ignition. the higher the compression...the higher the need for higher octane so it doesn't "pre-ignite"...and thats all it does.

 

[Budnicks]

I'm surprised your fuel economy went down with non-ethanol straight gasoline 87 octane, compared the Ethanol added fuel, Ethanol usually requires 170% more volume of fuel to burn for that specific percentage of the Ethanol added vs just straight gasoline, which usually will result in more fuel consumption with the Ethanol additive... The Ethanol will add some cooling properties & octane boost with some slight power advantages, but it also has corrosion, condensation/water, rotting/eating rubber seals & hoses, aluminum oxidation of lines, rusting sweating or condensation in the fuel tanks, also effecting pump & injector parts etc., in the fuel system, newer vehicle with modern EFI can handle it much better, than older vehicles...

 

[YY1]

Just to clarify:

87 octane 10% ethanol is what I usually run in my 2000 5.9.

It pings if I floor it and leave it floored longer than a couple seconds or lug a trailer hard.

89 doesn't help the ping, so I don't bother.

93/94 ALMOST gets rid of the ping, so again, if I'm not racing, I don't bother.

The 89 NON-ETHANOL I used last week did nothing to help the ping, and nothing to help the mileage.
In fact, mileage was slightly worse. (there's the surprise- worse mileage)

I imagine it may help rubber carb parts (or pitting metal), but that wasn't tested.


For the record, I've also tested different brands of fuel- Sunoco, Chevron, BP, vs Racetrack, Walmart, etc.
My truck doesn't care and runs the same on anything with the same MPG.

My PT however, gets about 1.5 MPG better on the "name brand" gas vs the cheap stuff, or just about enough to be a wash on driving the extra distance to get it and sometimes paying the extra 2 cents /gal

 

[Budnicks]

All brands of gas are all the same to start out, they all get dumped into a large shared storage tanks & then use a pipe line distribution center/system & all companies tap into that at their refineries, the end user {the refinery, tanker trucks or delivery system} adds the additives to make their special blends, for 87-89-91 octane etc., or blends for specific climates & brands or %'s of blends added like Ethanol, Gasohol, like Texaco, Sunoco, BP, Citco, Shell or Chevron etc., If you find a station that has good gas storage tanks with no real condensation or water in it, stick with them, usually the ones with leaky underground storage tanks, with water issues, will cause flocculation's in the fuel quality & your effective mileage...

 

[YY1]

I realize for the most part that is true. Just stating the results of my testing.

There is a BP (formerly Amoco), a Shell, and a Chevron (Texaco) nearby, as well as a Citgo, a Sunoco, a Walmart, and a Recetrack.

There was no noticeable difference between walmart, Racetrack, Sunoco or Citgo, but when Shell, BP/Amoco or Chevron/Texaco were run exclusevely for one week (in at least two seperate testing periods) there was a most definate 1.5-2 MPG gain for that period.

Only the PT realized this. The same test in the Dakota yeilded no difference at all among the brands.

Just sayin'- real world. I'm a scientific method/ truth table kinda guy at work, when I have to be, so I was pretty meticulous about my testing.

I also repeated the tests using different locations but the same brands, and got the same results, and just for kicks, once I saw the pattern emerging, I started staying wihin one group or the other but mixing the brands within the group, and got the same, expected results again.

When I first mentioned the Citgo non-ethanol grade on this forum, people acted like they had never heard of it.
I wonder if it's more widespread now, and I'd certainly be interested to know if anyone has done any testing of their own.

 

[Budnicks]

I realize for the most part that is true. Just stating the results of my testing.

There is a BP (formerly Amoco), a Shell, and a Chevron (Texaco) nearby, as well as a Citgo, a Sunoco, a Walmart, and a Recetrack.

There was no noticeable difference between walmart, Racetrack, Sunoco or Citgo, but when Shell, BP/Amoco or Chevron/Texaco were run exclusevely for one week (in at least two seperate testing periods) there was a most definate 1.5-2 MPG gain for that period.

Only the PT realized this. The same test in the Dakota yeilded no difference at all among the brands.

Just sayin'- real world. I'm a scientific method/ truth table kinda guy at work, when I have to be, so I was pretty meticulous about my testing.

I also repeated the tests using different locations but the same brands, and got the same results, and just for kicks, once I saw the pattern emerging, I started staying wihin one group or the other but mixing the brands within the group, and got the same, expected results again.

When I first mentioned the Citgo non-ethanol grade on this forum, people acted like they had never heard of it.
I wonder if it's more widespread now, and I'd certainly be interested to know if anyone has done any testing of their own.

Yes I see now, I find your results interesting, I don't know anyone that has done a complete fuel comparison/test as well as the one you performed, Ethanol blend or not, we don't have much Ethanol blends here if any, were I am in NorCal central Sierra's, thank god...

 

[wahya]

I noticed that fuel mileage varies a lot when traffic and other factors are always changing. I find my mileage is most consistant when keeping a steady speed like on the Interstate and the wind is not blowing. I pull a camper with my p/u truck often and the best mileage I have ever got is about 10 mpg with non-ethanol gas. The best I get with ethanol is about 9.(about 10 % less).
I wrote to the EPA last year and asked what kind of gas was used when new cars were tested for the mileage figures posted on the window stickers. Their answer was non-ethanol regular. They also said that 10% ethanol gas usually resulted in 3 to 4 percent lower fuel mileage. He also said that they were talking about using ethanol gas in the testing. I have not heard if anything changed this year.

 

[iraqivet01]

I get better gas mileage with 100% gas.

Here's a secret that a friend of mine told me that runs a gas station. He told me to run89 in my truck due to the gas stations mix the 87 and 91 to make 89. Since 91 is not sold as much, the mixture will be better than 89, and your not paying for the extra 10 cents per gallon.


They have to sell it during a certain time frame, or it will go bad. Haven't had any problems with my V10.

 

[Ron 73]

I noticed my truck (Ram 5.2) Pings when i get on it some and usually when its in second gear, not bad but i think ill try some of the higher octane and see if it stops it, maybe improve mileage. I had a 79 Ford 1/2 ton truck with a 302 in it, and i found running the high test at that time actually saved me money with mileage but that is the only one it seemed to work with running it.. My 4x4 3/4 ton Chevy i sold about a year and 1/2 ago, it didn't seem to matter what i ran in it.. just normal driving it was hard on fuel. This is my first Dodge truck and i hope when this tank is empty im going to find some good news...

 

[YY1]

My PT gets the highway EPA that's on the sticker, but in mixed driving.
26.5
Interestingly it's a 5 speed, and I found that the automaitcs have a higher final drive than the manuals. exactly the opposite of what used to be "the norm".

If they had used the same final ratio, the 5 speed would get even better MPG.

I must have the BEST "turn of the century" Chrysler products ever made.

I hear horror stories about both PT and Dakotas, but other than the bad wheel bearing issue on the PT (caused by a bad ground which causes the bearings to arc and pit- seriously), i don't have any of those issues, and they get better mileage.

 

[WP29440SE]

with 91 octane AND octane boost , my MPG did not change BUT i can get a helluva wheel spin where i could not with 85 octane with my 99 XJ 4.0 litre HO

 

[wahya]

Back in the 80s, when there were still people pumping gas for you. An attendant put about 1/3 tank of diesel in my gas Chevy p/u before I noticed it. He filled it the rest of the way with gas. It smoked some, but it got the best fuel mileage I ever got out of that truck with that mixture.

 

[merkfalc]

I would like to throw my thoughts into the mix. I've been working on gas dispensers, gas tanks, and everything in between since I separated from the military a few years ago. The difference between 10% ethanol and straight gas is quite bit as far as the dispensers and tanks are concerned. In a straight gas tank water settles so you don't have any problem with it getting sucked up into the lines and what not. It also doesn't really mess with the meters. Once ethanol started getting introduced meters started plugging up, filters started plugging up, solenoids started screwing up and we had a ton of troubles! Eventually, after a few months of chasing leaks and failing parts we seemed to have all under control. But still, if a tank gets low and condensation forms, or they get a small amount of water all hell breaks loose again. The water actually forms with the ethanol and gets suspended in the tank causing a ton of problems. And as far as the MPGs go, when I moved from West Texas to Central Texas a year ago our mileage dropped in our Aveo from 36 to 33. Same driver, same 15min commute into town. Ethanol is only good if you are a corn farmer. That is just my .02!

 

[Cranky]

All brands of gas are all the same to start out, they all get dumped into a large shared storage tanks & then use a pipe line distribution center/system & all companies tap into that at their refineries, the end user {the refinery, tanker trucks or delivery system} adds the additives to make their special blends, for 87-89-91 octane etc., or blends for specific climates & brands or %'s of blends added like Ethanol, Gasohol, like Texaco, Sunoco, BP, Citco, Shell or Chevron etc., If you find a station that has good gas storage tanks with no real condensation or water in it, stick with them, usually the ones with leaky underground storage tanks, with water issues, will cause flocculation's in the fuel quality & your effective mileage...

I question this info. Can you tell me where it comes from? I worked in a refinery for 26 years and this is the first time I've ever heard that.

Anyways, in 86 I remarried and my new bride had a new Mitsu 2.2 turbo. Yeah, I hated it but it was the only nice family car we had at the time. It ran like crap on Exxon regular. So did my 66 /6 Belvedere and it even pinged on it. The Mitsu got to where it started dying at red lights. I'd pull up, shift into neutral and when I stopped completely, it would start to idle rough and die. Fired right back up tho. So, I tried using Shell regular in both and well, the Mitsu quit dying and the Belvedere quit pinging. Being the good troupe that I was (I worked for Exxon), I tried using their gas again after a couple of months and they both started doing the same thing. Now the Exxon station was many years newer than the Shell station.....and I haven't been back in an Exxon station since.

 

[Budnicks]

maybe

I question this info. Can you tell me where it comes from? I worked in a refinery for 26 years and this is the first time I've ever heard that.

Anyways, in 86 I remarried and my new bride had a new Mitsu 2.2 turbo. Yeah, I hated it but it was the only nice family car we had at the time. It ran like crap on Exxon regular. So did my 66 /6 Belvedere and it even pinged on it. The Mitsu got to where it started dying at red lights. I'd pull up, shift into neutral and when I stopped completely, it would start to idle rough and die. Fired right back up tho. So, I tried using Shell regular in both and well, the Mitsu quit dying and the Belvedere quit pinging. Being the good troupe that I was (I worked for Exxon), I tried using their gas again after a couple of months and they both started doing the same thing. Now the Exxon station was many years newer than the Shell station.....and I haven't been back in an Exxon station since.

That statement was a generalization of the system... Try looking up gasoline fuel distribution & storage system or U.S. Gasoline pipe line distribution & storage systems or something along those lines, on the web or Google it maybe, I'm sure they can explain it much better than I can... My Grandad a retired 44 year Petrochemical Engineer, now gone RIP Gpa & my old Pops was a fuel tanker driver in his youth, both worked for Shell Oil Oakland/San Francisco & My Uncle Ron was a VP/Petrochemical Engineer 40 years now retired, for Chevron worldwide, they are the people that told me that...

 

[Cranky]

That statement was a generalization of the system... Try looking up gasoline fuel distribution & storage system or U.S. Gasoline pipe line distribution & storage systems or something along those lines, on the web or Google it maybe, I'm sure they can explain it much better than I can... My Grandad a retired 44 year Petrochemical Engineer, now gone RIP Gpa & my old Pops was a fuel tanker driver in his youth, both worked for Shell Oil Oakland/San Francisco & My Uncle Ron was a VP/Petrochemical Engineer 40 years now retired, for Chevron worldwide, they are the people that told me that...

There are four primary gasoline marketing channels for wholesale distribution. Three of
these constitute direct distribution of product:

Refiner-operated retail outlet: Refiners directly distribute gasoline to their own retail outlets.

Lessee dealer: Retail outlets are owned by the wholesale distributor but leased to a gasoline dealer.

Independent retailer: Retail outlets are owned and operated by independent “open” dealers. (These guys usually buy from the cheapest distributor)

The fourth channel comprises indirect distribution of product:

Jobber: Distributors purchase directly from refiners and then sell products to retail outlets.

This comes from http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/EIAs/gasoline_distribution_eia.pdf

I know for a fact that if Shell had a shut down of a unit, they would buy, if needed, from us or whoever had some 'extra' but if they had a major unexpected shut down, they would scramble for fuel from anyone they could get it from to supply their company stations but for the most part, they would just be off line for the time being and generally, an unexpected shut down of gasoline production in any major refinery would usually have an effect on prices at the pump. Anyways, for the most part around this area, Shell supplied their stations and Exxon did the same but now that Exxon has dumped a vast majority of 'company' stations, I have no idea where they get their supplies from. Company station operators would sometimes be left high and dry if there was a shortage due to a unit shut down and those operators bitched to the max whenever that happened. :headbang: