Ethanol free regular (87) octane fuel in Calgary?

[JDMMAN]

Has anyone fuelled at a Husky station recently? According to their website, apparently, Calgary's the only area that has ethanol-free 87 octane fuel (https://www.myhusky.ca/products-and-services/fuel). I don't remember seeing the pumps at Husky saying "no ethanol" for their regular fuel. Yes, I've already checked https://www.pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=AB but they're only listing Premium fuels as non-ethanol according to there.

I'm curious if there are other ethanol-free regular gasoline stations. I've been using premium to get ethanol-free (Shell V-power, Canadian Tire Premium, Costco Premium, and Co-Op Premium) in my 2UZ-FE Tundra; I've noticed that Shell V-power>CT>Coop=>Costco in terms of fuel economy. I know that the 2UZFE in the Tundra is technically designed to run on 87, but the few times I've run 87 from Shell, it was with ethanol and the fuel consumption was crazy.

Also looking at 87 non-ethanol as a viable option for the lawnmower; I've had to rebuild too many carburetors in the past, so I've been using 91 premium just to avoid the ethanol.

[JDMMAN]

<update> passed by a Husky which used to have 94 octane fuel, and both regular and midgrade both had ethanol. Perhaps there are Husky stations that didn't have 94 before would have 87 octane non-ethanol?

[ThePenIsMightier]

I doubt it. Isn't there that "rule" that ___% of fuel sold needs to have ethanol? Or, has that been proven a myth?

I don't think a company could maintain that ratio if their biggest seller had zero ethanol.

[Tik-Tok]

I feel like a parrot here because I say it in every god damned thread about fuel, and then the inevitable bickering begins.

Producers need to sell average 5% ethanol. That doesn't mean gas stations do. Also Co-op WAS the only gas station in Calgary area that didn't have ethanol in their 87. I don't know if that's still true but the last time I phoned/emailed them about it a few years ago it was. Since Calgary Co-op has since changed food suppliers, they may have changed fuel as well. If they do have ethanol now, there has to be a sticker at the pump saying so.

[ThePenIsMightier]

I feel like a parrot here because I say it in every god damned thread about fuel, and then the inevitable bickering begins.

Producers need to sell average 5% ethanol. That doesn't mean gas stations do. Also Co-op WAS the only gas station in Calgary area that didn't have ethanol in their 87. I don't know if that's still true but the last time I phoned/emailed them about it a few years ago it was. Since Calgary Co-op has since changed food suppliers, they may have changed fuel as well. If they do have ethanol now, there has to be a sticker at the pump saying so.

Thanks. Sorry if I've been unable to keep that straight. It doesn't sound familiar, but I tend to skim fuel threads because there is so much misinformation and dumb questions.
It's possible that Co-Op switched fuel suppliers with their other changes, but I doubt it due to their large refinery in Regina.

[ExtraSlow]

Calgary coop does not have an ownership in the federated cooperatives Regina refinery. They are completely unrelated businesses, especially now that Calgary coop stopped buying groceries from federated cooperatives.

That being said, last time I was at North Hill coop gas bar, there was no ethanol sticker on the pump anywhere.

[Tik-Tok]

Thanks. Sorry if I've been unable to keep that straight. It doesn't sound familiar, but I tend to skim fuel threads because there is so much misinformation and dumb questions.


Oh it's not just you. This comes up every couple of years since I joined. Then a bunch of people call me a liar and insist they know different, then I produce my latest email from co-op, then they still argue, rinse, repeat.

[ExtraSlow]

I think you are a lair, but just in general and not about this specifically.

[ThePenIsMightier]

I think you are a lair, but just in general and not about this specifically.

He's basically Dirk The Daring.

98670

[Tik-Tok]

I think you are a lair, but just in general and not about this specifically.

So you don't think I'm a full-time liar? Now I'm offended. Or is that a lie?

[ExtraSlow]

So you don't think I'm a full-time liar? Now I'm offended. Or is that a lie?

Now you are thinking on my level.

[Tik-Tok]

Now you are thinking on my level.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't disagree.

[JDMMAN]

Tik-Tok - I'm fully aware of the rule about the 5% average. Hence, I was surprised to see the statement on Husky's website about their 87 in Calgary not having ethanol.

If there is 87 without ethanol, I would like to track it down to see if there's any empirical evidence resulting in a difference in fuel economy strictly due to the grade of fuel, as the variability of ethanol would be eliminated and any increases should be as a result of the higher octane of the fuel.

Unfortunately, for most of the stations I frequent, I always see the "up to 10% ethanol" for the regular gasoline, hence, I just skip it and go to the premium fuels as the bump in fuel economy is often worth it for the increase of time & distance between refueling to offset the difference in cost.

['93 SR-V]

It's possible that Co-Op switched fuel suppliers with their other changes, but I doubt it due to their large refinery in Regina.

This CBC article mentioned that Calgary Co-Op would continue to buy fuel from FCL (https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5522789) but is a year old now.

I’ve noticed that if you look at the rack prices for Shell and Petroleum Canada neither of them show a price for e-10 in Calgary which would make me think that they both offer ethanol free 87 octane unless I’m missing something?

https://www.petro-canada.ca/en/business/rack-prices
https://www.shell.ca/en_ca/business-customers/app-rack-pricing.html

[ThePenIsMightier]

Tik-Tok - I'm fully aware of the rule about the 5% average. Hence, I was surprised to see the statement on Husky's website about their 87 in Calgary not having ethanol.

If there is 87 without ethanol, I would like to track it down to see if there's any empirical evidence resulting in a difference in fuel economy strictly due to the grade of fuel, as the variability of ethanol would be eliminated and any increases should be as a result of the higher octane of the fuel.

Unfortunately, for most of the stations I frequent, I always see the "up to 10% ethanol" for the regular gasoline, hence, I just skip it and go to the premium fuels as the bump in fuel economy is often worth it for the increase of time & distance between refueling to offset the difference in cost.

His argument supports yours. As long as the refineries are cranking out 5% ethanol overall, the retailers can do whatever they want. It still seems odd as Hell, to me, because 87 is the biggest seller and because Husky/Mohawk has always been horny for ethanol as a business differentiator.

Using premium fuel "because the extra mileage is worth it" is Marth because it's >20% more money now.
*Unless you're assigning a value to your time for fewer fill-ups... Which I still think won't put you ahead.

[zechs]

His argument supports yours. As long as the refineries are cranking out 5% ethanol overall, the retailers can do whatever they want. It still seems odd as Hell, to me, because 87 is the biggest seller and because Husky/Mohawk has always been horny for ethanol as a business differentiator.

Using premium fuel "because the extra mileage is worth it" is Marth because it's >20% more money now.
*Unless you're assigning a value to your time for fewer fill-ups... Which I still think won't put you ahead.

Coop 91 is only 10c spread difference. Checked yesterday.

But still, essentially need a 8-10% mpg boost to pay off, doubt you'd see that.

[Tik-Tok]

Coop 91 is only 10c spread difference. Checked yesterday.

But still, essentially need a 8-10% mpg boost to pay off, doubt you'd see that.

Are you sure about that? I go to three different ones regularly and their spread has been going up significantly over the years. Last week it was 21c difference on Macleod.

Edit: Unless you're talking about the split between 87 and 89?

[ThePenIsMightier]

Are you sure about that? I go to three different ones regularly and their spread has been going up significantly over the years. Last week it was 21c difference on Macleod.

Edit: Unless you're talking about the split between 87 and 89?

Agree.
I haven't seen 10¢ in over a year, even at Costco.

[JDMMAN]

His argument supports yours. As long as the refineries are cranking out 5% ethanol overall, the retailers can do whatever they want. It still seems odd as Hell, to me, because 87 is the biggest seller and because Husky/Mohawk has always been horny for ethanol as a business differentiator.

Using premium fuel "because the extra mileage is worth it" is Marth because it's >20% more money now.
*Unless you're assigning a value to your time for fewer fill-ups... Which I still think won't put you ahead.

It's quite possible for the stations that sold the 94 octane Husky/Mohawk (at least back when they did), it may have had significant ethanol content to allow them to have 87 octane non-ethanol?

As for fuel economy, the best I've got out of the 2UZFE was 13.3L/100km on Shell 91V power, next closest was CT Premium at 13.5L/100km. The best I could get on Shell regular was 16L/100km under the same driving conditions which is over 120km difference in range between the regular and Vpower. So for a 100L tank, even at the 20% price difference, the fuel economy gain is ~20.3%. These were calculated pump volume and distance travelled records and not relying on the fuel economy computer.

[ExtraSlow]

I think there's three different questions being answered simultaneously here. Luckily I know the answer to all three.
1) will buying premium save me money? - No.
2) if I can find it, will ethanol-free 87 save me money? Yes.
3) should I be careful to use ethanol free fuel in my lawnmower and other power equipment? Yes.

[Thaco]

https://www.pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=AB

Shows several Co-op stations, one was updated as recently as last month (but only richmond has 87), so maybe?..

[Tik-Tok]

I think there's three different questions being answered simultaneously here. Luckily I know the answer to all three.
1) will buying premium save me money? - No.
2) if I can find it, will ethanol-free 87 save me money? Yes.
3) should I be careful to use ethanol free fuel in my lawnmower and other power equipment? Yes.



Truth.

Though if the difference were 10c between regular and premium, , it might save you money. I've gotten almost 10% better fuel economy on the highway with 91 without and 87 with ethanol

[JDMMAN]

I think there's three different questions being answered simultaneously here. Luckily I know the answer to all three.
1) will buying premium save me money? - No.
2) if I can find it, will ethanol-free 87 save me money? Yes.
3) should I be careful to use ethanol free fuel in my lawnmower and other power equipment? Yes.

Yes, that's an eloquent way of summarizing. That said, if there's no direct comparison available between non-ethanol regular and non-ethanol premium, there are instances where the increase in fuel economy between using premium vs. regular w/ ethanol exist. As regular gas prices increase, the marginal difference between premium and regular w/ ethanol decreases; as the price gap between the two remain fairly constant.

- - - Updated - - -


https://www.pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=AB

Shows several Co-op stations, one was updated as recently as last month (but only richmond has 87), so maybe?..

It's too bad there are no Coop gas stations in the NW that I've seen that offer ethanol-free 87. It wouldn't make much sense to take a trip down there and use up the "savings" at the cost of time and mileage.

Interesting that they don't list some of the stations I've been at that offer ethanol-free 91. (ie. CT Gas+ @ Dalhousie, Chevron 94 on 12th street NE off McKnight etc.

[firebane]

I think its hilarious the back and forth about ethanol free vs ethanol fuel.

Its really not worth it... You want me to drive two hours so I can get non-ethanol fuel to put in my lawnmower? Not going to happen.

Same as driving around... I'm not going to go completely out of my way to ensure I get ethanol free gas.

[sabad66]

This CBC article mentioned that Calgary Co-Op would continue to buy fuel from FCL (https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5522789) but is a year old now.

I’ve noticed that if you look at the rack prices for Shell and Petroleum Canada neither of them show a price for e-10 in Calgary which would make me think that they both offer ethanol free 87 octane unless I’m missing something?

https://www.petro-canada.ca/en/business/rack-prices
https://www.shell.ca/en_ca/business-customers/app-rack-pricing.html

You are onto something here.

[ThePenIsMightier]

It's quite possible for the stations that sold the 94 octane Husky/Mohawk (at least back when they did), it may have had significant ethanol content to allow them to have 87 octane non-ethanol?

As for fuel economy, the best I've got out of the 2UZFE was 13.3L/100km on Shell 91V power, next closest was CT Premium at 13.5L/100km. The best I could get on Shell regular was 16L/100km under the same driving conditions which is over 120km difference in range between the regular and Vpower. So for a 100L tank, even at the 20% price difference, the fuel economy gain is ~20.3%. These were calculated pump volume and distance travelled records and not relying on the fuel economy computer.

That's almost certainly impossible. You should be looking for an error and/or conducting further studies.
A 20% gain in fuel economy from a vehicle that didn't originally call for 91 octane initially, is too difficult for me to believe.

[JDMMAN]

That's almost certainly impossible. You should be looking for an error and/or conducting further studies.
A 20% gain in fuel economy from a vehicle that didn't originally call for 91 octane initially, is too difficult for me to believe.

That's one of the reasons why I'm looking for some non-ethanol 87 to eliminate some variables. The biggest one besides fuel was added weight to the bed along with old vs new tires. When I averaged the 13.3L/100km on 91 Vpower it was for a trip to the border and back up. It was empty going down and I had about 800lbs on the way back in cargo but on a fairly worn set of Nokian Rotiiva AT's; the next time I did the same trip, but with Shell regular fuel, I had a set of new Nokian Rotiivas AT's on (same size and same load rating as previous). Perhaps it could have been due to a tailwind both ways on the first trip with the 91V power while the next trip turned out to be headwinds? I know that will be part of the reason for increase fuel consumption. Unfortunately, I can't control wind as a variable in this case. So I'm trying to use longer-term averages.

[never]

That's almost certainly impossible. You should be looking for an error and/or conducting further studies.
A 20% gain in fuel economy from a vehicle that didn't originally call for 91 octane initially, is too difficult for me to believe.

Especially at our altitude.

[zechs]

.
3) should I be careful to use ethanol free fuel in my lawnmower and other power equipment? Yes.

I have a john deere ride on lawn mower, at least 7 years old I'd guess. I've owned it for 3. Never put any additives in winter, hell, left it outside last winter because I was going to get one last mow in and a we got a huge dump so outside it sat. Fired right up.

Bought brand new cdn tire mower (doesn't even have a choke or throttle), and a weed eater weed wacker.

All left in a lean-to, no additives. Replaced spark plugs for shits and giggles. Everything fired right up.

Personally, I think the switch to chinese garbage engines in general in the late 90's/early millenium combined with ethanol being added to fuel caused issues. I think modern cheap equipment can handle the fuel a bit better. Plus legitimately fuel has actually progressed quite a bit in the past 20 years.

As for 10c spread, the one near my rural property is in the sticks. Clearly its price gouging on other stations' part if they can charge a 10c spread only. Good on the ones who boost their profit margins like that.