93 octane or 87 Octane NO Ethanol

[woodlandfarms]

Well, a little surprise for me at one of my fueling joints. They have now 93 No Eth pump.. $$$$$ for a gallon. And then around the corner was my ususal haunt that has (I think it is 87, might be 89) octane no ethanol but for a lot less

Any thoughts, this is strictly for my quad which sits a lot and all my small engines (2 and 4 stroke).

 

[Gary Fowler]

There was quite a discussion about use of premium fuel vs regular a while back. Sufficient evidence exist to support the use of only 87 octane if your engine is designed to run on it. Using higher octane than what the manufacturer states doesn't gain anything and in most instances will cost you more. Not only in more $ per gallon but also less power from your engine. Premium fuel does not run any better in a low compression engine and in many instances runs worse due to the lower volatility of the premium fuel (that is how they get it to reduce engine knock (pre-ignition).

SO if your Quad is supposed to run on 87 then run 87 and you will get more power from your engine.

This is not any relation to whether or not to use 0 ethanol or 10%. I had been filling my motorcycle with Shell Premium because it has no ethanol when preparing it for winter storage. I will from now on, get the 87 octane no ethanol which is available at a different gas station which is actually closer to the house. It is only about 40 cents a gallon higher than 10% ethanol. The Shell premium is about $1.30 higher which for my 4.5 gallon tank isn't a big deal but since I found out that it reduces the power and fuel mileage, why pay more for something that is inferior.

NOTE: If your engine says to use high octane, then by all means use the 93.

 

[cat fever]

Gary hit the nail on the head. Use the octane your owners manual says to use.

 

[N80]

What kills me with the zero ethanol stuff is that it costs more than 10% more than the gas that contains 10% ethanol.

Of course, the detrimental effects on engines, the economy and nature due to us putting food in our gas tanks is proof enough to me that we are a nation of well intentioned idiots.

 

[buickanddeere]

Well, a little surprise for me at one of my fueling joints. They have now 93 No Eth pump.. $$$$$ for a gallon. And then around the corner was my ususal haunt that has (I think it is 87, might be 89) octane no ethanol but for a lot less

Any thoughts, this is strictly for my quad which sits a lot and all my small engines (2 and 4 stroke).

Small engines use the no ethanol and the highest octane on the market. Fewer bunged up carbs and fewer pistons with holes burned through them.

 

[TMGT]

I have 87 and 89 non ethenol available at different stations, I get 89 for all small engines just out of convenience as the 2 strokes require it, minimal performance change and during the summer months doesn't hurt to have a little more detonation prevention on the air cooled engines.

Plus sometimes i have to mix up 2 stroke gas from one of the larger cans, so just having one fuel simplifies things.

 

[davesl708]

What kills me with the zero ethanol stuff is that it costs more than 10% more than the gas that contains 10% ethanol.

Of course, the detrimental effects on engines, the economy and nature due to us putting food in our gas tanks is proof enough to me that we are a nation of well intentioned idiots.

There needs to be a :thumbsup: button on here. Considering test show producing ethanol and putting it in fuel produces more overall pollution than straight gas.

 

[N80]

Small engines use the no ethanol and the highest octane on the market. Fewer bunged up carbs and fewer pistons with holes burned through them.

What do you mean by small engines? I'm pretty sure my newest (cheap) lawnmower says 87 only but I won't swear to that. If you mean small car engines then I would say that is generally true as most high revving fours and sixes are high compression engines. In my 350z the computer will ****** or advance the timing depending on the fuel you put in it. That is not to say you should run 87 in it (I don't) but it can handle it with performance decreased by the computer. Most of the time I run 89. I run the highest octane I can on trips and at the racetrack. As for ethanol in a car engine I don't think it makes a bit of difference if you're burning it up. Leaving it sitting in a car (or lawnmower) is where the problems come....as I understand it....which is probably not very well.

 

[cford36]

What do you mean by small engines? I'm pretty sure my newest (cheap) lawnmower says 87 only but I won't swear to that. If you mean small car engines then I would say that is generally true as most high revving fours and sixes are high compression engines. In my 350z the computer will ****** or advance the timing depending on the fuel you put in it. That is not to say you should run 87 in it (I don't) but it can handle it with performance decreased by the computer. Most of the time I run 89. I run the highest octane I can on trips and at the racetrack. As for ethanol in a car engine I don't think it makes a bit of difference if you're burning it up. Leaving it sitting in a car (or lawnmower) is where the problems come....as I understand it....which is probably not very well.

I think he is referring to chainsaws, trimmers, etc.

 

[MossRoad]

Well, a little surprise for me at one of my fueling joints. They have now 93 No Eth pump.. $$$$$ for a gallon. And then around the corner was my ususal haunt that has (I think it is 87, might be 89) octane no ethanol but for a lot less

Any thoughts, this is strictly for my quad which sits a lot and all my small engines (2 and 4 stroke).

Listen buddy!!!! (yeah, like I've got some authority :laughing ... I've been running 87 octane 10% ethanol in ALL of my machines (cars, trucks, tractors, lawn mowers, garden tractors, snow blowers, chainsaws, weedeaters, power washer, ice auger, etc... ), since the early 80's.... and I keep my vehicles until they rust apart. So this is a long-time study on my part. I've had exactly ONE 20 cent fuel line go bad in ONE chainsaw in 37 years. The only one I ever treat with Stabil is my generator. And it sits for years with the same fuel in it.... and it starts every time.

Bottom line is you are wasting money by paying more for non-ethanol fuel when you should probably be adding Stabil to ANY fuel you use in your long-term storage machines, regardless of if it has ethanol or not.

 

[4570Man]

87 or 100 or 110 are all I can get ethanol free. I run the 87 for cost of around $2.30 a gallon.

 

[ruffdog]

You will lose about 3-4% fuel mileage with E10.
Ethanol

 

[tomplum]

Yeah, by me they get 3$ a gallon for the stuff with corn squeezings in it. Add a dollar for clear gas. So Woodlandfarms, is it like a coop that has the clear gas by you, a chain station or?

 

[4570Man]

I know of at least 3 different places in town that have ethanol free gas. Ones a Weigel's. Ones a Exxon, and ones a non chain. There's other chain stations that have it locally, but the Weigel's is the cheapest and the Exxon was there first, and the other place is a mile from my house so those are the only places I buy it.

 

[TMGT]

Listen buddy!!!! (yeah, like I've got some authority :laughing ... I've been running 87 octane 10% ethanol in ALL of my machines (cars, trucks, tractors, lawn mowers, garden tractors, snow blowers, chainsaws, weedeaters, power washer, ice auger, etc... ), since the early 80's.... and I keep my vehicles until they rust apart. So this is a long-time study on my part. I've had exactly ONE 20 cent fuel line go bad in ONE chainsaw in 37 years. The only one I ever treat with Stabil is my generator. And it sits for years with the same fuel in it.... and it starts every time.

Bottom line is you are wasting money by paying more for non-ethanol fuel when you should probably be adding Stabil to ANY fuel you use in your long-term storage machines, regardless of if it has ethanol or not.

I'd say your an anomaly, I spent a lot of time researching and studying fuels when i was in college and the ethanol can have some detrimental effect on certain materials, especially those found in a lot of small engines.

I've always treated my fuel but started using ethanol free fuel in my ope over a year ago and have noticed a marked improvement in performance and maintenance.
Doing cost analysis I end up breaking even spending the extra on the ethanol free by the time you factor in the additive designed to prevent ethanol problems and the added fuel economy.
I don't see the point of buying fuel with ethanol just to have to treat it for the ethanol?

The cars get regular E10 as they go through enough fuel I don't have to worry about fuel sitting and they are designed to handle it.

 

[Wagtail]

You will lose about 3-4% fuel mileage with E10.
Ethanol

I can support that statement. At my petrol pumps they offer 'regular' = 91 octane, 0% ethanol; E10 = 95 octane, 10% (sugar cane) ethanol and 'super' = 98 octane, 0% ethanol. The E10 is the cheapest, but only by 1 cent per litre compared to 'regular'.

"But the E10 is still cheaper and it's 95 octane! That's gotta be better, right?" Nope. A 4 hour round trip from St Helens to Launceston and back used almost 3/4 of a full tank of E10.

The same trip using a full tank of 'regular' 91 octane petrol is just under the HALF mark on my utes gauge.

That's "proof" enough for me

 

[Toyboy]

In my neck of the woods ethanol free gas is everywhere 87 & 92 octane I think. We pay about a $.40 premium for the 87 and I use it in everything, even both vehicles. I'm the go-to guy all my friends bring their chainsaws to when their not running right. 95% of all the problems are ethanol related, carbs & fuel lines.
For every guy like Moss roads there are 25 or more that don't have that luck. If you've been using blended gas and are happy with the results your equipment, by all means stay with it.
If your not one of the rare lucky ones, try to find un-blended. It will save you lots of headaches down the road.
Your choice.

 

[davesl708]

I can support that statement. At my petrol pumps they offer 'regular' = 91 octane, 0% ethanol; E10 = 95 octane, 10% (sugar cane) ethanol and 'super' = 98 octane, 0% ethanol. The E10 is the cheapest, but only by 1 cent per litre compared to 'regular'.

"But the E10 is still cheaper and it's 95 octane! That's gotta be better, right?" Nope. A 4 hour round trip from St Helens to Launceston and back used almost 3/4 of a full tank of E10.


The same trip using a full tank of 'regular' 91 octane petrol is just under the HALF mark on my utes gauge.

That's "proof" enough for me

I get about 2 mile to the gallon increase using pure gas over E10 driving the same route time and time again and produce less pollution doing it.

 

[N80]

If the mileage increase doesn't pay for the difference in cost its still a waste of money.

Also, if you frequently pay extra for pure gas at small country markets you might want to make sure you're getting what you pay for. There is a small country convenience mart outside of a race track where I frequently drive. The owner has high octane gas and no-ethanol gas. His prices are high but a little lower than the gas at the track itself (Shell, high quality stuff). The next closest gas station is 5 miles away. Over the years racers who bought their gas there noticed performance issues and in some cases engine damage and rumors began to fly. Finally one racer took the initiative to request a state investigation which found that his fuels did not meet advertised specs and appeared to be mixed. No one know what the fines were but apparently not much if any and the only change he has made was to tape little signs on the pump indicating that the octane rating might be lower than the one on the official sticker and his sign!

We were not surprised to find that this guy was ripping people off. We had suspected it for a long time. We were quite surprised that the state did little or nothing about it.

So before you plunk down good money for whatever performance gains you believe you might be getting make sure the fuel is coming from a reputable source.

 

[tractorshopper]

As I've stated on many similar threads, my truck runs much better with more ready power when I put in a full tank of ethanol free. I get better gas mileage with it also, but not always enough to offset the additional cost depending on the difference in price. Sometimes I run it anyway if for no other reason to vote with my money and make sure demand stays up so we will continue to have it available locally. We are fortunate that it is readily available around here.

For small engines, I have had so many problems with ethanol gas, that I exclusively run ethanol free in any small engine power equipment that I have. My Honda pressure washer specifically calls for ethanol free.

My Honda CRF250L motorcycle calls for 87 octane and doesn't say ethanol or ethanol free, but I almost exclusively run ethanol free unless I'm up in the mountains and can't find a station with it when I need to fill up. I then try to use 93 octane as some local stations state that the 93 is almost always ethanol free mix around here whether it's marked that way at the pump or not. Have only done that twice, so can't really compare, but I did fill up with 87 ethanol one time and averaged 64.7 mpg, then the very next tank filled up with 87 non ethanol and recorded 68.5 mpg. That's roughly 5.6% increase in mileage in my bike, consistent with the ~6% I usually notice in my truck. Sometimes ethanol free 87 is 10% higher than non ethanol. Sometimes it's 15-20% higher.

We have a lot of lakes around here, so most boat and jet ski owners exclusively use non-ethanol. My father in law lives on the lake and has a boat and 2 jet skis. He has about eight 5 gallon cans that he fills up periodically at the station exclusively with non-ethanol and the gas stations near the lake landings all advertise non-ethanol offered here for boaters.