Gasoline brand

MSinger

Expert Expediter
I have always been skeptical about folks claiming one brand of gasoline is better than the other. My dad will run nothing but Shell in his cars. I always figured it was the same stuff from the same refinery and you were being swindled into paying a few cents more for the branded stuff. However since gasoline has reached $3.19 per gallon here in Central Indiana I decided I would see if there was anything else I could do to increase my mileage other than keeping the tires inflated and reducing speed. I used to just search for whoever had the cheapest gas and fill up. On my GMC Savana DRW cube 350 gas I was getting anywhere from 10.8 to 11.3 mpg. Last week I decided to try running only Shell gas to see if it made any difference. The first tank I got 11.8 hauling 1300# from Shelbyville, IN to the Hino plant in Marion, AR. Coming back I got 12.3 empty. Thursday I went from Crawfordsville, IN to E Syracuse, NY with 3600#. Initial tank I got 12.5 and second tank got 13.3. Coming back I didn't want to get off the NY Thruway so I just filled up at a service center which happened to be either Mobil or Sunoco, I can't remember which. That tank which I was empty (no freight) went back down to 11.8. I got back to the Flying J in Ashtabula OH which sells Shell gas and filled up again to get me home. Filled up again and got a whopping 13.8 on that tank. I was extremely pleased. This is not premium or mid grade just old regular 87 octane. Most of the time it has been the same price as the discount joints. I don't know if it's just a fluke but I am going to continue with this experiment and see how it turns out. Maybe my old Penske truck just likes the Shell colors!!!!
Anybody else had a similar experience?












2002 GMC Savana 3500 DRW 15' cube 10,000 GVWR
 

Twin Pop USA

Expert Expediter
Never had a problem with Shell or BP. Look out for that Pilot gas though. Lately, I've been knocking like a Fuller brushman on Sat. morning going up hills
 

unorthodoxneon

Expert Expediter
I know since you mentioned Sonoco that they use 10% ethonol. Ethonol doesnt have the BTU like straight gas does so your losing some MPG there. Thats one of the issues with E-85. You either get better gas mileage and send money over seas. Or get less mileage and keep the money in amercan farmers hands and have a cleaner earth. Everyone i talk to about gasoline says to go with Top Tier gas as its cleaner then regular gas and has more detergents to keep the engine clean http://www.toptiergas.com/retailers.html (list of retailers and a site to read about TT gas)

Another thing i've always wondered is how many van drivers mod their trucks to get better gas milage (cold air intake, exhaust, pulleys, lighter fans. ect)
 

Broompilot

Veteran Expediter
Running with my Harley, I ALWAYS use 92-93 Octaine. Well I just decided let me try 87. Results NO DIFFERENCE at all. no knocking, no increase/decrease no difference in starting. Brands no difference either. Just came off a long road trip.

Winter I will put 92 in it, as I understand it keeps longer.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Concerned about the octane rating in a harley?

How can you tell that there is a knock?

My '57 ran on anything I put into it, including white gas. ;)
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Ethanol is a political joke. An ostrich farm gimmick wrapped in the guise of a healthy Earth. Putting aside the fact that ethanol production uses massive amounts of natural gas, and that 25% more energy is expended for what is contained in the ethanol product, in times past we (the gubmit o'da peoples, for da peoples, by da peoples) paid farmers to not grow corn. Now we need corn, and lots of it, for ethanol. So much so that they can't grow enough of it to keep competing for animal feed, human feed included. So the price of corn and corn products are skyrocketing, as is the price of meat products that were fed corn products.

Congress mandates more than 26 odd summer blends for gasoline, with wildly varying mandates on a state by state basis. There's also the three grades of gasoline that require the blends. This alone is one of the largest contributors to the inflated price of gasoline, by the way. Different blends are supposed to reduce this or that emission of this or that.

Summer blends are also different because of the higher temperatures, and gasolines must be produced based on Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP), or how how much pressure the evaporating liquid creates. When gasoline (and other fuels) evaporate, volatile organic compounds (VOC's) are emitted into the atmosphere, contributing to smog. The more organic compounds in the fuel, the more smog will be produced. Ethanol is a very, very organic thing. Like, totally.

Some level of ethanol is mandated by Congress and the EPA in sll states. It's interesting that ethanol is designed to reduce CO2 emissions for heavily populated areas, yet it's mandated mainly in corn producing states. It's not used all that much in heavily populated areas because one of the side effects of ethanol is the emission of ozone. And lots of it. Ground level ozone is one of the major constituents of smog.

Whoops.

But, we got all these ethanol production facilities, and we're keepin' 'em. So there. Not only that, but it reduces the dependency on foreign oil, well, a little bit, anyway, so instead of throwing all our money into eliminating our dependency on oil, foreign and domestic, we're gonna spend it on a really expensive Band-Aid that's gonna fall off sooner rather than later.

Even more interesting is when California, known for its lovely reddish-brown smog, tried to get out of using ethanol, for many reasons, one of which was to comply with the EPA's clean air standards, the EPA replied with, nope, gee whiz, sorry.

Incredibly, the EPA's ruling said that even though California had demonstrated that the ethanol rule prevented the state from meeting clean air standards, the EPA denied the waiver, stating, "This reduction in the use of ethanol would undermine the potential benefits vis a vis energy security and support for rural and agricultural economy that Congress expected" from its ethanol rule.

The ultimate in pork barrel spending.


Incidentally, it takes massive amounts of natural gas to de-sulphur diesel fuel, as well. Then the ULSD was conceptualized, the high price of natural gas wasn't on the radar. Whoops.

But, the side benefit, if anyone wants to put it good use is that diesel refineries have become producers of hydrogen on a large scale. (Hydrogen is extracted from natural gas in the de-sulphering process, as well as in the production of ethanol). And by large scale, I mean more hydrogen is produced than is diesel fuel. So much hydrogen is extracted that getting a hydrogen infrastructure up and running in short order will be a relatively easy task. And hydrogen-powered vehicles would eliminate the need for a Band-Aid completely.

Then again, that would make an inordinate amount of sense.
 

Broompilot

Veteran Expediter
Commonsense and our Government? Let me go ask Ted Kennedy he speaks for all of us does he not? Nice response Turtle you did a good job.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Touch a nerve there Turtle?

You’re right about all of it.

To tell you I would rather use ethanol than sending the money to Venezuela if you know what I mean.

The issues surrounding the energy used to produce ethanol can be solved and the use of the corn (and other things like waste products) can be balanced without increasing the cost of everything corn is used for – if we really want. We have the agriculture capacity (I read somewhere we only use 30% of our capacity and that is increasing everyday be the shift from agriculture land to developed land).

The biggest thing many are complaining about the production of ethanol stems from the problems in Mexico and the lack of corn for Tortillas and the crying of the shift of corn from exporting to domestic use. Boo Hoo.

But the amount of energy used to drill, transport and do on the spot processing of petroleum is a lot more than the 25% of the additional energy used to produce ethanol. The use of dirty fuel used in slow speed diesel engines in the tankers that transport the oil from the Venezuela to here puts more pollution in the air than the distilleries using natural gas.

The other issue I need to mention is the need to seriously look at rolling back the 1990 clean air act or at least look at realistic application of it to eliminate the idea of having the different formulation that really have not helped. Some of the laws were needed before the mandate became effective. In addition the ‘very fine airborne particulates’ reduction program, which the ULSD is part of, seems to be put together as a response by the EPA for the plight of the inner city kids that were dying at a high rate. We already have one of the lowest Sulfur emissions in the world, so why mess with it more.

Oh about hydrogen, there is a really good paper I read a while ago from Ford that explained the possibilities of producing H2 using a catalyst low voltage, low current system that was used for experiments in Germany. I think that we have the capabilities to produce hydrogen through electricity that is produced by nuclear or solar.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Yeah, Greg, it hit a nerve. hehe
There won't be any significant changes in the automobile until there is a need for it. Not a want, but a neeeeeed. Necessity, after all, is the mother of invention. Congress can mandate that necessity, but they won't.

In 1908 the average fuel economy for all cars on the road was 18.3 MPG. The 1908 Ford Model T got 25 MPG. Today, as of the most current figures of 2004, the average fuel economy for all cars on the road is, yep, 18.3 MPG (the EPA says its 20.8, but the EPA also admits that most people only get 75% of the EPA rating, and when all cars on the road are taken into account, the actual figure is probably closer to 15 or 16 MPG). That's some kind of progress there. <snort>

The basic, clunker of a rotary dial telephone of 50 years ago has become cell phones packed with GPS, cameras, MP3 players, and more, and to answering machines, faxes, Blackberry instant messaging.

A measly 50 years ago computers were the size of multi-family dwellings, cost a bazillion dollars, and could only muster up basic 8th grade math skills. Today, well, there's my laptop. 'nuff said.

Yet, the energy and transportation industries have progressed at a snail's pace in comparison. Greed and the desire for economic and political control have kept the (profit-rich) energy and transportation sectors from developing as rapidly as they might have in a more open climate. Any new technologies will be suppressed by big money, unless that same big money is the one who develops it or can profit from it.

Nobel Prize winner Nikola Tesla, back in 1900, proved that the Earth itself is a responsive as a tuning fork at certain frequencies by using the Earth as an electromagnetic dynamo and lighting 200 lamps at a distance of 25 miles, all without wires. Tesla's primary financial backer, J.P. Morgan, witnessed all this and in a panic of financial fortitude immediately pulled his money from the project, making the famous comment, "If anyone can draw on the power, where do we put the meter?"

A friend of mine converted his Prius into a PHEV (plug-in hybrid electrival vehicle) whereby he can plug in his car at night to let the batteries fully recharge, rather than replying on the engine and dynamic motion to charge them, cause they will never be fully charged otherwise. He lives in a small town and rarely makes trips that aren't local. He gets somewhere between 97 and 110 MPG out of his 45 MPG car. The reason is, his Prius almost always is running on batteries and the engine rarely ever kicks in. I wonder why this isn't being either advertised by Toyota, or even made that way at the factory? The conversion is, like, uber simple. It's basically an extension cord.

He's a former Marine, and he got the idea after seeing and driving an experimental military Hummer-like vehicle (US Marines RST-V Hybrid Tactical Vehicle, made by General Dynamics) that is a diesel/electric hybrid that was modified for plugging in for full recharges. It's a Prius on steroids, and is stone cold silent on the battlefield. hehe

Incidentally, the RST-V shattered the the speed record for the Army's Rock Ledge Course at Yuma, AZ with a time of 13 minutes and 50 seconds. The previous record was over 32 minutes. And it did it without the internal combustion engine coming online even once. Normal fuel usage for an average Hummer on an extended recon mission might be 1400 pounds or so of fuel. The RST-V's usage is less than 400 pounds. And when plugged into a generator to fully recharge batteries between trips, it uses about 150 pounds.

Instead of gasoline blended with a little ethanol, or diesel blended with a little soy, give me a lot of biowhatever blended with a little petrol and I'm there. And even that's just a Band-Aid.

Give me a vehicle that can run off the tuning fork of the Earth, supplemented by hydrogen power, and now yer talkin'. But that would mean a major shift in power from the automakers and oil guys, unless they can retool to do it themselves (which I think is exactly what will happen in the long, long, long run). But, with Detroit fallin apart at the seams, and jobs moving overseas and to Mexico at a record pace, to me, now would be the perfect time for the Big Two automakers to totally retool and get into hydrogen power, fuel cells, solar and other alternatives.

The problem is, they can see short and long term profits until the horizon by moving the jobs elsewhere. (If you have to retool a plant, might as well take the opportunity to move the plant itself, build new tools at the same time, and get a dirt cheap labor force in the process.)

And until that dog won't hunt anymore, they won't do a thing of any significance to shift from astoundingly inefficient internal combustion engines to something better, especially if that something-better isn't something they have total control over.

By the way, Mercedes now has several prototype PHEV Sprinters running around Europe. The most popular initial application is for buses and ambulances. The MPG's (KPL's) they're getting are unreal. I have an uncle who is a retired US Army colonel, spent almost all of his career in Germany, is gonna stay there, and he keeps me informed. :)
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Turtle,
First thing I have to say, if you looked at my recent hybrid thread, is that I am all for anything that will reduce the operating cost of a vehicle. I am to the point where my wife will end up with a diesel VW or a Prius. I am actually looking at one that has been converted and found out that she can plug it in where she works.

But with all that said, I have to tell you that Model T's and other cars of that time got good mileage but no where really near 18 MPG. The T I had got close to 15 MPG but the Pierce model 66 I had got 8, the Packard model 30 (my favorite) got 11 and the overland got 14. All of these were driven, not just sat there and with the better gas we have today, the fuel consumption was far better than it was when the cars were built.

I think that we are missing something today that we got in the 60's with the start of the pollition control era, intellegent problem solving. What I mean is this; knowing a lot of real engineers in the auto industry, they are not interested to produce a vehicle that gets good milleage. Even the few who work at Toyota have the same attitude - the companies don't make it s priority and the engineers work on problems that really don't make it better for all of us.

In the late 60's there was no choice, you either changed for an improvement or the governement will not allow your product go on the market - no exceptions. We need that today, we need not the EPA but the congress pass strict mileage improvments and put a date tied to it, no exceptions.

I really got tired of Ford and GM pushing the flex fuel vehicles saying that they now produce a flex fuel vehicle after the 10 years of producing them. I also like the idea of the cost to consumer when I found out that the cost between a flex fuel and regular vehicle is actually $.50 and they only added a few extra parts incase they are critisized over the difference in cost. The $.50 by the way is the programming differences in the ECM and an o ring.

I like what Lewis Black has said while he was here in Detroit, "it is utterly amazing that we can put a man on the moon in my life time but we can't make a car that gets good gas mileage."
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Lewis Black is one of my favorites. I agree with about 95% of what he says. hehe

Not only did we put a man on the moon in out lifetime, but we did it in under 10 years, from scratch to landing. Countless new technologies were invented to achieve the goals. The Manhattan Project was an all encompassing project, concentrated on essentially one goal and one technology, but it was achieved in a little more than three years, completed in four, and demonstrated to the world in five.

The technology for alternatively fueled vehicles is already here, it's been invented. It's there for the taking. It's not rocket science. Well, OK, yes it is rocket science, but it's already-invented rocket science. ;)

Medical digital imaging, infrared ear thermometers, smoke detectors, welder's visors and sun tiger sunglasses, cordless tools, lithium batteries, space pens, Temper Foam, invisible braces, failsafe flashlights, joystick controllers, advanced plastics, the list goes on and on, were all developed directly as a result of the NASA space program, in order to achieve the a given goal. Things that were invented or developed directly or indirectly due to the space program include fuel cell technologies, fuel refinements (such as desulfurization of diesel fuel), hydrogen extraction, solar cells, and CAD software.

Incidentally, Tang, Velcro nor Teflon were invented as part of the space program. All were invented before Sputnik, in fact. Two different independent semiconductor chip designs were patented in 1958, before NASA was chartered. But I digress.

My point is, a concerted, concentrated effort, probably mandated by the government, can have us foreign-oil independent within 10 years at least, probably much sooner. The technology is already there. So, git er dun. Put all the technologies together, and then let people come up with new and better ways to utilize the technology. But they won't do that, because that means they lose control. They, being, the oil and car guys.

It will happen eventually. When the price of gas hits a certain point, people will say enough is enough, and either someone unknown to us now will come up with a viable alternative, or the oil and car guys will be forced to give it up and do it themselves.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Well after my morning reply to my senator, Carl Levin, I am disgusted with the need to 'help' the domestic automakers out by providing funding for research and development when we need to write a simple law, you will produce a vehicle that will get X amount of mileage out of a gallon of gas by this date or you will not be allowed to sell it.

See the e-85 thing is a joke here like I said, it cost the manufacture nothing to produce it but they cry that it will cost jobs and increase the cost of the vehicle while at the same time claiming it is a new thing - used flex fule type cars in 95 when I was a fleet manager and my wifes caravan, '98, is also a flex fuel.

They are pulling this same thing with hybrids and other alternative fuel cars, they need the help but in fact if anyone deserves to have their profits taxed, it is the domestic auto companies who refuse to move faster on these innovations. Like I mentioned in my reply to levin's email, we are not going to have the innovations in agriculture as we should when we continue to allow an invasion and the justification of that invasion by the people who say it is needed in order to be competitve in their own domestic market. In that case shutting down the flow of cheap labor in agriculture will do the same as solid mandates for auto industy - force them to do something that is not market driven, come up with innovated solutions.
 
Top