94 Octane Gas - Where?

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You can buy her a barrel of ethanol for Christmas.

Good plan. Paging HiTempGuy!!!
Meh, on second thought - not worth it.

[Mitsu3000gt]

So what is the next best high octane / ethane boosted fuel if Husky is gone? Sounds like Chevron is no good.

[zipdoa]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So what is the next best high octane / ethane boosted fuel if Husky is gone? Sounds like Chevron is no good.

Old Chevron 94 had ethanol, and was only available in BC.

New Chevron 94 has no ethanol, and has a dedicated pump/nozzle. I've been running it in a twin turbo v6 and a high revving v8, no issues. I'll have logs soon of it running on the s4, but I imagine those who had a bad experience are referring to the old product.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Old Chevron 94 had ethanol, and was only available in BC.

New Chevron 94 has no ethanol, and has a dedicated pump/nozzle. I've been running it in a twin turbo v6 and a high revving v8, no issues. I'll have logs soon of it running on the s4, but I imagine those who had a bad experience are referring to the old product.

Thanks, I'll give it a try. I thought it was quite advantageous though to have some ethanol through for turbo cars? Maybe only if you're having heat issues?

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If you read below, it seems like a few people are reporting Shell 91 gave them less knocking than any alleged 94, ethanol, or not.

*I'd just like to add that while V-Power is ethanol free in this market, that's not a guarantee elsewhere. The Scotford refinery doesn't supply fuel to all stations in all of Western Canada.

It's ethanol-free across Canada. That may or may not change in the future, but for now it's accurate.
https://www.shell.ca/en_ca/motorists...-gasoline.html

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's ethanol-free across Canada. That may or may not change in the future, but for now it's accurate.
https://www.shell.ca/en_ca/motorists...-gasoline.html

Thanks. This is giving me Deja Vu as someone may have corrected me on this previously. The confusing thing is that many pumps on the west coast for example, still have stickers saying "may contain ___" so perhaps they are just old but it's confusing.
Plus, I find it hard to believe in the West coast because (I believe) they're getting shit piles of their fuel from BP Cherry Point (in 'Murica) and it's not like Shell can put an additive in to delete ethanol. We should be able to believe them, though...

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Thanks. This is giving me Deja Vu as someone may have corrected me on this previously. The confusing thing is that many pumps on the west coast for example, still have stickers saying "may contain ___" so perhaps they are just old but it's confusing.
Plus, I find it hard to believe in the West coast because (I believe) they're getting shit piles of their fuel from BP Cherry Point (in 'Murica) and it's not like Shell can put an additive in to delete ethanol. We should be able to believe them, though...

The stickers are the only thing I have ever gone by with Shell as well. I guess it's also an easy thing that could fall off or someone could just forget to put it on the pump, so it's good to know that it should be Canada-wide.

[killramos]

Fed the Car some 94 today to see how it likes it, my N55 really liked Shell 91 but going to see how this car likes the ethanol ( considering BMW thought the extra cooling was worth the water injection on the GTS I wonder if the S55 will like it).

Gonna have to figure out the Price delta between Shell and Petro versus the fuel economy benefit. Fuck was the Petro expensive though, thought I was in Vancouver for a minute there for 94. I’d almost bet it is more expansive AND worse mileage fuel.

[bspot]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Old Chevron 94 had ethanol, and was only available in BC.

New Chevron 94 has no ethanol, and has a dedicated pump/nozzle. I've been running it in a twin turbo v6 and a high revving v8, no issues. I'll have logs soon of it running on the s4, but I imagine those who had a bad experience are referring to the old product.

I logged Chevron from the McKnight location last summer. I assume this was the “new” stuff?

[Sky]

Trying Chevron Mcknight 94. As mentioned, no ethanol and dedicated pump. Nice. So far so good. Car is happy and running great. From quick logs it seems to be slightly better than Husky 94. Running on a V6 twin turbo. You guys should try it out and let us what you think.

[Mitsu3000gt]

I went to the Husky on Bow Trail hoping to get some remaining 94 but they had some crappy home-made sign taped to the pump saying it was 91 Does every Chevron station have 94 or just some? I don't think I've ever filled up there in my life.

[bspot]

I went to G&B in Hawkwood last night. I think they supplied Husky, and they still have 94. I wonder for how long if Husky isn’t buying it from them anymore.

[Zhariak]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I went to the Husky on Bow Trail hoping to get some remaining 94 but they had some crappy home-made sign taped to the pump saying it was 91 Does every Chevron station have 94 or just some? I don't think I've ever filled up there in my life.

I'm wondering if there's a shortage... I went to the new Chevon off 114th ave in the SE, after pre-paying at pump using CC, 94 would just click and not let me fill up. I think I squeezed 2 bucks out of the nozzle. I'm wondering if the tanks were empty...

[zipdoa]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Thanks, I'll give it a try. I thought it was quite advantageous though to have some ethanol through for turbo cars? Maybe only if you're having heat issues?

Well, the logic was that Husky 94 was a minimum of 94 octane. Husky didn't have a consistent ratio of ethanol-to-gasoline (supposed to be about 10%, or E10), so depending on the total ethanol content the AKI could actually be higher.

I think Rage2 or someone has explained this better than I will but:

Ethanol - Burns cooler and has higher knock resistance than gasoline, but much lower energy content. The higher knock resistance means you can get aggressive and advance your ignition timing significantly more than with straight gasoline, which in turbo cars means you can make ridiculous torque.

IE: B5 S4 on E85 and stock turbos (BW K03's) makes 500+ ft/lbs tq, and instant spool. Makes for a ridiculously responsive daily driver.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm wondering if there's a shortage... I went to the new Chevon off 114th ave in the SE, after pre-paying at pump using CC, 94 would just click and not let me fill up. I think I squeezed 2 bucks out of the nozzle. I'm wondering if the tanks were empty...

Are you sure it wasn't a weird angle on the nozzle or something triggering the stop way too early? I've had that happen to me before (clicked off almost immediately) and I either had to reposition the nozzle in the tank to get it to flow properly, or set to flow to about half. Or maybe they are just using up the last of their stock and it was in fact empty.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Well, the logic was that Husky 94 was a minimum of 94 octane. Husky didn't have a consistent ratio of ethanol-to-gasoline (supposed to be about 10%, or E10), so depending on the total ethanol content the AKI could actually be higher.

I think Rage2 or someone has explained this better than I will but:

Ethanol - Burns cooler and has higher knock resistance than gasoline, but much lower energy content. The higher knock resistance means you can get aggressive and advance your ignition timing significantly more than with straight gasoline, which in turbo cars means you can make ridiculous torque.

IE: B5 S4 on E85 and stock turbos (BW K03's) makes 500+ ft/lbs tq, and instant spool. Makes for a ridiculously responsive daily driver.

Yeah my understanding was even on stock cars with a smart enough ECU, the better knock resistance provided by higher octane allowed for more power than a lower octane with zero ethanol, but fuel economy would be worse. I imagine it makes a bigger difference on tuned cars though like in your B5 S4 example.

[Xamim]

Bump.

This guy out of Vancouver compared some fuels. Long video, but results are towards the end. Some of the timing being pulled is pretty high, even on Shell 91.

This was without tuning, just straight runs on the dyno. Surprising how close Chevron 91 and Chevron 94 were. Also, look like you shouldn't run Costco fuel, less power and lots of timing correction.

[Mitsu3000gt]

I just switched to Shell 91, it was way too annoying looking for 94 and it seems like Shell 91 is still one of the best options regardless.

[zipdoa]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Bump.

This guy out of Vancouver compared some fuels. Long video, but results are towards the end. Some of the timing being pulled is pretty high, even on Shell 91.

This was without tuning, just straight runs on the dyno. Surprising how close Chevron 91 and Chevron 94 were. Also, look like you shouldn't run Costco fuel, less power and lots of timing correction.

Bless this guys heart for doing this. HOWEVER:

Is it accurate to assess the quality and potential of a fuel without tuning for that fuel? I understand that the ECU is adapting, but it only has so much room for change. IE: F10 M5, if you add E85, the ECU won't calibrate for the AKI and makes less power than 91 as a result. You'd have to tune the vehicle to take advantage.

Is it valid to consider that having a custom tune to compare Petro 94 vs Chevron 94 and squeezing the maximum gains from each fuel would be a more accurate assessment?

Also - controlled variables: IAT, leftover fuel, Oil temp, etc can all influence the dyno readout. I didn't see that these metrics were controlled in this test. The first run will have the best #'s and power will diminish each time the car is run. For sure fuel will play a role in the youtube test, but I'm still not convinced that Chevron 92 would outperform Chevron 94 on custom tunes.

[JDMMAN]

You're definitely correct here. Unless the car vehicle had "rested" between the changes of fuel to remove the bias for additional power when the engine/components were cooler, this "test" is flawed. The better test would be to see what makes the most power after being tuned for the specific fuel by the same tuner on the same vehicle to remove program bias. Had they ran the same test but with the fuels in the reverse order, the results would have likely been quite different.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Bless this guys heart for doing this. HOWEVER:

Is it accurate to assess the quality and potential of a fuel without tuning for that fuel? I understand that the ECU is adapting, but it only has so much room for change. IE: F10 M5, if you add E85, the ECU won't calibrate for the AKI and makes less power than 91 as a result. You'd have to tune the vehicle to take advantage.

Is it valid to consider that having a custom tune to compare Petro 94 vs Chevron 94 and squeezing the maximum gains from each fuel would be a more accurate assessment?

Also - controlled variables: IAT, leftover fuel, Oil temp, etc can all influence the dyno readout. I didn't see that these metrics were controlled in this test. The first run will have the best #'s and power will diminish each time the car is run. For sure fuel will play a role in the youtube test, but I'm still not convinced that Chevron 92 would outperform Chevron 94 on custom tunes.

[90_Shelby]

If you have Motor Trend on Demand, Engine Masters did a great dyno test with an NA engine, pump gas, high octane pump gas, race fuel and E85 if I recall correctly. They tuned for each fuel as well. Interesting results!