Are all brand name gasolines equal?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Messages
537
Location
Illinois
I was wondering if all all brand name gasolines are equal in their ability to keep your engine clean just as all SM rated oils are pretty much on a level playing field. I ask because of the Top Tier program now, and not all brand names gasoline are part of it, BP and Marathon being two examples who are not.
 
Not all SM oils are on a level playing field, and not all gasolines are either.

Chemically, two identical molecules will act exactly the same way. But in a complex system, filled with all sorts of chemistry - regardless of whether it is oil or gasoline, this is far from the case, especially due to the differing chemistries of the additive packs.

"good enough" or "close enough" is the case, for SM oils, and for most any gasoline. Many (most) dont use top tier gas regularly, nor any additives, and still are fine.

Top notch oil and top tier gasoline buy you added protection - to some extent. Top notch oils from superior basestock and add pack, top tier gas having the same commodity hydrocarbons as any other gas (the gasoline is always bought from the closest refinery) is only differentiated by better additives.

Please search on the topic, there is a LOT of good information, especially by fuel tanker man.

JMH
 
Quote:


I was wondering if all all brand name gasolines are equal in their ability to keep your engine clean just as all SM rated oils are pretty much on a level playing field. I ask because of the Top Tier program now, and not all brand names gasoline are part of it, BP and Marathon being two examples who are not.




To answer your question: Yes, in the same way that all SM rated oils are equal, all brand name gasolines are equal. In other words: they aren't.
 
In recent work for a customer I have been dealing with gasoline fuel lubricity issues, [not talked about with gasoline fuels much at the consumer level]. High pressure injection systems are demanding a tribological answer to this issue.

In the course of events and as a side benefit I had occasion to spend some time in detailed exchange with the head chemist of at least one major fuels company.

There is of VERY recently, a change in additives of Shell gasolines in the US market that is making serious difference in oil analysis and cleanliness testing results.

To the point that POTENTIALLY NO, additional fuels adds are needed based on Dyson emissions and oil analysis testing results.

None of this is substantiated by long term testing but I wanted to share what I could here and allow the BITOG system of checks and balances confirm or deny the observations.

Other brands and formulas are NOT showing the same results. Including Chevron Techron added fuels.

The Shell fuels formula touted in the past year did not show the same levels of cleanliness or combustion efficiency as the current formulation.

Note I am not sharing any proprietary information from anyone,any company, just my observations.

Terry
 
Thanks for the Shell gas observations, Terry.

While I'm already a Shell customer, the local station will become my exclusive gas stop!
 
I happened to fill up at a Shell station yesterday. I was reading their marketing material on the pump while the tank filled up. If I remember correctly, it said something like this:

Regular gas and the medium grade (whatever they call it) showed evidence of keeping parts clean, whereas the V-Plus premium gas could also clean up and remove deposits. Had a before and after picture.

We shall see. They are certainly marketing the premium unleaded like it is a wonder gas.
 
Shell guys trolling here can you comment?

The changes are post Vpower introduction and the additives I am seeing benefits from should be in all the fuels octane levels.

Ethanol enriched Shell seems to be the best. Especially in my recently rebuilt 84 Ford 302 F150 93 Vpower with ethanol is getting the best MPG and NO clatter when Chevron 93 would rattle and spit. Obviously this is not the only data I am seeing but a very meaningnful one.

3 months ago Vpower 93 ran terribly in this same Bored,cammed 302 that is driven daily.



48 states markets should all be similar although there are regional differences in what is refined.

There may be something to the "gunky deposits" program that is founded on new additives.
 
If I am reading this correctly. With the "new" Shell formulation....I would realize little to no benefits of a fuel additive such as FP60 etc.?
 
Can't help with distribution/marketing questions, if there are no Shell branded outlets I would assume that specific fuel additive formula is not available in your area.

In that case get a cheapo fuel with as much ethanol in it, add FP3000 and monitor.

Sarge, too early to tell, I see a major difference I normally do not so thought I would share here.

I personally use FP3000 bought directly from Odis Beaver ( 214 929 2704) for my own engines and recommend that to most of my customers that show a need in analysis.

In the F150 I am currently using nothing but VPower 93, but if cleanliness suffers I'll head back to FP3000 ASAP. I have to use observation,MPG data, and UOA like the rest of the board ( with a little better background data
smile.gif
from excellent testing sources,not just spectral analysis).

TD
 
So I take from the comment that getting a cheap fuel with as much ethanol in it as possible, doped with FP3000, is the smart way to go, that we ought to buy ethanol doped fuel, as the MPG loss must be significantly offset by reduced wear rates as evidenced by UOA, right?

Thanks,

JMH
 
John, huh?

The FP3000 seems to offset/mitigate some energy value loss of ethanol doped fuel but the ethanol( and associated additives to accomodate ethanol added fuels allowed by a niche in the EPA fuels rules/mandates) acts as both a solvent and lubricity agent.

The reduced wear rates comment confuses. I sure never intended that to be a conclusion to the earlier commentary.

Fuel induced wear rates in MOST designs is minimal if the engine is properly tuned.

Terry
 
Perhaps this explains the recent Shell ad campaign where they show two Shell "techs" using Shell gas and "other" gas in two cars, driving to the same places. Then they show what is supposed to be a valve from each engine, with what looks to be fully assembled engines on stands behind them in the lab. The valve from the Shell fueled engine is much cleaner than the other valve.

Maybe it's time to get a Shell MasterCard and get 5% off Shell fuel purchases as well as the 5% I currently get off of BP purchases.
 
At the auto show in Atlanta I stopped by the Shell display and they had an Impala that they had rigged with two independent fuel systems, one feeding the front bank of cylinders, the other the rear. They said the car was run for 5K miles with one fuel system using discount gas, the other with Shell gas. At the show, they had an Olympus endoscope set up to peer into the intake runner at an intake valve exposed to the discount gasoline and then at an intake valve exposed to Shell gas. The difference was stark. Pretty neat display.
 
That sounds like a pretty slick display!

Do you think they really purchased discount gas, or just used the minimum federally mandated cleaners in their raw, pre-additive fuel?
 
Good question.

I think they were honest and did run a non-Top Tier, discount gas (possibly a brand that they had tested previously that they know has just the federally mandated minimum additive level?).

I'm thinking they'd say something to the effect of: "compared to a fuel containing the minimum amount of detergent additives..." if they just used their own base non-TT fuel or something to that effect.

But I don't know...
confused.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top