91 / 93 octane

[SpectroBR]

Originally Posted by ragtop11

what would you use, just over the county line I can get 91 octane gas
that is NO ETHANOL.
my owners manual states at least 91 octane but 93 for better performance
the county I live in has 93 octane gas with 10% Ethanol.

what would be the way to go 91 no ethanol or 93 with 10% ethanol.

thanks for any replies

it's pretty simple, actually. Ethanol is more knock resistant, but packs less energy per gallon compared to gasoline. So, with the gas-ethanol blend you get higher knock resistance (hence the higher octane rating) but less MPG.

[SpectroBR]

Originally Posted by Comrando

Well, 100 years ago or so, premium was called ethyl. I have no idea if it had ethanol or not. The pumps here all say there may be up to 10% ethanol. I would guess the 93 does not contain that much ethanol but I don't have any way to conduct an analysis.

I use the 93 mix most of the time. Ran some 91 a few times on a road trip and I didn't notice any difference.

Ethyl is actually another name for the infamous leaded gasoline.

"The addition of tetra-ethyl lead (TEL), a soluble salt added to gasoline was common until it was discontinued for reasons of toxic pollution. Lead dust added to the intake charge will also reduce knock with various hydrocarbon fuels. Manganese compounds are also used to reduce knock with petrol fuel."

[mpyle007]

So what popular brands have 93 with no ethanol in Texas? Does Kroger have ethanol in their gas?

[bluebox]

Originally Posted by SpectroBR

it's pretty simple, actually. Ethanol is more knock resistant, but packs less energy per gallon compared to gasoline. So, with the gas-ethanol blend you get higher knock resistance (hence the higher octane rating) but less MPG.

Exactly! Additionally, considering how sensitive the knock sensors can be on our LSX motors ( good thing; detonation in a hi-po engine is BAD ), you'll increase the chance your ECM falls back to the low-octane advance table anyway... then you're losing ~30 HP.

[mopar75110]

My youngest son has a small-engine repair business and he can't keep up with the work people are bringing him.....ethanol in the fuel gums up the little orifices and passageways in the small carburetors. People need to use Stabil or a similar product and always buy the higher octane rated fuel for small engines. Ethanol is a curse......more of our wonderful government in action!!!

[RumRunner]

Originally Posted by mopar75110

My youngest son has a small-engine repair business and he can't keep up with the work people are bringing him.....ethanol in the fuel gums up the little orifices and passageways in the small carburetors. People need to use Stabil or a similar product and always buy the higher octane rated fuel for small engines. Ethanol is a curse......more of our wonderful government in action!!!

You should see what it is doing to the fiberglass underground tanks at gas stations. This picture is the resin being eaten by a 10% Ethanol fuel.

[bluebox]

Originally Posted by FASTSS

[...] though ethanol isnt too great for fuel lines, fuel pumps, or injectors.

Er... Bollocks. All US cars/trucks have been built with ethanol blend compatible fuel lines, hoses, injectors, internals, etc. for nearly two decades, to the point that it's a non-issue today. (I work for a company that supplies rubber and polymer materials to the industry...). Filling your tank often is the only concession with eth blends to eliminate any potential water condensation.

Several cars, several hundred thousand miles later, never ever had a problem. Off-brand stations would be much more of an issue, if they don't turn their tanks over often enough.

[bluebox]

Originally Posted by RumRunner

You should see what it is doing to the fiberglass underground tanks at gas stations. This picture is the resin being eaten by a 10% Ethanol fuel.

That sure looks like MTBE contamination, which was taken out of fuels years ago (replaced with ethanol, of course). It's known to leave a red stain in concentration.... But I'm going from old recollection here.

[strych9]

Originally Posted by SpectroBR

it's pretty simple, actually. Ethanol is more knock resistant, but packs less energy per gallon compared to gasoline. So, with the gas-ethanol blend you get higher knock resistance (hence the higher octane rating) but less MPG.

^^ This is correct. You would get slightly more performance with 93 octane ethanol because the ECM will allow a little more timing advance. Your fuel ecomomy is the trade-off.

I've run 93 10% ethanol gas since I bought mine because I do not have non-ethanol 93 in my area, just 91. Runs great, and I couldn't care less about MPG.

[special request]

Bonjour,

je tente ma chance sur votre club. Je suis à la recherche d'une camaro jaune pour quelques heures. Je m'explique: Mon fils aura 6 ans en juillet et il capote sur bumblebee. Pour son anniversaire j'aimerais le surprendre et aller le chercher en camaro jaune pour l'amene à son party de fête. J'ai appelé toute la compagnie de location de voiture et aucune n'ont les camaro, encore moins une jaune. J'ai contacté quelques concessionnaire chevrolet et il ne font pas de location ou de prêt pour 1 journée. Je suis de la région de Gatineau et quitte à payer j'aimerais soit louer une camaro pour 1 journée ou demandé à un propriétaire d'une camaro jaune de venir me chercher moi et mon fils et nous amener au party d'anniversaire. Si vous connssaisez quelqu'un qui serait prêt à faire cela je suis intéressé en entrain en communication avec. Merci beaucoup

[Dr. Love]

93

[BowtieBelle]

Originally Posted by nayrchris

I think this may be more personal preference.

If I had the option I would stick with the 91. I have become anti-ethanol. :(

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by nayrchris

I have proven this time and time again with my Honda Pilot & Dodge Durango. While I save an extra 5-10 cents per gallon on 10% ethanal I loooose .5-3mpg.

Sure it depends on driving style and conditions but I have had the same results numerous times. Not ONCE have I ever gotten better MPG with ethanal over pure.

Scenario:
15,000 average miles per year / 20 miles per gallon = 750 gallons X $0.10 savings for ethanal = a mere $75.00 savings PER YEAR... Now deduct the lower mpg and you will end up a little worse than just running without ethanal.

No savings in my book.

Yeah, I commute 435 miles a week in my Olds daily driver. I only use that car to commute and nothing else, plus I only work nights, so traffic, stoplights, and all of my driving variables are extremely consistent from tank to tank. I have run multiple tanks of ethanol compared to multiple tanks of pure gas, again, all with very, very consistent driving conditions.

I've found that the E10 blend nets between 6-8% fewer MPGs every single time. I can get pure gas for 8 to 14 cents a gallon more (my station varies from time to time), but given the mileage drop on E10, at $3.50/gallon, the break even point is 21 to 28 cents a gallon, so I know I'm coming out ahead.

And as an added bonus, I don't have to take the time to fill up as often (30+ more miles a tank), and the car starts easier and runs smoother when cold or only half-warmed up on pure gas, whereas it stumbles on E10 until warmed up.

[RumRunner]

Originally Posted by bluebox

That sure looks like MTBE contamination, which was taken out of fuels years ago (replaced with ethanol, of course). It's known to leave a red stain in concentration.... But I'm going from old recollection here.

The red is just the color of the resin. I have had tanks that are only 7 years old fail. They are built for a 30 yr life.
Will a E10 blend ruin your car? Probably not but I would avoid it if I had the choice.