Top Tier vs. Cheapest gas + Techron

Status
Not open for further replies.
On a different note, if I lived in a state where TT gas was 15-20 cents more per gallon and then I wouldn't run TT gas. I would run what is cheapest and use Techron every 3,000 miles. However, I live in a state where TT gas is the same price as the non-TT stuff and so it is a no brainer to purchase TT gas. I don't have to go out of my way to get it either. I pass two Quiltrips to work everyday. I will admit, though, that when I do put ethanol free gas in my vehicles that I do have to go about a mile out of the way, but it is worth it to me. BTW, the ethanol free gas is also Top Tier.

[/quote]


Probably the best disclaimer that I have read on this thread and the one that I agree with. If you have TT stations on every corner and they are the same price as the non-TT stations, go ahead and buy it, why not. However not everyone has that scenario. In Ohio, Exxon/Mobil and Shell are about it for the TT's. For me to purchase TT gas, it is 12.5 miles each way, out of the way to buy gas. Am I that dedicated to the cause? No.

About the time we got Turkey Hill's in Ohio, they withdrew from the TT list. UDF stopped selling Mobil fuel. The vast majority of the Shell stations in my area converted to Marathon. Therefore, there is not a good availability in my area for TT fuel. So, my choice has been made for me. I use what is available, dump a bottle of Techron down the tank every OC, and have had no problems using it.
 
Originally Posted By: Capa
Originally Posted By: whip

Most manufactures don't recommend using any additives, and some recommend against them. Maybe Hyundai/Kia has a design issue?

......Moreover, no one is saying that if you don't use TT fuel that your car will implode or explode.....

leakyseals is saying that.
Quote:
Remember who they are, they will eventually post with a "random misfire", "evap", or "rough idle" thread down the road.
 
Originally Posted By: vinu_neuro
Top Tier isn't just marketing. It's a consortium by BMW, Honda, Toyota, GM and VW. Looks like BMW started the initiative for fuel quality standards after noticing related problems in North America, and others joined for the same reason.

There's a wiki page for Top Tier with some background info. This is from a cached page on SwRI:

Qualifying Fuels to Avoid Intake Valve Deposits

Fuel-related driveability problems called for development of a new fleet test procedure

by Lee J. Grant and A. Doug Brownlow

For more than 40 years, staff members in the Automotive Fleet Laboratory in the SwRI Fuels and Lubricants Research Division have evaluated trucks, automobiles, buses, tractors, motor scooters -- vehicles of all types and sizes -- and their components, as well as fuels, lubricants, and other fluids for companies in the United States and abroad. It was this longstanding international reputation for excellent work that first brought the German automotive company BMW to the Institute in 1986.

At that time, the Institute was involved in a series of test programs to investigate intake system deposits and their effects on vehicle engine performance (driveability) during warm-up. The test series showed that while fuel injector deposits -- a problem that had previously plagued the automotive and fuels industries -- were now minimal, there were indeed wide variations in intake valve deposits.

BMW had begun similar investigations of their own in 1984 when their field analyses showed that, because of differences in fuel properties and driving styles, engine performance problems due to deposits on injectors and intake valves were more than 10 times higher in the U.S. than in Germany. These driveability problems occurred during startup and initial acceleration, and could produce a rough idle, hesitation, and backfiring at intermediate temperatures (50-79 degrees F). Laboratory and vehicle tests confirmed that fuel properties were the main cause of these deposits. However, when these vehicle results were compared with conventional measures of gasoline characteristics, no clear correlation was found. BMW, as a result, decided to continue their investigative work at SwRI.
Deposits and Additive Usage

Engine deposits result primarily from the combustion of fuel and air in vehicle cylinders. Most of these chemical reaction products exit through the exhaust system and the tailpipe. A small amount, however, remains in the engine to be picked up by the oil, which is fortified with additives to control excessive deposits and wear.

There are, in addition, some chemical reactions that occur in the fuel and air distribution system in the engine prior to combustion in the cylinder. These "fuel side" deposits are accelerated by heat and other combustion products that find their way back into the intake system. For this reason, it is advantageous if the gasoline contains deposit control additives for those areas that do not have direct access to the generally beneficial additives in the motor oil.

Deposit build-up in the fuel intake system is not a new phenomenon. The gas-guzzling engines of past years were designed to meet less-stringent standards of fuel economy and emissions control. Today, the conflicting demands of increased horsepower, fuel economy, and emissions control mean that fuel management systems must operate within close tolerances. Multiport fuel injection feedback systems control the operation of all cylinders much closer to the lean limit throughout most of the operating range. As a result, variables, such as small deposits, can have a pronounced effect, upsetting the system and causing driveability problems.

Conventional carbureted engines have shown a high tolerance for intake valve and port deposits, without generating driver complaints on engine performance. There are a number of reasons for this. Such engines are tuned to richer air/fuel ratios that allow for mixture malfunction. Their greater power-to-weight ratios mean that the driver is less apt to notice changes in peak power. The limited means of measuring small changes in fuel economy or emissions level masks the effects of heavy intake valve deposits from the driver. Finally, in the 1950s and 1960s it was found that using gasoline additives (detergents) at relatively low concentrations was effective in controlling such things as carburetor deposits that upset fuel-air mixtures.

In 1985, automakers began to introduce fuel-injected engines. The obvious advantages included improved fuel economy, cleaner exhaust, and excellent drivability. However, the tendency of fuel injectors to clog soon presented the automobile and fuel industries with a new set of problems. As the engine is turned off, fuel is dried by the heat, leaving deposits in the interior mechanisms of the fuel injector. The engine then becomes hard to start, and suffers from loss of power, hesitation, and rough acceleration. The problem is not caused by foreign matter that can be filtered and cannot be resolved by an engine tune-up.

Conventional amine detergent additives that had been effective in controlling carburetor deposits also proved to be effective for deposits in the fuel injector systems. However, it was necessary to use high levels of treatment and this, in turn, led to an increase in intake valve deposits. The detergents, together with other fuel components, accumulate on the intake valves when used in high concentrations and form carbonaceous deposits.

Polymeric dispersant systems with better thermal stabilities were then introduced. These systems, a combination of dispersants and fluidizers, were found to control deposits throughout the induction system. The dispersants have the capability of cleansing and dispersing particulate matter, holding it in suspension so that it can pass through the fuel system and burn with the fuel.
BMW Test -- Background

It was this series of events and circumstances that created the problem for BMW and other automobile manufacturers. Owners had cars with clean injectors but dirty intake valves that caused drivability problems. An expensive solution is a walnut shell blasting (similar to sand blasting, but with a less abrasive material) of the intake valves to remove the offending deposits. The prospect of doing this several times before the vehicle warranty expired was not appealing to either dealers or customers.
qual1.gif (16016 bytes)

BMW engine intake valve at center was used in evaluation of a fuel that successfully completed a 10,000-mile test to meet BMW requirements for unlimited mileage use. Also shown for comparison are a new valve (left), and a valve showing classic cauliflower carbonaceous deposit buildup, removed from a car that had been driven for about 35,000 miles with unknown fuels before being purchased for fleet test service.

BMW did a significant amount of work on their own investigating the causes of valve deposit. One important part of their research effort included a contract with the Institute to conduct vehicular fleet and laboratory bench tests.

The initial vehicle program, begun in 1986, was an interdivisional effort. This project involved six 1985 BMW model 318i vehicles and used nine test fuels. A carefully designed test route was established, using trained drivers on a schedule consisting of 10 percent city, 20 percent suburban, and 70 percent highway driving. On the completion of 150,000 miles of road-test work, a protocol was established for a test route (cycle), vehicle, fuel-ranking methods, and drivability, supported by objective correlations in which intake valve deposit weights were compared with engine performance.

A second program, testing seven cars, followed in 1987. This program provided additional data for the establishment of a fuel evaluation procedure, added to the database of commercial fuel performance, and allowed refiners to investigate new additive technology. An additional 130,000 miles were accumulated by the BMWs during this program.

BMW presented results of the 1986 project at the 1987 Society of Automotive Engineers International Fuels and Lubricants Meeting in Toronto, Canada.* The presentation, coupled with the 1987 follow-on program, served to increase the interest of some refiners and additive companies. Others, however, considered it a "non-problem" or one isolated to a small importer of foreign cars. For the most part, BMW continued its early efforts to increase interest in raising fuel quality in the U.S. without much direct support from other automobile companies.

Gradually, however, other vehicle manufacturers acknowledged that they, too, had problems or acknowledged the importance of the problem BMW had brought out of the closet. Furthermore, BMW developed a mechanism by which a fuel marketer at the service-station level could notify BMW owners that a particular gasoline could be depended on to provide good performance in their cars. Established performance criteria, SwRI experience and capabilities in fuels evaluation, and availability of the fleet of appropriate vehicles combined to make the Institute a logical choice to offer to refiners and marketers seeking a test by which they could evaluate their gasolines. Successful qualification using Institute procedures would allow manufacturers to market a fuel as having met BMW requirements.

Starting with the original six 1985 model 318i vehicles, the SwRI/BMW North America (NA) fuels evaluation program was initiated in January 1988. There has been a continual increase since then in the number of fuels tested and cars used as more marketers have realized that fuel quality is an important issue. As part of the overall developmental process, there have been frequent additive/fuel response and product development studies conducted in these vehicles.

The magnitude of the program and its rapid and continuing growth were not anticipated. There are currently 30 vehicles assigned to the program. Six of the original seven vehicles are still in service, each approaching 300,000 miles (the only dropout being one that was irreparably damaged in an accident). These vehicles may have had an engine and transmission change or two and other running gear repairs, but they have proven to be durable. The 5,000,000 total test miles in the project have required 125,000 driver hours (60 person-years). The test procedure has received widespread attention as fuel marketers have used it as a subject in television commercials and national media campaigns. Sponsors include companies not only in North America, but in Asia and Europe as well. Many national magazines have featured SwRI and the test procedure; most recently it was covered in Consumer Reports in January 1990.
The 10,000-mile Test

The fuel evaluation procedure, as currently structured, is based on 10,000 miles of driving in the BMW model 318i. These vehicles are equipped with 1.8L 4-cylinder engines and automatic transmissions. The testing is initiated with new, carefully weighed intake valves. This is followed by 10,000 miles of operation with the candidate fuel, and then disassembly of the cylinder head to reweigh the intake valves. An optional inspection at 5,000 miles is frequently conducted.
qual2.gif (34763 bytes)

Carefully weighed intake valves are shown being placed in an engine in preparation for a test. After 10,000 miles of operation with a candidate fuel, the test engine cylinder head is disassembled and the intake valves reweighed. Individual valve carbonaceous deposit accumulations of up to 2 grams have been recorded.

The primary data consists of intake valve deposit ratings and weights and photographs of the intake valves. The significant data, however, is the actual deposit weight on the intake valves at 10,000 miles. Fuels are then classified in one of the three categories based on the following criteria established for the average of the four intake valves:

1) 100 milligrams maximum: meets BMW-NA standards of intake valve cleanliness for unlimited mileage.

2) 250 milligrams maximum: meets BMW-NA standards of intake valve cleanliness up to 50,000 miles.

3) More than 250 milligrams: does not meet BMW-NA standards of intake valve cleanliness.
Quality Assurance

Although the engine is the most important piece of test hardware, there are many other vehicle systems that play an important role in the test. A test fleet that has accumulated five million miles requires constant attention to maintenance. Therefore, a quality assurance program was initiated to ensure test quality, maintain test repeatability, ensure vehicle integrity, and reduce or eliminate costly repairs and road calls.

Such systems are mechanical and electrical and include the engine cooling system, engine electronics, and emission control components. The QA program currently requires that a number of parts be replaced every 20,000 miles. A partial list of components included in this changeout program are:

Cooling system -- Radiator and radiator cap, water pump, thermostat, antifreeze, belts and hoses

Electrical system -- Engine wiring harness, distributor cap and rotor, spark plugs and wires, fuel injectors

Emissions system -- Mass air flow sensor, barometric pressure sensor, idle control valve, air cleaner, fuel filter, oxygen sensor

The results of such a program were immediately obvious. The reduction in road calls and failed components have increased our testing capacity and are responsible for a 20-25 percent reduction in test variability.

In conclusion, as engines continue to become smaller and more complex, incorporating multiple intake valves, and demands on fuel economy and emissions control continue, engine performance problems caused by intake valve deposits are likely to increase. If the intake valve deposits and drivability problems were limited to BMWs, it is unlikely that we would have logged more than five million miles in the procedure. While there is little doubt that the SwRI/BMW procedure has contributed greatly to improvement of U.S. fuels quality and decrease in driveability problems, there is a desire by engine and fuel producers for a quicker, less expensive test procedure. Development of such a procedure for evaluation of the impact of fuels and lubricants on formation of deposits on intake valves, correlated with engine performance, will certainly continue at the Institute and elsewhere.

* B. Bitting, et al. ,SAE Technical Paper Series No. 872117, "Intake Valve Deposits -- Fuel Detergency Requirements Revisited."

" In 1985 manufacturers began to introduce fuel injected engines....." How about 1970 or so for Bosch EFI on Volvos, VWs Saabs, ect.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
[ How about 1970 or so for Bosch EFI on Volvos, VWs Saabs, ect.


Mass marketing of FI engines really didn't take off in earnest until the mid 80s at least in the USA. They were still not common until the late 80s, if you are speaking of true multi-port injection.
 
Originally Posted By: milkboy


You've kind of made the argument against it, actually :
"Top Tier" brands are "better" than other brands because they have more detergents . . .
. . . like BP, for instance - which is not a "Top Tier" brand, and has way more detergents ?
confused.gif




Not at all. BP says they exceed top tier standards and real world pump tests show they use more detergents than even shell and I think shell uses about 66% more than top tier.

If you can find a non top tier gas that says they meet or exceed top tier standards, that is great. BP is the only one I know of other than maybe Sinclair. Sinclair passed the bmw unlimited mileage test. I think that is what the top tier standard is based on but not sure.

If a fuel maker doesn't say, then they are going to just meet the epa.
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: bvance554
Originally Posted By: whip
I don't use top tier gas or additives. Zero problems. I think it's marketing hogwash.


01.gif



My problem with people who think like this is that their results don't mean much. Poor results can show something is bad, but lack of bad results doesn't necessarily make something good or better than something else.

With this line of thinking, you could argue smoking is healthy and the anti-smoking campaign is just hogwash because many people lived to be 90+ years old and smoked every day.



The manual on my new Ford says to be careful to use quality gas, although as I recall I don't think they specify Top Tier--meaning they didn't take a bribe to recommend it. In fact, if you read the manual carefully they are way more paranoid about gas than oil.

Sure, like everyone else, I've driven hundreds of thousands of miles on the cheapest possible gas with "no problems" But I don't drive a mid-eighties carbureted Japanese truck anymore. Nor do I drive a 2005 Taurus. The car I drive now puts out about twice as much hp per CI than the old truck. In any newer car I would be careful.

Yes, the difference is the detergent. There's nothing magic about the detergent either; there is just more of it in the good stuff. Otherwise, as many have pointed out, its all from the same refinery.

If Hyundai explicitly recommends a proprietary PEA additive for its newer engine, that ought to tell you its an issue and that PEA additives (as opposed to no-name snake oil) is a good thing if you don't always use the quality gas.

Don't know why we should feel married to one brand or a silly marketing campagin though. Any name brand gas known by us to be high detergent from a clean high volume gas station (such as Costco) should be fine.
 
Originally Posted By: jimbrewer.


Yes, the difference is the detergent. There's nothing magic about the detergent either; there is just more of it in the good stuff. Otherwise, as many have pointed out, its all from the same refinery.

If Hyundai explicitly recommends a proprietary PEA additive for its newer engine, that ought to tell you its an issue and that PEA additives (as opposed to no-name snake oil) is a good thing if you don't always use the quality gas.


There is nothing magic about different gasoline detergents but there are differences and some clean more effectively with lesser amounts and some also either leave a bit of their own residue behind while others clean carbon deposits and leave NONE of their own chemical detergent residue behind.

I get a kick out of folks who want to refuse to believe that detergency is not extremely important to the clean operation and good efficient functioning of engines and fuel systems...while this was not as critical before fuel injection, and tight tolerances and exacting emissions equipment it most certain IS incredibly important aspect of gasoline detergency today.

Even the car makers of ALL brands state this today.

If you are driving a car that was made in the past 30 years or so, with fuel injection, YOU need good high detergency gasoline.
 
Last edited:
OK. So how are we to know that Exxon is better than Phillips 66, for example, other than reliance on some lame advertising campaign?
 
Call the companies and ask for specifics about the detergents used. If you ask they will tell you.

When it comes to other gas detergents besides PEA, which is superior because it cleans more effectively than others and does not leave it's own residue behind..I base it on other factors like top tier and cost, if two competitive brands are both TT I will pick the cheapest one.
 
Originally Posted By: jimbrewer
OK. So how are we to know that Exxon is better than Phillips 66, for example, other than reliance on some lame advertising campaign?


They're both TT---just use whichever is cheapest.
 
I normally buy Exxon since around here it is the same price (cash) as WaWa and hess for their one price for both card/cash.

Personally i feel that if you are going on a road trip, i would dump some in if you end up using a lot of cheap gas, or if you feel like superdosing your car with detergent, thats the only time i would do it myself, otherwise just stick with whatever you feel your car runs best on, my sable did not like WaWa 87 octane, but it liked Exxon 87 octane, so i just stuck with Exxon.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top