Are there really any or is it all commercial gimmick?

I always put shell simply because I heard it's better...

2/27/2012 5:00:58 PM

Shell, Exxon, BP >> Kangaroo, Racetrac

The most common occurance I have heard of people getting "bad gas" is from Racetrac.

2/27/2012 5:48:25 PM

Based on absolutely no evidence I generally shoot for shell, exxon, or texaco. I think they're all on the "top tier" list.

2/27/2012 7:07:13 PM

it's my understanding that gas stations just buy a franchise tag and get the gas from whatever refinery. I just get gas from stations with high turn over so I know it doesn't sit and have water collect

2/27/2012 7:41:12 PM

I just fill up and go. I was not aware that people get serious over this shit.

2/27/2012 7:53:51 PM

Quote :

"it's my understanding that gas stations just buy a franchise tag and get the gas from whatever refinery."

That's what I've read too. Just get it wherever, add their detergents and send it out. Believe Shell claims their V-Power is nitrogen enriched and has 5x the detergent of others but can't really say I've noticed a difference between Shell, BP or just filling up at Lowes Foods. As for the "top tier" retailers, here's a list http://www.toptiergas.com/retailers.html

2/27/2012 8:03:03 PM

I regularly calculate mpg and it always seems I get the worst mileage from shell. That or their pumps stop early.

I tend to stick to "older" brands
Exxon, gulf, 66, texaco and shell

Pretty much the gas people you see sponcering races/ race cars. (not that I think my car is a race car I just like enthusiast minded companies.)



[Edited on February 27, 2012 at 8:40 PM. Reason : .]

2/27/2012 8:38:09 PM

^ top your tank off.

2/27/2012 9:06:45 PM

Some of you worry about way to much stuff that doesn't matter.

2/27/2012 10:22:01 PM

^i dont think anyone is worried about anything. it's simply a question.

2/27/2012 11:14:58 PM

I only fill up at BP, Shell, Sunaco and Exxon. I specifically avoid Citgo and Lukoil (state owned by Venezuela and Russia, respectively). I record my mileage and while it varies a bit, I feel like I get slightly better gas mileage at Shell.

Oh, and I haven't purchased anything other than 93 octane fuel since 1999.

2/27/2012 11:31:06 PM

I get a noticeable bump from shell - I average ~5mpg less with bp

[Edited on February 28, 2012 at 1:13 AM. Reason : ]

2/28/2012 1:13:40 AM

I have also seen a measurable mpg bump from using only Shell.

2/28/2012 3:53:55 AM

All of these companies are the same. They all come from Standard Oil, they are all the same consortium, it's all a commodity.

Unless you're buying race fuel or jet fuel, it doesn't make a lick of difference. I personally avoid BP and ARCO because of their horrific safety and environmental records, but that doesn't have anything to do with their fuel quality.

2/28/2012 4:36:47 AM

i was under the impression that the gas is generally the same, but the additives (detergents and whatever) vary a little

2/28/2012 7:14:02 AM

I used to only buy chevron when i rode motorcycles

i dont really worry too much in a regular grocery getter

2/28/2012 8:34:41 AM

I tend to use shell the most, their 93 octane seems to run the best in the mustang. The diesel for my jetta seems to get the highest gas mileage too.

I try to avoid bp, exxon and mobil out of environmental principles.

2/28/2012 9:42:33 AM

I fill up at BP because they give me 10% cash back.

2/28/2012 10:54:11 AM

If it would burn, I would piss in my tank. The only thing I notice is a uniform drop in mileage due to the addition of ethanol. Goddamn ethanol/corn lobby.

2/28/2012 11:14:21 AM

I try to avoid Citgo to keep from lining Hugo Chavez's pockets. I'm less likely to visit BP after the gulf spill incident but I'll still go there over a no-name brand. Other than that, I'll go with the big names before the off brands.

Sheetz does not follow this pattern because they're usually so damn much cheaper than everyone else, the fact that they get their gas from the lowest bidder that week doesn't bother me as much.

2/28/2012 12:15:26 PM

I'm a little iffy on Sheetz. They just opened one off of 50/210 in Benson and I filled up there my last 2 trips to Wilmington. Usually average 21-22MPG but only managed about 18.5 with those two tanks from Sheetz.

2/28/2012 1:40:31 PM

A chemical not a brand

2/28/2012 4:38:49 PM

Placebo gasoline.

2/28/2012 8:29:43 PM

^^ but how that chemical is stored/transported can make a huge difference in the water & sediment content. As well as other "enrichment" chemicals being added in.

2/29/2012 6:49:58 AM

Quote :

"The only thing I notice is a uniform drop in mileage due to the addition of ethanol."

Ya know, what's weird is I'm getting better mileage on 87 vs. 93 in my Jeep. I remember reading that 93 contains very little ethanol and it's 87 that is actually E10. I figured I would get better fuel mileage on 93 based on the ethanol content. So I tried an experiment. I hand-calculated my mileage for 3 tanks of 93. I was consistently averaging 17-18 before the experiment. My mileage started to drop after adding 93 with the 3rd tank I had averaged 14.6. This morning I filled up for the 3rd time with 87 and my mileage had increased on the 2nd tank to 16.7. I'm now expecting this third tank to be back to my usual mileage. All fill-ups were at the same station that uses individual nozzles per fuel grade. The tank was topped-off each time until I could not get another drop in the neck. Nothing was done to the Jeep maintenance-wise during this experiment. What gives?

2/29/2012 10:03:52 AM

I tried something similar once, but with the 87 the car just didn't feel like it was running as well so I didn't drive it as hard and I think that is where I picked up the extra MPG.

2/29/2012 10:54:21 AM

^^could it be that your timing/tune likes 87 octane more than 93....?

[Edited on February 29, 2012 at 10:55 AM. Reason : -]

2/29/2012 10:54:56 AM

^Well, yeah, since that's the octane on which the engine was designed to run. But theoretically doesn't E10 actually increase the octane rating?

2/29/2012 11:34:33 AM

I would assume that it has more to do with the decreased energy density with the addition of ethanol... but with only a 10% blend i really would not think the difference would be there.


... No clue on the octane comparo-

2/29/2012 12:06:29 PM

4.0 AMC motors were made/tuned to run on low octane. Thats whats up.

2/29/2012 12:43:20 PM

If an engine is designed to run on fuel that ignites easily, why do you think you would get better mileage using fuel that doesn't ignite as easily? And I'm pretty certain that E10 mandate is across the board, regardless of octane (at least in NC).

2/29/2012 2:06:26 PM

^

2/29/2012 2:53:02 PM

http://www.toptiergas.com/retailers.html

2/29/2012 5:06:43 PM

Quote :

"If an engine is designed to run on fuel that ignites easily, why do you think you would get better mileage using fuel that doesn't ignite as easily? And I'm pretty certain that E10 mandate is across the board, regardless of octane (at least in NC)."

My theory was based on the assumption that 93 had little ethanol compared to 87. Doesn't ethanol actually raise octane rating but yield less energy?

2/29/2012 6:56:01 PM

sure, but the octane rating is adjusted accordingly. they don't just take 93, cut it with ethanol and sell it to you.

2/29/2012 7:06:06 PM

Everything I've been reading now states nothing about 93 being free or having minimal ethanol content. It's simply 10% ethanol regardless of the grade. So much for that.

One tidbit I did read is a recommendation to buy fuel from a station that has high turnover rate. Reason being since ethanol is hydrophilic the moisture will cause phase seperation which will actually cause a 2-3 point reduction in octane. If 87 octane was purchased p/s could put the octane rating below 84 which is bad for engines.

2/29/2012 8:05:48 PM

Shell is one of, if not the only supplier here in WA that has premium (92) without the 10% ethanol added.

3/1/2012 3:21:01 AM