I need your opinions here.

Is this Shell premium nitro gas brand really better than say Flying J or Loves premium 91 gas or is this just a marketing thing?

Toban

 

First of all, only use Top Tier in the GLE. And I noticed both from 3 years of GLC plus now one year of GLE, I do get slightly better fuel economy with Shell.

 

Depends on what refinery it came from...
Most gas at your local gas station comes from one refinery and they have additives they add when loaded in the truck to make the name brand gas.
This stuff is all about the same'

so for most part - same octane rating fuel:
exxon = shell = chevron = sunoco = Texaco = ANy I am missing.

The additives are cleaners and stabalizers etc.

None will give you more HP then the other as too many other variables effect that - like the weather.

 

I avoid Flying J because some/much of it comes from high sulfur Wyoming crude oil. Shell Nitro, Chevron Techron, is to some degree marketing hype, IMO. Personally I prefer Non Ethanol to any Ethanol based fuel but the higher price negates any increased economy from more energy density in N.E. There are other benefits, since N.E is not as corrosive and doesn’t phase separate over time. It’s very difficult to even measure any difference in fuels since you would need to test in exact conditions over the same route. Wind and air density can’t be controlled on the open road.
You might do a Google search…I’ve seen a professional review on this very subject a few years ago.

 

I've never seen 91 octane gas around here, only 93. I've used Sunoco, the stuff from Sheetz and Rutter's and Sam's Club. They all run the same.

 

You should use any brand of Top Tier gas somewhat frequently. It has additional cleaners and additives above the federal minimum that many manufacturers feel are now necessary. No harm if you don't use Top Tier every tank deposits don't build that quickly and the detergents will clean them to some extent anyway. I don't believe there is any independent study that one brand's top tier is better than any other's.

List of Top Tier (most major brands in the US):
https://www.toptiergas.com/licensed-brands/

 

Note:
Costco = Top Tier
Sam's Club = NOT Top Tier

 

"One refinery" is only partially true, and that's for the non-name-brand local discount stations.

Pipelines carry a variety of fluids, some from different refineries, and also different fuel types (diesel, gasoline, etc.) in the same tube.
They are separated at the terminals and held in tank farms, where (usually) each tank is owned/leased by individual brands. THAT's where the additives are introduced, and there can be quite a difference in additive packages.
Top Tier brands are guarded about their formulations and blends. It's not added to each tanker, except for the discount brands that don't have their own tank at the depot.

I find a noticeable difference with Shell over other brands in mileage, and all the cars, even my 7.5:1 compression vintage Land Cruiser with 700,000 miles is smoother after a few tanks.

Beyond brands, my '96 Chev S10 produces a check engine light after three tanks without Premium, which turns off after a half tank of Premium. This tells me something about the value of Premium blends.
Exxon or Conoco (locally available) don't make the cars as happy. (Now that we're into Winter blends, Exxon seems better than their Summer blend.)

When I get a loaner car, I note its performance, since I assume (!) that most drivers before me filled with the cheapest possible. Then, when I get below a half tank, I'll add premium, and the increase in performance is often pretty noticeable.
All this is based on my high elevation use here in Colorado.

So, in my small sample size (me and my cars), I am sold on the virtues of following M-B's warning to use only 91 aki.

 

I'm always wondering where this notion comes from that all gas supposedly comes from the same refineries. That's simply not true. Chevron, Shell etc. have their own refineries. There's a big Chevron refinery here in Richmond, CA for example. The tankers bring in the crude and it gets refined here and that's the stuff you get at the Chevron stations and California has its own blends as some of you probably know. Most of the trucks that ultimately deliver the fuel to the stations are unmarked, because these are separate companies that get contracted, but that doesn't mean they just deliver any fuel to any station. Maybe it's true for the discounters and places like Costco etc. just resell other brands of fuel at their stations, since Costco doesn't actually make their own fuels. As mentioned above, one of the major differentiator are the Top Tier vs Non Top Tier fuels, and all premium car manufacturers pretty much require Top Tier fuel to ensure the fuel system gets cleaned properly and you don't end up with clogged or leaking fuel injectors that will then destroy the catalytic converters and cost a good chunk of money to get it all fixed. Not worth saving a few cents a gallon.

 

So, does the top tier premium gas have 10% ethanol like the other grades?

Toban

 

Depends. In California for example yes. Ethanol is an oxygenate, and there's an oxygen content requirement in California, so pretty much all fuel here has up to 10% ethanol in it. Nothing wrong with that. Fuel in the USA used to have up to 11% of MTBE as the oxygenate, but it's toxic and contaminates water.

EDIT: Lots of myths around ethanol that just get repeated w/o actually understanding it. Ethanol promotes a cleaner and more complete combustion, so you are getting as much energy out of it as possible instead of wasting it in unburnt fuel. The additional oxygen is responsible for that. Engines make up to 20% more power on E85 (85% ethanol), because it has a faster ignition time and flame propagation leading to higher cylinder pressure. Problem with ethanol is that the engine has to be designed for it, otherwise it corrodes the fuel lines etc. Pretty much all engines these days are designed to work with at least 10% ethanol.

 

Keep in mind also that your Shell Station might not be selling fuel from a Shell Refinery. It’s a common practice in the industry to swap fuel with another Refiner such as Chevron or others. Depending on region, Chevron Stations might be using fuel from Shell (or a different refinery) and Shell fuel from Chevron (or a different refinery). Transportation costs can become prohibitive so swapping fuel in a region too distant from your Refinery comes into play. Some refinery’s have split ownership. Costco might contract with Chevron in one location and Shell in another. As ygmn posted earlier it’s primarily the additives that make the difference in Top Tier fuels.
Is one additive that much better than another? Does the additive improve fuel economy? Probably not much measurable difference, IMO!

 

There are big problems with ethanol, one of which is the 27% lower energy content. Which means you will get 27% lower fuel economy. Fewer miles per tank and questionable economics.

Then there are a set of environmental concerns. For instance, corn is one of the most water consumptive products out there, and the energetics of producing corn ethanol are negative.
In that regard, switchgrass ethanol has positive effects.
And the required government sticker that says "will reduce emissions" has been a false statement ever since they invented closed loop emission controls in the 1970s. The ethanol lobby is one powerful force.
Not a fan.

 

Nothing is perfect, but let's not hyperbole. Yes, ethanol has about 30% less energy per unit volume of gasoline, but that doesn't lower the fuel economy by 30% with a 10/90 mix. E10 as a result has 97% as much energy as gasoline. I'll bet one's driving style has a bigger impact, and considering that an ICE only turns about 30% of that into useful energy, the rest is heat, it's even less of a factor.

 

You are correct, the reduction in fuel economy depends on the ratio of E to gasoline. My statement was misleading. But that doesn't change the loss of efficiency, which would be by that same ratio, or close. Stoichiometrics and all that.
But these days, ICE's that M-B builds are well over 40% efficient, lead by their new 3.0L inline six in the 450's - I understand it's 45% efficiency. M-B's target is over 50%, which, according to them, puts ICE at more efficient than EV's, considering their comparative Life Cycles.
Their F1 cars are right at 50% efficiency now.

 

Those efficiency numbers are peak efficiency under full power with the turbos extracting some of the waste heat and turning it into usable energy. It's nowhere that on average just tooling along in stop&go traffic etc. An ICE is still wasting around 70% of the energy on average.

 

You're correct that ICEs don't always operate at optimum loads and speeds, but it's really hard to make an apples to apples comparison, with all the variables. Battery cars have their own impediments, such as temperature, charging, grid and conversation losses, but that's seldom mentioned by their proponents.
I think your numbers are dated, and my (two year old) research indicated differently, more along the lines that I stated. I don't believe the 50% numbers are at "full power," since there would be additional friction and pumping losses in that situation. It's probably "higher load, lower RPM."
Maybe an electric Supercharger with mild hybrid ISG boost, with turbo feeding a long stroke six would be a good direction? Hmmm - the AMG 53?

Can you share your efficiency sources? I don't have mine any more (bad computer crash with backup failure, 6 months down!), and I should revisit the topic.

The obvious comparison is with EV's, but they have their efficiency problems too. I'm not fond of the EV mandates, what with all the infrastructure, sourcing and recycling hurdles that don't seem to be considered.
Maybe that's because I live in a Fly-over State, and I've been working on Grid inadequacies for a few decades. EV's as a concept are exciting for investors, but if you live between the Mississippi and the Sierra Nevada's, Prime Time is far in the future.

There's No Free Lunch, and our population will probably double in 35 years. So a 50+% efficient ICE would be nice, on the road with all the 52% efficient EV's. Wait til we see more SynFuels.

 

I don't really have ready source material on all these. It's information gathered from many sources over the years. Heat engines operate between 30% to 50% efficiency and in a car there are so many variables. Most people drive very inefficient. City driving is inefficient and so is stop&go traffic. You simply won't see anything near 50% in those situations. Long distance highway driving, yes, you can see higher efficiency. I don't really wanna get into EVs. We were talking about ethanol. My point is largely that 3% less energy is pointless to even worry about with 50% to 70% loss. Not to mention that most people use a fraction of the power the engine can actually make. At 60 mph a typical car only needs 10 to 20 horsepower to maintain its speed. The more peak power the engine makes, the less efficient it becomes at partial to low loads.

 

Well, you're talking about driving habits, and I'm talking about energy content. Of course, if something has 30% less energy content (Ethanol) you won't see 30% reduction if you use less of it. But it's still an efficiency loss, and the Ethanol Lobby would have us go to E85, which can actually vary quite a bit from 15% ethanol.
From Car and Driver, "E85 gas (also known as flex fuel) is a high-level combination of ethanol and gasoline that consists of 51 percent to 83 percent ethanol blended with gasoline. The percentage of ethanol depends on the geographical location and time of the year." https://www.caranddriver.com/researc...at-is-e85-gas/ Pretty good article with links.

All the hullabaloo about "Decreasing our energy dependence" is hogwash. Ethanol (from corn) just makes all our food cost more, wastes water, and wastes the fuel it takes to plant, harvest, till and replant every year. Talk about inefficiency!

And back to the original post, yes, my experience is that Shell gives better performance and fuel economy than other brands, in my locale. I'm mpg conscious, and a recurring 5% reduction in fuel economy would make me wonder if I has an engine problem.

Some of the new "Fueling Stations" that are being built now, have more than one blend of Ethanol, AND Ethanol-free. Yay!

 

I'm talking about driving habits, because ultimately that's where it matters. I bet that the slight reduction in energy content of E10 won't be noticed by anybody as there are many other factors in daily driving that have a larger impact. That's really what it comes down to. As far as growing corn goes, it would get grown anyway because it's heavily taxpayer subsidized in this country, and if it doesn't end up in our fuel tanks it ends up in our food as high-fructose corn syrup which is largely responsible for the obesity crisis in this country. I personally rather burn it, than eat it .

 

I think we agree on most of these topics, actually. I avoid corn ethanol as much as I can, for its impacts on so many things, including obesity. But mostly for its energy balance and water consumption.
The fact that my car doesn't like it, is just another reason to avoid.

 

Interesting that you brought up synthetic fuels, it is actually (unfortunately) not as good as what we hoped for and it is not something that can save ICE either.
I came across this video on youtube today, youtube.com/watch?v=AlkkMA2BTf4
but thanks for bringing it up.

 

On an antique car, that is true. On a modern car that is not correct. Cars built in this century have oxygen sensors, direct injection, and computers to precisely control the air to fuel mixture. Oxygenated fuel will cause the engine to burn lean, so the computer will add more gas to richen the mixture and reach the optimal air/fuel ratio to maximize efficiency. Therefore you will use slightly more fuel than you would using unoxgenated fuel. The 10% ethanol mandate helps to lower our crude oil consumption.

 

It varies by province, state and brand. In Canada only Shell V power 91 and Canadian Tire 91 have no ethanol in 91 Coast to Coast.
Here is a link I use to find info. https://www.pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=ON
Recently Esso/Mobil here started to add ethanol to Premium so you need to keep up to date.
Here in Ontario most premium is 91 Octane. 93 is hard to find outside major urban centres. All the 93, 94 octane (where I can find it) in Ontario contains ethanol. Consequently my C8 Corvette which requires 93 minimum only gets 91 most of the time.

 

Thanks for posting. That guy needs to do more research, and realize that there are several types of Synfuels, some of which release energy as they are produced.
They said the same things about batteries a decade ago, which are the Darling of the carbon crowd, who is blinded by the current hype, and who don't understand the shortage of trace elements and the environmental / social damage caused by their extraction because it's not in their back yard. Yet.
Most of his arguments can be directly (and accurately) aimed at corn Ethanol. Or nuclear, for that matter. There is no free lunch.

Fuels will develop, because we will need oodles of it to keep people from freezing to death in their NYC apartments, and the reverse in Phoenix.
Oh, and the groceries coming to urban centers two thousand miles away. And ferrying our Dignitaries to useless conferences with 80 car motorcades.

It's not about carbon, which is a debatable greenhouse gas - it's about population growth. Ruling out one energy source because it's not fully developed yet, would take us back to whale oil. Which supported a World population of 1 1/2 billion. Now it's 5X that, doubling again in 30 years, and we had to develop beyond whales.

I might be around in 2035, to see the astonished "enlightened" look on the politicians' faces when they start subsidizing ICE development to meet the "previously unpredictable" demands for transportation and shipping. They will proudly proclaim that "We will be attending the Extinguish Volcanoes In Our Lifetime International Conference to save the Planet" Yay.