Chris Gregg

iTrader: (59)

Not trying to spark a debate, more about providing a simple observation. I did search, and found only one mention in the 5th gen forums about the use of non-ethynol fuel in relation to performance and fuel economy.

As of yet, I can only find one station locally which has non-ethynol fuel, and it only has it at 87 octane.

I decided to try it. Here are my results: Cost was $3.64 per gallon for 87. I typically average 330 miles to a tank and approximatley 19 mpg (calculated properly - NOT by the trip computer!).

This tank, I did less highway driving and more light city/back road commuting. I also ran the air conditioning about 20% of my driving this tank as compared to no running of a/c on prior tanks of gas. I should have acheived lower mpg given the change in driving and use of a/c.

However, I actually acheived 365 miles this tank and calculated fuel economy to be approximatley 20.5 mpg, a slight increase in both areas! I further noticed NO loss of power. After initially getting this car, I did try to run 87 w/ethynol in it and noted decreased performance. Even though I have since increased my timing to 17 degrees, I assume the timing would still be retarded for running 87 w/o ethynol......but again, no loss was noted.

I've again filled up with non-ehtynol 87 to see if I can re-create my results.

OnOiShNo0dl3Z

iTrader: (2)

interesting findings. makes me wonder if there's any non ethynol gas stations around me. I live in philly but go to jersey alot so I end up getting 93 octane in jersey for less than the price of regular in philly. lookin forward to your results.

when do you expect to be able to give another update? also, do you have any mods?

cmax1

long term usage may bring different results..

Clashez

iTrader: (5)

Interesting I was thinking about doing some thing simular to this.
The increase or decrease in preformance with octane boosters and fuel additives.
So i went out and got 5 diffrent kinds of octane booster , to do a write up
Were i live we have 87,89 and 93 octane. So i will be using 89 with the 5 diffrent kinds of octane boosters. Then just the 93 alone

spock

iTrader: (5)

I have the opposite problem here in Ontario, Can. The only way I can fill with non ethynol is to use 91 octane. All local stations that I am aware of list 89 as "may contain up to 5% ethynol" and 87 as "may contain up to 10% ethynol".
I run 89 and have tried 91, but to be honest, I couldn't tell the difference except for cost.

Chris Gregg

iTrader: (59)

I fill up every week. So, next weekend I can update.
I have a couple bolt ons. NWP Spacers and Block plate. Also have Transgo HD2 shift kit, SRI, and wide 18" 350z rims w/wide tires (mention due to possible relevance if considering unsprung weight and rolling resistance). Also have timing advanced to 17 degrees.
Cmax: Specifically what do you mean long term?

luvlexus101

iTrader: (6)

I thought if you had the timing advance you shouldn't be running below 91 or 93.

CMax03

iTrader: (3)

I run only 93 and had to get 91 oct once in the past and my car ran like crap!

cmax1

by long term i mean how will the car run months from now using this type of fuel. It may start to get engine ping as the weather get hotter.

Eirik

iTrader: (2)

You guys are missing the point. What Gregg is saying is that what you THINK is 93 octane is actually (in many areas) 93 octane mixed with X% of ethanol. In the entire county I live in, for instance, all the fuel is really E10.5--yes, Louisville, Kentucky's "gasoline" is 10.5% Ethanol and 89.5% gasoline! Ethanol has a higher octane rating than gasoline, but the extra oxygen put in the fuel (Ethanol itself being an oxygenate) would cancel that out, if my understanding of octane ratings is correct enough. Another fun downside of RFGs is that they are more expensive than plain gasoline. Hooray!

It's called reformulated gasoline (RFG) and it is the bane of "petrol heads" everywhere. RFG contains more oxygen than plain ol' gas and has ethanol, among other additives, mixed in, as well. It reduces pollutants but hurts power and fuel economy in exchange. The EPA claims it will reduce fuel economy by a maximum of 3%, which is about .8 MPG for the 5.5 gens, but that is guaranteed to have been tested on crappy cars with low compression engines--who knows how it hurts something like a Jaguar or Porsche engine, or a >10.0:1 VQ. Their test in NINETEEN NINETY EIGHT(!) used a "fleet" which, to me, means they drove a few thousand Ford Tauruses and Chevy Malibus and decided that the fuel has no downsides.

Germany is just dabbling with the concept and, according to an NPR Planet Money report I heard Wednesday, neither the environmentalists NOR the gear-heads are happy with it! The environmentalists want more emissions reductions without having to grow corn, which causes as much damage as refining petroleum, according to them. The car enthusiasts (they interviewed a lady paying ~$8/gallon to fill up her VW Polo with non-RFG. LOOOOOOL) would rather pay higher prices to get everything they can out of their engines. The Polo lady was worried that the RFG would hurt engine life--which isn't true.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg/information.htm
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfgvehpf.htm <-- Admits that Ethanol reduces fuel economy
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfgecon.htm <-- More science on why RFG has less energy per gallon than non-RFG
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg/whereyoulive.htm <-- Where it is
http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/petroleum...lated_map.html <-- Slightly easier to read map

It's cool you brought this up, Gregg, because I didn't realize that all I have to do, in theory, is fill up across the river in Southern Indiana where I work to avoid the ethanol menace!

So, anyway, what Gregg's saying is that the "93 Octane" reformulated gasoline mixture has a lower/comparable octane rating of 87 octane non-RFG. It's cheaper and goes farther than the 93 octane RFG.

This has been another informative post by Eirik the "Read."

Chris Gregg

iTrader: (59)

Great Reading!

"The presence of oxygenates in RFG may result in a 1 to 2 percent reduction in gas mileage in some vehicles when compared to fuel in which oxygenates have not been used." Interesting, I've already seen indication of closer to 6-8 percent given I gained approximately 30 miles on my last tank using non-ehtynol 87 over 93 w/ethynol. I forgot to mention, when I filled up for the first time with non-ehtynol 87, I still had 1/4 tank of 93 w/ethynol still in the car!

"All available data indicate that no difference in car or truck performance or fuel economy is expected when Phase II RFG replaces Phase I RFG. In addition, no difference in performance is expected with utility, lawn, and garden equipment, or with marine engines or motorcycles." Again, interesting given where I fill up with non-ethynol gas is my local farmer's Co-op. I've listened to all these guys complain about how crappy their tractors, mowers, even weed-eaters run on the ethynol gas. This is actually why I tried it becuase they were talking about running it in their cars/trucks too! I've filled up twice now, and BOTH times I had others filling up their car/truck near me actually taking the time to say, "You know, my car run sooo much better on this gas!" Why would people just say that?

I am going to find another station locally to see if they have higher octane ethynol free fuel.

Additionally, I will watch/listen for performance issues or knocking. However, it rarely gets over 100 degrees in East TN. And, with the SRI and NWP spacers, I imagine the potential for knocking is further reduced. Although, I may add some Redline Water Wetter to my coolant system.

spock

iTrader: (5)

Is the percentage of ethynol listed @ the pumps where present?
Just curious as I might try the ethynol free 91 octane over the "may contain up to 5 %" 89 octane for a while. It costs about $0.25 more per gallon, but we're fortunate enough that all fill ups go on the wife's company gas card. I don't want to take advantage seeing as how I've run a tank of 91 here and there without noticing any difference. Perhaps a 5-6 tank observation is in order.

Child_uv_KoRn

iTrader: (7)

Since ethanol has (iirc) 50% less energy than gasoline, it's no wonder that fuel economy suffers. It's junk all around unless you're using e85 for high compression/boosted engines.

Ask anyone that has one of those stupid flex fuel badges on their car. If they've ever filled up with e85 they'll tell you that's the 1st and last time.

Chris Gregg

iTrader: (59)

I know a few of those people!

I must say though, I just simply never expected to get better performance from "87" gas in my Maxima.

Eirik

iTrader: (2)

@Spock: I've never seen a pump specifying that it's selling reformulated gasoline. The only pumps in the area that display the content of the Ethanol in the fuel are the E85 pumps.

When I had my flex-fuel-capable Taurus, no one was selling E85 in the city! Now there is at least one station selling it, but that's one out of hundreds of stations in Louisville. The biggest perk to E85 is that it's slightly cheaper than gasoline (be it E0 or E10), so definitely fill a flex-fuel rental car or truck up with the stuff to save a few bucks. Other than that, the fuel economy drop cancels out the lower price per gallon.

Child_uv_KoRn

iTrader: (7)

It's nowhere close. You're sacrificing several miles per gallon.

Scottwax

iTrader: (8)

No choice here, all gas has ethanol.

T_Behr904

All gas pumps here are marked "up to 10 percent ethanol" and I'd be nervous if the government wants to up it. IMO using a food source such as corn is a bad idea for a fuel additive. All it takes is a big flood or a drought or a big insect epidemic to wipe out a big chunk of the corn crop in the midwest and corn futures will go through the roof. Also, other fuel "blends" differ from one region of the country to another, including summer and winter blends. When you boil it down, it's all about politics, not trying to be "green" as most people think. Farmers get billions of dollars every year in the U.S. in government subsidies. I'm not trying to spark a political debate over it, just wanted to throw in my two cents about ethanol.

Child_uv_KoRn

iTrader: (7)

No debate there. Just the truth. They're appeasing their corn lobbyist buddies and trying to trick and screw the citizens (as per the usual).

T_Behr904

Yup our tax dollars hard at work, and we're getting (as per the usual)

ffcbairn

Now on to the quest for E0 gasoline in your local area. The only verifiable E0 gasoline I know of in Las Vegas is the 100 or 111 Octane Rockett Racing fuel they sell at Rebel gas stations here.

It seems like that stuff can be bought in most states the list is here.

I have absolutely no idea of what would happen if you used that stuff though. Comments?

I'd guess that the extra cost would still exceed the savings from any fuel economy gains but as far as performance/safety of putting that stuff in I have no idea. It is E0 though, you can verify in the product specs.

http://pure-gas.org/ is a list of gas stations selling purported E0 nationally. Sadly there are none listed in Vegas though I've also read that Nevada state law does not require the labeling of ethanol content at the pump so that could be why.

Hope this helps to contribute.

Chris Gregg

iTrader: (59)

Great addition! I've also asked around. Was able to verify with this link what I've heard in terms of local stations! Only problem I noticed was that some landmarks are WAY off on the maps, but that seems like a google issue. Car still running strong on E0 87, however I've found several that offer E0 at 93 octane. Headed there next to fill up on 93. Car just runs so much smoother!

tcb_02_max

iTrader: (5)

OP+spock: please understand you are talking about "ethanol" (C2H5OH) and not "ethynol" (C2HOH) - or "ethenol" (C2H3OH) for that matter. Seemingly small differences among spelling variations ("a", "e" and "y") actually indicate different bonds cetween the carbon atoms and therefore different molecules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethenol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethynol

Strictly theoretically speaking, an engine will produce more power and get better fuel economy if you use higher octane fuel. This statement assumes that a) the engine's timing takes advantage of the higher octane and b) fuel economy comparisons can only be made between fuels of the same ethanol content (E0 or E10). Your question is clearly between two different fuel types, so I can't exactly predict which would be better. However, IMO, especially if you have advanced the base timing, it is stupid to run 87 octane [(R+M)/2] due to potential knock issue, regardless of whether the knock sensor will reduce the timing advance. I can understand trying to find ethanol-free fuel, but running regular grade is not a good solution.

As some have noted, the issue of blended ethanol fuels is a purely political one. I think it is fairly obvious that from a purely monetary or energy perspective, ethanol is a horrible gasoline substitute. Unless it is used as a substitute for race gas... bu then that is a completely different story.

OnOiShNo0dl3Z

iTrader: (2)

Interested to see what happens with E0 93. What's the cost of it compared to your local price for 93? O and what kind of stations are you getting your regular E10 93 from and the E0 93?

ffcbairn

I am interested too. My understanding of the issue is that the reason Nissan says to use 91 is to compensate for the presence of ethanol. What I mean is that if we didn't have such a thing as ethanol in our gas then our spec would be using 87. Therefore using 87 E0 should be roughly equal to 91 E10. If that is indeed true I would think 91 E0 should not make much of a difference if any and might just be throwing money away.

Personally I haven't made any more progress than my above post other than to come up with the idea of going half a tank 87 E10 and half a tank 100 E0 but I haven't actually looked up the 100 E0 prices. I'm not sure just cutting the ethanol content in half would be worth the extra cost of the racing fuel.

Other than that only other suggestions I have read is that E0 gas is extremely popular with boaters because ethanol absorbs water and that affect is amplified in a boating environment.

T_Behr904

I imagine that ethanol corrosion also means more dollars spent on parts replacement and labor in the automobile maintenance businesses. There is also a waste impact on the environment (more garbage put into landfills at a faster rate).

T_Behr904

There's a Sunoco station here that sells 100 octane unleaded, but I'm not sure how well it sells now that our drag strip here has been closed down for several years now.

jr schultz

Too bad we only have 10% Ethanol gas where I live, but I will add my experience. With the rising gas prices I did an experiment to see if my car was more efficient on 93 octane or 87 octane. This was with my wife driving back and forth to work and around town. She works 5 miles from home, so this was all city driving. At the time of this 93 octane was $4.33 and 87 octane was $4.12. 87 octane was 17.9MPG, which is 23 cents per mile. 93 octane was marginally more efficient at 18.9 MPG, but at it's price the calculation comes to 22.9 cents per mile...Basically a wash is what I call it. But, as we know the wot performance is better and safer with 93 octane, so might as well use it all the time. I feared that I would some how get better fuel economy on 87, which would appeal to my pocket book. I'm glad I didn't

T_Behr904

Found a gas station just minutes away from my g-f's place that sells ethanol-free gas, in 89 octane only. I had just under a half tank of Shell V-Power 93 octane, so we'll see how she runs on the commute to work tomorrow morning. Driving back to the g-f's place I didn't notice any difference with it mixed 50/50. Another note, it does cost more @ 4.25 a gallon whereas standard issue 89 is in the 3.85ish range now.

tcb_02_max

iTrader: (5)

This is wrong. Apparently you do not understand what an octane number is/means. The ON measures a fuel's resistance to self-ignition during compression prior to the desired position of the piston in the cylinder as appropriate for valve and ignition timing (knock). So, 91 [(R+M)/2] is more resistant to knock than 87 [(R+M)/2]. Period. Besides, ethanol has a higher ON than the fuel it is mixed with, roughly 99 [(R+M)/2]. Read up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

The "compensation" Nissan design into the system is a knock sensor, and the ability to retard the ignition if knock is detected.

I agree that ethanol corrosion can be a problem, especially in older vehicles. However, your idea is weak, as in hard to measure (statistically insignificant). Ethanol also burns "cleaner" (less CO2, if you believe in anthropogenic global warming, er, "global climate disruption"), which is "good" for the environment.

ffcbairn

I never stop reading, just hadn't made it to that page though. But in regards to your last point, if Ethanol has a rating of roughly 99 then the laws of math dictate that the gasoline mixed with the ethanol would have to be of a lower rating than the end rating in order for that to be achieved. You can't blend 99 octane ethanol and 93 octane gasoline to get 89 octane E10. Therefore if I used 91 E10 I have already introduced a lower octane gasoline into the vehicle than is called for by the manual.

Thoughts? Obviously it's not a huge discrepancy. By my math in 91 octane E10 it actually contains 90% gasoline at 90 octane.

DennisMik

iTrader: (2)

The problem I have with ethanol is that it is not as good as the traditional petroleum based gasoline. The energy derived from the burning of ethanol is about 25% less than petroleum based gasoline. Ethanol was all about saving the environment, having a renewal energy source, blah, blah, blah. Renewable energy source, yes it is; but at the cost of raising food prices since farmers get more money for ethanol corn than selling it for food, thereby creating shortages on your dinner table. European countries jumped on the ethanol bandwagon before the United States did because they have a more difficult situation with petroleum supply. However, at this point in time, most European countries have abandoned ethanol. Yeah, they discovered the food shortage situation, but what turned them off was the energy factor. When it was realized that it took more energy to produce ethanol than what ethanol returned, they lost interest fairly quickly. About the time that Europeans were realizing that ethanol was not the great savior it was supposed to be, the United States politicians heard about ethanol. Too bad our politicians have turned a deaf ear to the realities of ethanol.

T_Behr904

T_Behr904

The way I see it is that small amounts of 10% or less in most cars probably won't have any negative long term effects, that we know of. What about the long term effects on my lawnmower, or weed wacker? Let's not rule out millions of air cooled motorcycles that are on the road as well. What will it do with all the classic and collectible cars? Looks like time will tell. A friend of mine priced out a rebuild kit for his Weber carbs on his classic Porsche 911. $350.... per side! That's not including countless hours taking them apart and getting it back together, and installation and retuning. If anyone has ever seen a Weber stripped apart on a bench they know exactly what I'm talking about.

Chris Gregg

iTrader: (59)

Great discussion!
However, due to some recent posts, I did want to make a statement. I DO NOT intend to encourage individuals to run a lower octane in their vehicles. This began simply as a look at 0E fuel. I am familiar with my car, know how to listen for knock, and maintain my car well.

Despite my car idling better and getting better fuel economy with no noticeable power/performance loss, I in no way intend to continue running 87 in my car......long term, even non-ethynol.....or whatever spelling ..... 87 octane is not in the best interest of the durability and maintenance of my engine, due to the octane rating. Despite the results, I simply cannot justify running 87 0E in my car long term. However, I think I can justify running 93 0E! Found a local station offering all grades in the 0E form. Will be filling up soon!

Personally, this "experiment" proved to me that ethynol is a problem for our cars (my car at least) and should be avoided in order to get the full enjoyment and benifit from our cars. It should not be implied that lower octane fuel is of benifit....it is NOT.

Eirik

iTrader: (2)

Right. E0-E15 is supposed to be identical to gasoline, save that it has a bit more oxygen in it, so it burns a bit cleaner at the expense of having less energy per gallon. The EPA claims to have studied RFG use in everything from Briggs and Strattons to Chevy big-block V8s and came to the conclusion that using a bit of ethanol blended in with the gasoline didn't harm longevity, etc.

Yeah, I have to retract my earlier comment, CG/ffc. Ethanol being blended in with the fuel makes it LESS likely to knock... BUT... Think about it: Gas stations sell gasoline as denoted by the octane rating, yeah? Well, if they are mixing in Ethanol, which has a higher octane rating than gasoline, they can get away with using cheaper, less-knock-resistant gasoline that still yields a R+M/2 number of 85/87/89/91/93/etc! So it's not like they are taking pure 87 gasoline and mixing it with 10-15% ethanol to get a neat-o ~90 octane hybrid, they're taking pure 80 octane gasoline and mixing it with ethanol to get an 87 octane hybrid.

Duh. I feel dumb for not realizing that earlier.

So, CG, do note the effects using 87 octane has on your car and try and switch back to high-octane, E0 gasoline if you can.

For our part in Louisville, my buddy has been running 93 octane, Shell E0 (whoever said E0 is only available in 100+ octane fuel in Las Vegas needs to cite their sources, because they're flat out wrong) in his '97 Maxima for a week or so now and is tracking to get roughly 2 more mpg than he has been getting using Louisville's 93 Octane Shell E15. I was getting similar results before my car had to take a detour to the shop for some... body work that has to be done. The Indiana gas is usually 6 cents cheaper per gallon AND we're getting higher fuel economies and, presumably, performance figures? Seems like a win-win to me!

OhOhMax

iTrader: (2)

We have a un-leaded non-ethanol 100 octane on pump here at a couple Sunoco stations. Maybe I'll try some of that in the Maxima, lol.

T_Behr904

One thing I have noticed at the gas stations around here is that the pumps are not labeled with any type of "E" rating. The pumps say that they can contain UP to 10% ethanol, and it's not considered E-10 since it can have anywhere from 1% to 10%, so you don't even really know how much ethanol is in the gas. Well, at least you know it's no more than 10%... Someone I know that's into science was telling me that the higher ethanol blends of ethanol, such as E85, do have a higher octane rating, however he tried to explain it to me as it being a "false" octane. Another thing he told me is that cars up north with colder winters have cold starting problems. In Brazil, where there is much more ethanol usage (sugarcane) that gas stations actually sell pure gas for cars so they can have a secondary fuel system to start the car and get it warmed up before it switches over to it's ethanol fuel system. I got this info from a friend who lived in Brazil for many years and worked as a mechanic. He said they saw much more fuel related problems than he had ever seen working as a mechanic anywhere else. He absolutely hates ethanol

tcb_02_max

iTrader: (5)

My understanding is that the majority of fuel at pumps that "may contain up to 10% ethanol" is currently E5. The plan was simply to label it in such a way as to allow an increase in the percentage without changing all the signage. For the exact figure, I'm sure the best place to look is in the legislation...

ffcbairn

This is what it says at the Chevron where I purchase my gas. Doesn't say anything on their pumps or anyone else's in Las Vegas concerning ethanol. I have to assume that I am getting E10 though, if that is the majority of the gas they produce and there is no law here against it then it stands to reason they would ship their cheaper product rather than the more expensive E0.

Re: the lower octane thing I did not mean to imply I or anyone should use a lower octane if they could get it in E0 but was just asking questions on things I don't fully understand such as how the higher octane/lower BTU ethanol affects the octane requirements of our engines. I have not nor will I ever use anything less than 91 octane whether E0, E10, whatever, I would rather pay the extra dime for peace of mind that I am meeting or exceeding manufacturer specifications.

To Eirik: I am the one in Las Vegas but I have never flat out stated that there is only 100+ octane E0 here. I don't have sources, I say that to the best of my knowledge because I have not been able to reliably tell if they use ethanol here. Standard available grades in Las Vegas are 87, 89, and 91 at all gas stations here. I have never seen anything other than those besides the 100 octane racing fuel, diesel, and E85. When Chevron is not convenient I use Shell and have never seen them offer a 93 octane or any mention of ethanol either free or containing. If you have info on a gas station that has E0 in a 91 or 93 octane I am VERY MUCH INTERESTED in knowing. I will fill my car and I will post detail mileage numbers regarding differences. (assuming what I have been getting until now is in fact E10)