Premium Gas

[marcus]

as per (Adriaan's) quote.
"he personally i like the premium gas, i've has lots of problems with the regular gas here in ontario. The gas here is mixed with ethanol some times up to 15% except shell premium and i believe pioneer. i was having problems with the gas sensor. Took it to the dealer to find out that the since i was mixing fuel with and without ethanol the fuel turned a white color and had damaged the sensor. i work between montreal and toronto. In Montreal there is no ethanol in the fuel as of yet. Since i had it changed i stop buying regular here in ontario and haven't had the problem since. Also I work for esso and i found out that when you mix ethanol fuel like sunoco with regular fuel with out ethanol turns a white color, and as of yet there no technology to separate the two. But this is my experience and what i found out. Not sure if it is true with what i found, or my car was and isolated incident. Also i did a test with sunoco ultra 94 and shell premium on my last trip to montreal. Between my monteal house and toronto house is 686km with ultra 94 i got 536km and with shell i got 636km same driving style going and return about 120km to 140 km on the 401."

Originally Posted by Pavel Olavich

So less efficient combustion means "cleaner"....Nope!

[dallas]

Let's stop the b.s and start posting our mileage figures on the two grades of gas. Enough people checking it should make the results more believable

[Moose]

I tried a tank of premium this week, after reading this thread, just to see what would happen. 90% of my driving is usually highway, and half of that is in bumper to bumper traffic. I usually average about 35 mpg. Using the premium, and with a 120 mile mountain run (most of which was spent at 4500 rpm and above) in addition to my normal routine, I averaged 37 mpg.

Will I spend the extra money on premium again? Nah, it wasn't that much of a difference to me. Did it prove to me that you do, in fact, get better fuel economy with 93 octane? You betcha, and I bet that I could've done better without the mountain run, as well.

[Kaotic Lazagna]

Originally Posted by Moose

I tried a tank of premium this week, after reading this thread, just to see what would happen. 90% of my driving is usually highway, and half of that is in bumper to bumper traffic. I usually average about 35 mpg. Using the premium, and with a 120 mile mountain run (most of which was spent at 4500 rpm and above) in addition to my normal routine, I averaged 37 mpg.

Will I spend the extra money on premium again? Nah, it wasn't that much of a difference to me. Did it prove to me that you do, in fact, get better fuel economy with 93 octane? You betcha, and I bet that I could've done better without the mountain run, as well.

cool, cool, this premium stuff is weird.

[Pavel Olavich]

Originally Posted by Moose

I tried a tank of premium this week, after reading this thread, just to see what would happen. 90% of my driving is usually highway, and half of that is in bumper to bumper traffic. I usually average about 35 mpg. Using the premium, and with a 120 mile mountain run (most of which was spent at 4500 rpm and above) in addition to my normal routine, I averaged 37 mpg.

Will I spend the extra money on premium again? Nah, it wasn't that much of a difference to me. Did it prove to me that you do, in fact, get better fuel economy with 93 octane? You betcha, and I bet that I could've done better without the mountain run, as well.

Your 'test' was not scientific....did you every consider that you could fill your tank up with 87 octane and drive your same route 10 times and get ten different MPG results? Your test lacks controls to be able to draw conclusions. Funny how you do your test once, and draw conclusions....did you attend college?

[acrbill]

The Yaris has 10.5:1 compression. It must have a extremely conservative timing curve to allow the car to run on regular. My old Neon ran on premium. It said premium fuel recommended. It did not say required. If I put regular fuel in the MPG would go down like crazy and there would be a noticeable power loss.

IMO any car with that high of a compression ratio should run better with a slower burning fuel in. The real test would be to use a obd2 data logger to monitor the knock sensor and timing with regular and premium. I would bet that you will see a lot of activity from the knock sensor and therefor timing being pulled and fuel being dumped.

[Pavel Olavich]

Originally Posted by acrbill

The Yaris has 10.5:1 compression. It must have a extremely conservative timing curve to allow the car to run on regular. My old Neon ran on premium. It said premium fuel recommended. It did not say required. If I put regular fuel in the MPG would go down like crazy and there would be a noticeable power loss.

IMO any car with that high of a compression ratio should run better with a slower burning fuel in. The real test would be to use a obd2 data logger to monitor the knock sensor and timing with regular and premium. I would bet that you will see a lot of activity from the knock sensor and therefor timing being pulled and fuel being dumped.

It's not just about high compression....the amount of cubic liters comes into play....just because a small engine has high compression does not necessarily mean it requires premium....you need to take the size of the engine into consideration too. The bigger the displacement, the longer it takes for the fuel to burn completely, thereby requiring more octane to retard the burn for a given stroke.

[Black Yaris]

Originally Posted by Pavel Olavich

Your 'test' was not scientific....did you every consider that you could fill your tank up with 87 octane and drive your same route 10 times and get ten different MPG results? Your test lacks controls to be able to draw conclusions. Funny how you do your test once, and draw conclusions....did you attend college?

let us pull that Chino quote again "Do you ever shut up?"

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Pavel Olavich

Your 'test' was not scientific....did you every consider that you could fill your tank up with 87 octane and drive your same route 10 times and get ten different MPG results? Your test lacks controls to be able to draw conclusions. Funny how you do your test once, and draw conclusions....did you attend college?

WOW. I just saw this.

Is this guy still here, or has he been banned?

1) ...did you every consider that you could fill your tank up with 87 octane and drive your same route 10 times and get ten different MPG results?

Yes, and they are usually within .3-.5 MPG each time. I actually do the math and keep a log. That's as close to scientific as we can get.

2) Your test lacks controls to be able to draw conclusions.

As does your opinion.

3) ....did you attend college?

Yes, Georgia Tech. I actually know the science- you think you know the science. And don't try any cute comebacks- I'll just look at my degree and my paycheck and giggle.

Will there be anything else Pavel? I generally reserve arguing on the internet for times when I have nothing more adult to do, but watching you unravel and make a fool of yourself is worth it.

[Pavel Olavich]

Originally Posted by Moose

WOW. I just saw this.

Is this guy still here, or has he been banned?

1) ...did you every consider that you could fill your tank up with 87 octane and drive your same route 10 times and get ten different MPG results?

Yes, and they are usually within .3-.5 MPG each time. I actually do the math and keep a log. That's as close to scientific as we can get.

2) Your test lacks controls to be able to draw conclusions.

As does your opinion.

3) ....did you attend college?

Yes, Georgia Tech. I actually know the science- you think you know the science. And don't try any cute comebacks- I'll just look at my degree and my paycheck and giggle.

Will there be anything else Pavel? I generally reserve arguing on the internet for times when I have nothing more adult to do, but watching you unravel and make a fool of yourself is worth it.

Your testing methods belie your "Georgia Tech" education. Sorry, but it was sloppy....by the way, I'm sure your giggling paycheck would make me laugh off my ass too!

[Moose]

[Slummy]

I know that acrbills test was not "scientific", but dont all his previous tanks that average 35 MPGs act as a control? Not trying to be difficult. Just curious.

[Black Yaris]

yes... Pavel is just mean, he just does not want to face the truth that he is WRONG 90% of the time

[elsteverino889]

Go with Citgo...support Chavez!!!....i kid lol

[churp]

Hey Pavel....you're great!!!

Haven't met many like you, but all I can think of is you sittin at home gettin under peoples skin and just laughin!!

Carry on.

[Black Yaris]

Originally Posted by churp

Hey Pavel....you're great!!!

Haven't met many like you, but all I can think of is you sittin at home gettin under peoples skin and just laughin!!

Carry on.

1 vote to ban you from the site just for that comment

[acrbill]

Originally Posted by Black Yaris

1 vote to ban you from the site just for that comment

Just what any site needs. Some 8 year old who gets off by pissing everyone off.

99% of the time I would agree with Pavel, but the high compression makes this situation different than most.

By your logic you would lose MPG. So even that guys "unscientific" test points to that not being the case.

So everyone knows.

The higher the octane the slower the burn. You want the lowest octane that the car can function well at. Most of the time using higher than needed octane cost performance. With higher compression there is an increased chance of engine knock. Not even the audible type, just the type that the knock sensor picks up. When that happens the ECU pulls timing and in some cases dumps fuel. Both are bad for all aspects of performance.

The only real way to test would be to log sensor outputs and timing advance with both fuels.

[Adriaan]

personally i like the premium gas, i've has lots of problems with the regular gas here in ontario. The gas here is mixed with ethanol some times up to 15% except shell premium and i believe pioneer. i was having problems with the gas sensor. Took it to the dealer to find out that the since i was mixing fuel with and without ethanol the fuel turned a white color and had damaged the sensor. i work between montreal and toronto. In Montreal there is no ethanol in the fuel as of yet. Since i had it changed i stop buying regular here in ontario and haven't had the problem since. Also I work for esso and i found out that when you mix ethanol fuel like sunoco with regular fuel with out ethanol turns a white color, and as of yet there no technology to separate the two. But this is my experience and what i found out. Not sure if it is true with what i found, or my car was and isolated incident. Also i did a test with sunoco ultra 94 and shell premium on my last trip to montreal. Between my monteal house and toronto house is 686km with ultra 94 i got 536km and with shell i got 636km same driving style going and return about 120km to 140 km on the 401.