Car and Driver (which I don't usually give much weight to) provided a link to a site that lists the providers of good detergent gasoline in all grades:

http://www.toptiergas.com/

Basically, they suggest, if you buy your gas at another station, you takes your chances... The costs of using cheap gas include build-up that can require, at worst, a head rebuild. The standards were set by GM, Honda, Toyota, and some maker called BMW.

Does this mean no more BJ's gas for my 2004 TL? What about the Honda Civic??

 

This has been discussed before, check it out
https://acurazine.com/forums/car-parts-sale-361/spc-rear-camber-kit-needed-118667/

 

Thanks for the link, Shef (I actually did a search before posting, but didn't find anything)...

 

AND here....it's one horse that just won't die and the problem is that there isn't much scientific evidence to share. Lots of heresay and experience sharing but little solid info.

 

https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...highlight=tier

I actually got some PM's that said I made up the whole Top Tier thing -

I do know that Techron is often used by mfrs when they have their cars EPA tested/certified.

BTW, if the proposed Energy Bill just making its way out of Congress gets passed, we will have to endure even more ethanol. Ughh. Not only does it leave persistent gummy deposits, but of course it produces less thermal energy per unit of measure, so one pays more, gets less, and perhaps even uses just as much fuel in the long run.

Of course, companies like ADM have been greasing the palms of Congress for years (check the record on campaign contributors to slick Willy, for one). Ethanol plays well politically and is a "no-brainer" for the technically untutuored, like the Matt Laurer's (spelling?) of thre world. Too bad science often takes a backseat to poltiical and intelklectual expediency.

Remember MTBE? It was lauded by the enviros, and the oil companies went along with it - and look at that fiasco. Now our tax $'s go in part for the clean-up and consequences. Argh!

 

Well, it should also be noted, that if an engine were designed, from the start, to run solely on E85, versus an equivalent gas engine, it'll make more power. Less gas mileage, yes, but make more power. It should also be noted that if all cars were to run off E85, we wouldn't need so much foreign oil, since ethanol can be made from bio waste. Actually, henry ford originally wanted to have his cars run off ethanol, so farmers could whip up their own fuel locally, but at the time gas was cheaper. Not to mention, by using E85, we still get CO2 out, but it would match the C02 taken in by the various plant life used to make the fuel. Oh, and if anyone thinks I am a tree hugger, one of the cars in my stable is a 68 Mustang, no catalytic converters and a nicely sized cam.

 

Thx for the feedback. I am all for sensible environmental activity, but since cars in the US are so exemplary in that regard, I worry not. You also do not mention, perhaps an oversight, that since more fuel is consumed to go the same distance with ethanol enhanced fuel, there is little or no reduction in some pollutants. It reminds me of saying that driving 55 on the highway is "safer" - well, I suppose if one were to hit a bridge, but we all know that safety nuts did not index the reduction in traffic related fatalities to rates per miles driven, or the cost incurred by the reduction in highway speed. We could drive 1 MPH after all.

1) We could also reduce dependence on foreign oil, better and cheaper in the long-run, by developing our domestic oil reserves, on and off-shore, and utilizing nuclear power. I think ethanol is just one of many options, and not a particularly sophisticated or long-term one at that.

2) The only power benefit would be of ethanol's higher octane capability were exploited to raise compression - it that what you are getting at? Again, since the specific thermal output per CC of fuel is lower with ethanol than gasoline, I cannot see where any power benefit other than higher CR is effected - if there is some other mechanism at work, please explain.

 

the raised compression ratio is more or less what I was getting at. Ethanol had huge potential back during the fuel crisis oh so long ago, but soon as OPEC got wind that we started to look into a self reliant source, they dropped prices and started shipping again. Ethanol actual has come a good ways, GM had a lot of research going into it, though hydrogen seems to distract people these days (don't get me started on that, does not make sense unless we have more nuclear plants, and thats touchy for some people).

In terms of pollutants, particularly CO2's I was using an overally simplified case. Right now, pump out dead dino's, burn them, and we get CO2 floating around. Use some Ethanol, get CO2 floating around. However, with the ethanol being produced from various plants or plant bi-products, those breath in CO2. So in terms of net usage, in the case, it evens out a bit. In theory...

 

Good points all.

I think once there is enough market demand, the US will develop a cost effective shale oil conversion process, and the rest will be history. It will be the end of our reliance on any imported petro - and most does not come from OPEC as you no doubt know - it ismerely the most politically sensitive of the imports.

The same will be true for nuclear when the power of fusion is realized - likely later this century. But is is sad that because of public ignorance, a POSSIBLE bad outcome (3-Mile Island), and other drivers, nuclear is not the way of the US. I mean, France can do it, and they are using obsolete, fast-breeder tech from the 70's, not the latest designs. Safety is not the issue - it is the safe transport and storage of by-products of incredibly long half-lives, and tremendous envirnomnental hazard potentials. I stress potentials.

I fear that public ignorance of the eng'g issues of nuclear (I mean ignorance in the true sense of the word), the power of Big Oil, and the incredible politization of the whole Energy issue that we will not soon have a public policy that makes sense - is broad, far reaching, and looks ahead. It will take an event, just as the threat of World Terror took events to be seen in the proper light, and even that has shown public memory is short in many cases.

Like politics, arbortion, and a few other issues, reason is so soon clouded by emotion that Energy policy is a tough sell - politicians are cowards, and if I were to run on a "Stop Ethanol Now!" ticket, the farmers and outfits like ADM would have my head. Or if I ran on "Nukes Now!, same thing. C'est la vie.

I still do not like ethanol overall, and in a selfish sense, would rather not have it rammed down my throat, or my car's innards. i KNOW as an engineer and gearhead, that my cars' best performance and longevity will be realized with gasoline or its equivalent. I think an engine designed for E85 or whatever is dictated by Washington might have good outcomes, but doubt highest performance is one of them. Even nunleaded took years for us to sort out the performance issues of removing lead - recall that in the 1980's, a 305 cube Corvette with what - 160 HP or so? - was the best you could have in California. Blech.

BTW, the residues left by oxygenates like E85 are very gummy, persistent, and detrimental - politicians do not care, nor do car mfrs or service techs - it is all a money-making proposition to them - either over the table, or under, if you gt my drift.

Of course, there is always an eng'g breakthrough in the making. Maybe a 600+ HP hydro car is possible before I do the big dirt dance.

 

True true... Fusion would be nice. My friends dad owns a Nuclear Engineering firm that has had its software approved by the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Comission). Basically, they have updated all the old math models for nuclear power plants and have done a much finer job calculating decay and so forth, and are finding out they can get more life out of current power plants. They also getting business from nuclear plants in other countries.

Back when I was an engineering student we had a seminar series on energy in CA, so a GM engineer talked about ethanol, and actually, my school, SCU, was once the center for alternative fuel research (no longer, don't get me started on that either) so I am partial to E85 and so forth. Once upon a time the country rallied around going to space. Right now I wish we could rally around energy, but without politicians backing it up, and public disinterest who knows what will happen.

If someday we nail hydrogen or something else, I better still be able to get some premium dino fuel! Building up a nice little 10:1 compression 302 for my mustang was painful enough, I don't want to have to throw in a hydrogen system! ah!

 

Top Tier Gas? I always get a kick out of non-informed people who think one guys gas is better than another. My father worked for an oil refinery for over 20 years (thank goodness). You would not believe all of the gas myths people believe due to oil company marketing 101.

 

From the web site

TOP TIER Gasoline Retailers:

QuikTrip
Chevron
Conoco
Phillips
76
Shell
Entec Stations
MFA Oil Company

 

I agree SweetJazz. The dad of a guy I went to high school with worked for Chevron, he said they're all the same, Techron is just their name for the same degerents in other gas. I use Shell, solely because my work lets me use its shell card. Although, my buddies Mustang ('89 GT) ran terribly on Safeway gas, but just fine on Shell. Go figure.

 

On behalf of everyone here with a brain, or the "non-informed people" as you call us...what the HELL are you smoking? Have you read ANYTHING? Sure, that moonshine you're clearly drinking starts off with the same stuff as rat piss: water. That doesn't make them the same thing!

 

Many of us are certainly enjoying the entertainment your post provides.

And as a taxpayer, I too thank God that your Dad was gainfully employed for many years.

For the rest of us visigoths, here are some facts (those bothersome pieces of data that represent the basis of knowledge) that might prove useful:

Hydrotreated petroleum distillates
Stoddard Solution
Xylene
Alkenylamine
Isoctanol
1,2,4 Trimethylbenzene
Aliphactic Napthta

One might expect these compounds to be obvious to anyone whose pater worked in oil refining, but they represent some of the quality additives the Top Tier companies use to clean, lubricate, and protect fuel injectors and intake valves. These are added to fuels post pipeline/distribution chain, and seldomly make it into budget fuels at all, let alone in the quantities needed to be effective.

And perceptive Forum readers likely have also figured out that it was car mfrs like Honda, BMW, and others who developed the guidelines that the Top Tier fuel mfrs. have adopted. So the logic that this is all just "oil company Marketing 101" is not convincing, other than the fact that any business that can make a claim that they have endeavored to meet a standard which the makers of the engines in which the products are used seems to me to not only be above-board, but good business practice.

************************************************** **************

SweetJazz: It is not just that your post is inaccurate, but it has a smug, self-congratulatory, and condescending ring to it that seems particularly offensive. There are plenty of posts that represent ignorance of fact, but when presented in that manner, they rub folks the wrong way.

Oil refining as opposed to the technology of gasoline additive technology may or may not be partners, but based on what seems not to have been passed on to you, is parallel perhaps to the difference between a slaughterhouse and steak tartare. Success in one does not guarantee sucess in the other.

 

That was just too damn funny, excellent therapy. OK, on to more serious matters!

RR: In one of your previous posts on TT fuels you listed both BP Amaco and Texaco as recommended top tier fuels. As you know now, these are not actually on the list yet, but I fully agree they are excellent fuels. Do you know if they will be listed soon? I like BP because they have a great gas/bonus card that we use (not to mention SUPER TUESDAYS!) and I was told by the attendant at Costco that their gas is actually Texaco gas. (Could be completely untrue, but DAMN Costo gas is priced right.) I'd be very interested in anything addition you know on those two fuels.

 

Glad you were amused - I searched deep in the cortex to find the retort worthy of Mr. Music (hey, I am a huge jazz fan - it is the message, not the messenger).

The point is, while all Top Tier participants will pledge to meet certain standards, it does not mean that other mfrs do not make top tier gas - one is a name, the other a performance level. I referred to the perf level, but may not have been clear in that, so thx for making sure I keep the record straight.

Having seen the formulation of additives in Texaco, I have no problem in recommending them as a top tier supplier, whether they have yet to participate in the TT program. Who knows if there is a licensing fee or what associated with it. I do not know.

Now, where SweetJazz may have a point (however ineptly communicated) is that pipeline gas, or even what Texaco may sell to duistributors like Costco, may not necessarily have the add packs in the fuel. These are often (usually?) added later, sometimes by the drivers themselves. Who knows for sure? That is why I add top tier fuel additives to my gas on an ongoing basis - there is not enough to risk overtreating the fuel, but certainly enough to mitigate deposit damage.

Yes, like additives in oil, there can be too much of a good thing. That is one reason that oil additives with tons of ZDDP and other colloids can be a bad idea, leading to excessive ash deposits, while not providing any additional wear protection.

Sort of like prunes - 4 may be good, but 100 could make your tail a lethal weapon.

 

Some more info on the "gas is gas" theory, its partial basis in truth, and why half-truths can be misleading.

'Unbranded dealers often buy "surplus" gasoline from middlemen, licensed by the major oil companies to sell their products. So an unbranded dealer could be selling the same gas sold by the major brands – basic gasoline with the additives put in by the major oil companies to identify it as their brand. Or, unbranded gasoline can be bought without the additives, directly from refiners, from companies which specialize in that market'.

There is absolutely no way to know for sure what you are getting. But the TT mfrs certainly have something to lose if they are "exposed", or if a car mfr. were to remove them from "the preferred list of suppliers". BMW for one has long had a minimum additive standard, which Red Line cites on their SI-2 fuel treatment.

Plus, unbranded gas bought from middlemen, especially at seasonal change periods, may have "summer blend" rather than "fall/winter blend". This can cause driveability problems, especially if like many people, you are someone who has a car they layaway in winter. Blends primarily affect the volatility, and can cause starting problems, bad idle, or even stalling.

 

Luckily, RR doesn't have any of those smug, self-congratulatory, or condescending tones in his posts.

 

RR and everyone else,
Just run the least expensive 91 octane and FP60 at every fill-up, then buildup will be a non-issue.

I've found that even with the added cost of FP60 at every fill-up (approx. $0.06/gal) to the cheapest gas, it still comes out cheaper than the large companies (i.e. Chevron, Shell, etc)

Look for the improvement in combustion efficiency, insolubles drop, and nox drop in your next UOA as well.

Michael

 

LOL! Well, I don't know how, but there is a difference. Rage gives so much to the forum that his rather "frank" style can be appreciated. Hell, I believe he once called one of my posts "an intellectual copout."

If anyone else had said it, I probably would have strapped on the flame thrower and got busy but when I went back and read what I wrote, I actually agreed with him.

It's Road Rage, he can get away with things that others can't, that's just life. If Sweetjazz or the rest can teach us a fraction what Road Rage has, we'll let them be smug too!

 

When I fill up near home I use Chevron. The closest station near the office is Texaco and I use that as well (it also seems to be 5-10 cents less expensive). "So what" you say, well Chevron and Texaco are owned by the same company, ChevronTexaco. Nothing funny there except, the pumps at the Texaco station have a scrolling LCD window touting Techron. So either the gas station is misrepresenting their product or Texaco also has Techron ... which I guess should qualify it for TT. Does anyone know for sure if Chevron and Texaco use the same additives?

 

Good response!

 

Well, I'm going to answer my own question. I checked the ChevronTexaco corporate web site and found a May 2nd press release in which it is stated that they are rolling out Techron to "ChevronTexaco supplied" Texaco gas stations. In the press release something else interesting was noted ... Until July 1, 2006 Shell also can supply Texaco gas stations. Those stations will NOT get Techron. The press release then went on to talk about how gasolines with Techron were TT without changing the formulation. I read into this that Texaco gasoline with Techron added is TT, regardless of marketing. HOWEVER, because Shell can also supply Texaco gas stations those gasolines would not qualify. Thus until July 1, 2006 when Chevron takes complete ownership the Texaco brand, we won't see Texaco marketed as TT.

Further on May 9 another press release was issued in which the company changed it's name from ChevronTexaco to Chevron Corporation, but will continue to maintain 3 brands Chevron, Texaco and Caltex.

 

Slightly OT question ?

Is the octane just an additive added prior to delivery ?
How about Techron ? Manufactured in, or additive ?

 

Octane is differentiated in the refinery process. There are octane additives on the market, but they're not as good as the real thing, some are actually harmful, and just about all are expensive.

Techron is an additive added sometimes right in the truck with the read of Chevron's addpack.

 

toptiergas.com is owned by National Products Group of Tulsa, OK. I'd like to know more about them before I believe anything on that website. A google search turns up nothing and they use a P.O. Box for their registration address. Hmmmm.........

 

I would like to see where they were not polite or gentlemanly.

I also believe that if one "has game" it aint "braggin". Having and sharing knowledge ia one thing - smartazz BS is another.

Mayne I should start calling it proprietary and start charging - would that make peeps feel a whole lot better?

Cheesh - someting for nothin', and flames to boot?

 

http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=195574

Here are a few smug, self-congratulatory offerings, free.

Look in "Miscellaneous" foir a partial analysis of Techron. It should be apparent that unklike most of the others, Techron "brings it". So does RL, and Regane.

Texaco has its own fuel additives.
nfnsquared and others thinking along the same lines:

As for the conspiracy theorists around the TT "hosting". Who cares who it is? - it clearly is a trade group, and if it encourages and achieves an imnprovement in quality fuel, I could care if it were Ernst Stavros Blofeld and Spectre who hosted it!

The "Insurance Insitute for Highway Safety" gets lots of kudos and fee press on the TV Networks and PBS, and it is an insurance industry "lackey" Yes, they do the crash tests that have seemingly helped improve crasjworthiness, but let us not forget that they also are behind photo radar, and providing LEA's with cheap, hand-held X-band radar gunbs. These are seen by mnost of us as pure money grabs, as those same insurers can surcharge us for years for going q0 over in our TL's om I-66 or wherever.

One really needs to look a bit more broadly and deeply at an issue before hinting at the motives of, say, the Top Tier community. The IIHS has plenty of blood on its hands, and one cannot pick and choose the issue of fairness and impartiality, IMHO.

 

It meant "good response" to the response to your patronizing and condensending response you sent out.

It terms of your definition of polite or gentlemanly that's up to everyone's definition.

 

Well, I for one, am not claiming anything.....yet. I'm just interested to see who Jim Denny and the National Products Group are. I sent an e-mail to them, so we'll see what they say... stand by for more.....

 

There was an excellent program recently on the History Channel, Modern Marvels, that profiled gasoline. What was most astounding to me was that the base gasoline, 87, 89, 91, 93 octane...whatever...is all the same. The only difference is at the loading terminal when different additives are injected into the mix to make the final product, whether it is Techron, V-Power or perhaps nothing special at all.

 

.... which explains pretty well why somebody working at a refinery could think "all gas is the same." Because it is - at the refineries. But it isn't all the same at the pump where you and I buy it, like it says above.

 

Wow, well because of your post I'm now aquiring that history channel episode so I can comment, but if that's true, I'm wondering what happened to the old rule that it takes more crude oil to produce 93 vs 87? I'll watch the show first, open my mouth later. RR, if you want the show too let me know.

 

The term they used in the show is that gasoline is distributed in a "fungible" system where a refiner just puts gas into the pipeline, say it is 93 octane in Texas they are producing, and a distributor for Exxon pulls it out at the very same time in New Jersey. Another distributor, maybe for Shell, may pull the same gas out of the same line. The difference is that they mix in their additives to make it unique to their branding. After the show, I would suspect that the brands that don't advertise any particular benefit...just cheap gas...are exactly that. Gas drawn from the pipeline with no additives at all.

 

And just to clarify, the base gasoline I was referring too was whatever octane level the refiner was producing. The octane level isn't adjusted (as far as I know) at the terminal.

 

Ok, well when you say "What was most astounding to me was that the base gasoline, 87, 89, 91, 93 octane...whatever...is all the same." it sounds like you're saying all the octanes are the same from the refinery which is what was raising a flag.

 

Sorry JackSprat01, that wasn't what I intended to get across...just that Exxon's 87 octane base gasoline is the same as the 87 octane base that Chevron or anybody else's is, at least per that show. The difference is in the additives at the terminal. Sorry if I didn't make it clear.

 

Gotcha, thanks....my gasoline episode is almost here so I should be able to watch it soon and report back.