Less Ethanol in Premium Gas?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: mikered30
I believe there is no ethanol contamination in premium gas in Canada, so maybe that is where you heard that? The pure gas website lists just a few stations in NJ that sell E0 and they are marinas and if it is like the pricing in PA, you will pay 40 cents more per gallon.

http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=NJ

Not quite. Some Canadian stations don't have ethanol in their premium fuels but some do. Iirc chevron in British Columbia has ethanol in their premium,all Mohawk/husky stations have ethanol in their premium too.
Here the only stations that have ethanol in their premium is husky/Mohawk,everyone else doesn't. I use either shell or co-op,usually shell v-power. My Harley is sensitive to fuel and shell v-power seems to work best in it,so I use it primarily in everything.
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Here the only stations that have ethanol in their premium is husky/Mohawk,everyone else doesn't.


At one point, they were advertising that their premium did not have ethanol, but that was before they switched everything up. It seems that the provincial ethanol rules made things worse than they were for the consumer and the companies, rather than better.

We went from ethanol free 87 at the same price as midgrade with ethanol at Husky/Mohawk to the mess they have now. I generally have had good luck with their high end premium with ethanol. But, it does cost more than the premium from other places. Using a Petro-Canada credit card, I get two cents a litre off, so I tend to fill there.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Here the only stations that have ethanol in their premium is husky/Mohawk,everyone else doesn't.


At one point, they were advertising that their premium did not have ethanol, but that was before they switched everything up. It seems that the provincial ethanol rules made things worse than they were for the consumer and the companies, rather than better.

We went from ethanol free 87 at the same price as midgrade with ethanol at Husky/Mohawk to the mess they have now. I generally have had good luck with their high end premium with ethanol. But, it does cost more than the premium from other places. Using a Petro-Canada credit card, I get two cents a litre off, so I tend to fill there.


I remember when the Mohawks had 90 octane as regular and it was the same price as regular from other stations,then overnight it changed.
I used to fill up there for that reason alone. It took me a few weeks before I noticed on a fuel receipt that it said 87 octane,so I went in and asked about it and was told the 90 was no more,so I bought a co-op number for 10 bucks and that was that.
 
I think it hit the fan when the rules in BC changed, at least according to Husky's website. They also mention that what they used to do was take normal regular and add ethanol, giving the midgrade at regular price. Due to the regulations, the ethanol free regular was simply discontinued, a lower octane regular substituted, and ethanol added to that to bring it up to the proper octane.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
I think it hit the fan when the rules in BC changed, at least according to Husky's website. They also mention that what they used to do was take normal regular and add ethanol, giving the midgrade at regular price. Due to the regulations, the ethanol free regular was simply discontinued, a lower octane regular substituted, and ethanol added to that to bring it up to the proper octane.

I think your right. I thought the 90 octane was good value for the money,but once it became the same as everyone else I saw no point in buying it.
They had good coffee though.
 
Never tried the coffee, but I ran a lot of their 90 octane for many years. Their premium used to be a bit attractive, being an extra octane point above everyone else for the same price. To make matter worse, now that they have Husky points, they really cut down on the CAA Dollar rewards.

Well, one thing though, Husky/Mohawk is a good example of how good ethanol practices can go bad thanks to regulatory interference. Mohawk was very happy to sell ethanol fuel without being forced to and did so for many years. They advertised the benefits of ethanol. They gave price incentives. They made it clear they were using ethanol, using it as a marketing point, rather than hiding it or apologizing for it, and pointing out clearly which fuel was pure gas. Regulations get implemented, and look at what we have now - the same gas station with less choice and less financial incentive.

People can love ethanol fuel or hate it. Mohawk clearly knew how to market the stuff long before it became fashionable or mandatory.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Never tried the coffee, but I ran a lot of their 90 octane for many years. Their premium used to be a bit attractive, being an extra octane point above everyone else for the same price. To make matter worse, now that they have Husky points, they really cut down on the CAA Dollar rewards.

Well, one thing though, Husky/Mohawk is a good example of how good ethanol practices can go bad thanks to regulatory interference. Mohawk was very happy to sell ethanol fuel without being forced to and did so for many years. They advertised the benefits of ethanol. They gave price incentives. They made it clear they were using ethanol, using it as a marketing point, rather than hiding it or apologizing for it, and pointing out clearly which fuel was pure gas. Regulations get implemented, and look at what we have now - the same gas station with less choice and less financial incentive.

People can love ethanol fuel or hate it. Mohawk clearly knew how to market the stuff long before it became fashionable or mandatory.


Good points. I liked that is was 90 octane for the same price as regular. And iirc most/all other stations didn't have ethanol yet. They marketed it as a greener solution to fuel.
I'd still be using it if it was still that same deal. I never noticed any extra consumption using it over straight regular fuel however when using the 94 octane I did notice more consumption,and I'm not sure as to why.
 
i thought all the premium gas of Chevron in BC are ethanol free?

Pure gas site says that only the chevron 94 octane is ethanol free in BC?

How about Shell V-power?
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
I'd still be using it if it was still that same deal.


Me, too. That was all I ever used in the F-150. The Husky had decent hours and was handy for me, so I had no reason to go elsewhere. I never tried the 94 or compared much with pure gas - that thing's a gas hog and that's the way it goes.
wink.gif


@mauric3: It may be. You'd have to check with them. In most jurisdictions in Canada, the premium is the one that will be ethanol free if any of them are, since they have to have an average ethanol amount over total sales, not per grade. I'm not sure what the BC regulations are.
 
Topped off the tank today @ Chevron. I didn't see a ethanol label on the pump. I thought nearly all in this part of Calif. (Sacramento) had some ethanol, but haven't been paying attention.
I assume if it has ethanol, it must have a label on/at the pump?
 
Not sure what your regulations are down there. Besides differences in regulation, there's also enforcement. If a decal falls off and never gets replaced and no one inspects it, what's getting dispensed?
 
I am quite concerned about the whole E15 issue. I have seen a lot of statements online about 15% ethanol fuel being "fine" for 2007 and newer cars. Mine is a 2012 and it states emphatically in the owner's manual that I should not use fuels that have any more than 10% ethanol in them.

Freakin' corn lobby and EPA!
 
Upon further research it seems that gas stations that will carry E15, at least initially, will still sell E10. I believe that they will even have to purchase on site blending equipment to add the extra alcohol themselves and be able to sell E10 and E15 from the same pumps.

Either way, it appears that E15 will start out being "experimental" to test consumer acceptance. The projection was that it would end up being about 5% cheaper than E10, but you would lose about that much in fuel economy, therefore, no actual savings. Seems like a pretty poor way to try to reduce our "dependence upon foreign oil" that is perpetuated these days. Most of OPEC oil now gets sold to China. We get our imports from Canada and South America, primarily. On top of that, our own oil companies sell abroad because we have surplus inventory here and they can get higher prices selling in the world market.

It's a boondoggle involving the ethanol industry and the EPA, plain and simple!
 
Originally Posted By: DBMaster


It's a boondoggle involving the ethanol industry and the EPA, plain and simple!


Always has been. Thank you ADM.
 
All I can say is that I hope it REALLY means reduced air pollution because it has negative effects on food costs for everyone. And, all that cow-patty about it being "safe for cars 2001 and newer" (apparently, it's more than 2007 and newer now) is just that, cow-pie. If they continue down this path there will be lawsuits, oh yes.

Why would several car manufacturers already be up in arms if it were "perfectly fine" for their cars? Does that mean we would all need a waiver from our dealerships to supersede what is printed in the owners' manuals?
 
Figures that it would be in Kansas. Next will be Indiana, Iowa, or Nebraska. That is NOT a knock against those states. They are just the ones I know to be big corn states. Texas is, too, believe it or not.

Some people will use it because they will be tempted by the lower price. Plus, who wouldn't believe that the EPA's "thorough" testing of cars hasn't proved it to be safe.

Now, if you could just dial down that pump to 0, or even 5...
 
Great article, jdeare. This outtake really angers me, though...

“By a margin of three to one, Americans are clamoring for real choices at the pump,’’ said Bob Dinneen, the president and chief executive of the association. “The rollout and adoption of E15 is the first step in delivering Americans the choice they want and deserve.”

I do want REAL choices at the pump, but E-anything is not on the menu. If we had REAL choices we could get less than 10% in our fuel. In the recent past I used to fill up my 89 Accord LXi in Waco when I would visit my dad. Waco, for a while, did not sell oxygenated fuel because it was not an EPA "non-attainment" area. A full tank of pure gas made the car feel like it had a bigger engine and my fuel economy went up by about 3mpg.

What I REALLY want to know is whether or not the supposedly lower emissions obtained using this fuel is enough to offset the additional amount burned.
 
That statement by Bob Dinneen is infuriating. I haven't met any American clamoring for the choice of E15 at the pump. If anything, I hear a lot of people clamoring to bring back the choice of pure gas. Why don't they deliver that choice that Americans "want and deserve"?

How did they know to draw the line at year 2001? What technical input was used to make this determinaton? Or was it something they pulled out of the air?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Revving2Redline
Just the right amount of octane & ethanol
Replies
2
Views
468
Revving2Redline
D
Storing car for winter, we only have E10, do I need a stabilizer?
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
defury
M
Ethanol free gas
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
8K
danez_yoda
F
Does Premium Gasoline Have More Energy Than Regular?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
tcp71
Rand
Easy way to test for Ethanol % in gasoline.
Replies
8
Views
2K
Rand
Back
Top