Why Low Octane Gas in Canada?

Y'a une marge entre 'a besoin de' et le 'département du marketing s'est rendu compte qu'on pouvais annoncer 8hp de plus de peak power en recommendant du 91 octane'.

Bien souvent la recommendation va aller avec la vocation / le segment aussi.
J'pense il y a des cas ou Toyota recommenderais du 87, mais lexus du 91 pour sensiblement le meme moteur.

c'et juste une focus SVT..mais ca sort quand meme 175hp du meme moteur tuné d'un moteur qui sort 120hp dans le modele de base.

Modern......on parle d'un 2002...mais y a quand meme des sensor partout lol.
 
I'm pretty confident that isn't true. You can freely mix ethanol-containing and ethanol-free gasoline as much as you like for decades in the same vehicle and reservoir without an issue. That theory almost sounds like someone who got confused with the notion of synthetic oil being used for the first time in an engine which has been using mineral oil for the longest time, which may loosen deposits in the crankcase.

Ethanol-containing gasoline is a blend of gasoline and ethanol, so mixing it with richer gasoline simply creates a further dilution of the ethanol content. Also, ethanol burns cleaner and is a zero-solid particulate-producing fuel, so "no carbon buildup" when using 100% ethanol. Of course, it burns with a ratio of 9 parts air, 1 part fuel, so fuel efficiency takes a hit.

Ok.
 
I was being nice. this is the first time I've ever read that mixing blends of gasoline will cause separation and it's not from a reputable source nor does this make sense. I call bullshit so prove me wrong.

And I was being super nice, else I would have ignored your ignorance.
First you have to learn to read ( and I will always have an issue with people on MR who just talk for talking ,without reading what other wrote or said)
Maybe you got a low grade because you didn't study ?
You can always go back to school and get a diploma. I'm sure you are still young.

I said VERY SPECIFIC brands of gasoline ( and that is based what pumps tells us in QC, ones that have and do not have ethanol ) not any random type of gasoline.
Any my affirmation stands 100%, as long as of course we are not talking about a brand new car and maybe the first 6-12 months of usage or whatever time would take to build deposits ( because as well there are many factors). Take a two year old car with 40 000 km + and it is true. And only works from a Shell 91 ( no ethanol ) to any other gas brand that has ethanol. Is just chemistry , nothing else.
Repeating myself is bad...
 
You know what's funny? People still arguing about this in 2020 lol Yes we are all smarter than modern engine controls that are fitted

"My car needs that 1 octane point higher or it will melt a piston" "I can't afford to lose 10hp from my 500, Hector will beat me at racewarz"
 
94 has actually more than 10% ethanol, I think it's closer to 15%. I have to retrieve that study but im too lazy. 94 is basically 91 octane + 15% added ethanol which helps with heat and detonation/pre-ignition, that's why tuned cars can run more agressive tunes on that gas and they can market it as "94". For a stock ECU car, it won't do shit on 94.

ce n'est pas optimal, puisque la detonation veux dire que tu es à la T° de flash point du mix A/F avant l'allumage.

Les nouveaux moteurs la P max dans la chambre de combustion est variable avec les timing variable et turbo, donc la T°, souvent seulement sur gros load ou WOT.

Au final tu roule un 94 avec moins de potentiel énergétique en tout temps, meme au idle, et highway cruise.


Bon, la différence n'est pas très énorme, mais pour une voiture tuné au quebec : ''shell/costco/ultramar 91 + meth kit'', est optimal.

ce kit ma couté 390$ cad shipping inclus , avec la solenoid. PLug and forget kit, sur la tank de windshield whasher.

Probablement le plus cheap en neuf. Est-ce que je vais avoir un payback? non jamais. Mais voir mon timming stable en tout temps sur une tune 93 est priceless.

s-l400.jpg
 
I was talking from a combustion stand point. But i you wanna talk about corrosion, let's go :)

Do you drive an old 1940 car? 10% blend was introduced in 1978 Clean Air Act in the USA. 5% more alcohol won't damage anything. Even more, ALL cars since 2001 are made to be used with E15.

That means metal parts that will resist corrosion from the alcohol... We are not talking E60 or E85 blends straight on mild steel here lol.

Alcohol in hand sanitizers remove moisture from your hands ; that's why they dry / cracks. Following your logic removing water from the fuel system isn't a good idea?

Pour les voitures ou les équipements qui sont utilisés fréquemment, ça ne pose pas de problème. Pour quelque chose qui reste longtemps sans être utilisé, l'éthanol, c'est une plaie. C'est pas parce que c'est utilisé depuis 1978 que c'est bon pour autant.

Justement, l'éthanol absorbe l'humidité, ce qui en fait un élément idéal pour faire de la corrosion galvanique dans les bols de carburateurs des petits moteurs. Bol en acier, jet en laiton et corps de carbu en aluminium. Si en plus tu as une tank à gaz en métal, c'est le gros lot.

Dans un environnement où du gaz une fois par semaine, l'éthanol fait rien. Quand tu gaz 2 fois par année, c'est plus problématique.
 
Pour les voitures ou les équipements qui sont utilisés fréquemment, ça ne pose pas de problème. Pour quelque chose qui reste longtemps sans être utilisé, l'éthanol, c'est une plaie. C'est pas parce que c'est utilisé depuis 1978 que c'est bon pour autant.

Justement, l'éthanol absorbe l'humidité, ce qui en fait un élément idéal pour faire de la corrosion galvanique dans les bols de carburateurs des petits moteurs. Bol en acier, jet en laiton et corps de carbu en aluminium. Si en plus tu as une tank à gaz en métal, c'est le gros lot.

Dans un environnement où du gaz une fois par semaine, l'éthanol fait rien. Quand tu gaz 2 fois par année, c'est plus problématique.

mais au quebec c'est dans 99% des cas pas un problème. Essais de trouver des voitures en bas de 2005 sur nos routes.. le monde change ca comme de bobettes, et il la corrosion due à l'éthanol n'est pas la raison pour aller porter leur '''''vieille''' bouette chez kenny...
 
You know what's funny? People still arguing about this in 2020 lol Yes we are all smarter than modern engine controls that are fitted

"My car needs that 1 octane point higher or it will melt a piston" "I can't afford to lose 10hp from my 500, Hector will beat me at racewarz"

If Jesse would have used 94 gas from Petro Canada...he would have won !!


 
My best guess: 99 % (exaggerated) of cars on the road are not tuned for anything higher than 87/91 octane. Most commuter cars out there are made to run 87, and "performance" cars 91. Unless your car is tuned via a tuner/flash, or has an octane sensor (I don't know of a car that does), from the factory it's expecting either 91 or 87. So putting any octane higher than what it's "tuned by default" with will not net you any additional power. Since most cars can't gain power with more than 91 from the factory, and probably some market research has shown Canadians aren't chumps to default to 93+ in their corollas, there isn't a lot of 93 pumps available.

That being said, based on posts in this thread apparently Lamborgini's and Porsches need 93, so you should go to Petro for that. I do think from an energy standpoint 91 without ethanol should technically release more energy/BTU per cycle than 91 with ethanol, but I seriously doubt anyone will actually notice that difference in the real world. E15 91 = E0 91 realistically I'd say.
 
My best guess: 99 % (exaggerated) of cars on the road are not tuned for anything higher than 87/91 octane. Most commuter cars out there are made to run 87, and "performance" cars 91. Unless your car is tuned via a tuner/flash, or has an octane sensor (I don't know of a car that does), from the factory it's expecting either 91 or 87. So putting any octane higher than what it's "tuned by default" with will not net you any additional power. Since most cars can't gain power with more than 91 from the factory, and probably some market research has shown Canadians aren't chumps to default to 93+ in their corollas, there isn't a lot of 93 pumps available.

That being said, based on posts in this thread apparently Lamborgini's and Porsches need 93, so you should go to Petro for that. I do think from an energy standpoint 91 without ethanol should technically release more energy/BTU per cycle than 91 with ethanol, but I seriously doubt anyone will actually notice that difference in the real world. E15 91 = E0 91 realistically I'd say.
You don't have to think it...it's a fact.
A liter of ethanol contains less energy than a liter of gasoline, resulting in lower fuel economy if you add ethanol to gas.

Same drive , same conditions ...you should always get more km/ tank from Shell 91 if your car is tuned for that ( because no ethanol) , than anywhere else.
 
You don't have to think it...it's a fact.
A liter of ethanol contains less energy than a liter of gasoline, resulting in lower fuel economy if you add ethanol to gas.

Same drive , same conditions ...you should always get more km/ tank from Shell 91 if your car is tuned for that ( because no ethanol) , than anywhere else.


Yes I agree with the raw energy content in ethanol versus gasoline. That is why I wrote it :bigup:

I phrased it as such to emphasize in terms of a "butt dyno :D" feel between the two fuels, in the sense would the avg person notice a difference between a 91 E0 and 91 E10/E15.
 
And I was being super nice, else I would have ignored your ignorance.
First you have to learn to read ( and I will always have an issue with people on MR who just talk for talking ,without reading what other wrote or said)
Maybe you got a low grade because you didn't study ?
You can always go back to school and get a diploma. I'm sure you are still young.

you're right; you sound like a really nice person...

I said VERY SPECIFIC brands of gasoline ( and that is based what pumps tells us in QC, ones that have and do not have ethanol ) not any random type of gasoline.
Any my affirmation stands 100%, as long as of course we are not talking about a brand new car and maybe the first 6-12 months of usage or whatever time would take to build deposits ( because as well there are many factors). Take a two year old car with 40 000 km + and it is true. And only works from a Shell 91 ( no ethanol ) to any other gas brand that has ethanol. Is just chemistry , nothing else.
Repeating myself is bad...

When E10 is added to a fuel system that has been using non ethanol gasoline, the ethanol as a new solvent, will tend to dissolve and loosen deposits that are present in the tank and fuel system. Phase separation may occur, resulting in an maybe 50/50 ethanol and water layer at the bottom of your fuel tank.

I really don't believe it's true. You'd have quite a few problematic cars on the road since people often mix without an issue. I couldn't find any source on the internet I could trust that gives your statement any weight.

In addition, I actually have run Shell 91 for about 30,000 km I believe and then switched back to Shell 87 just to see if the mileage difference made sense on a financial perspective. It didn't. Shell 87 yielded the same mileage despite the added 10-15% ethanol content and it's cheaper. My car, despite running long periods of time with ethanol free gasoline and switching back to ethanol-containing gas, gas had zero issues with fuel delivery. In addition to this, I actually drive my car until the tank has about 5 liters left on a daily basis. If there was water at the bottom, I would have siphoned it up.

If you can site a source that describes what you're saying, I'm very happy to read it. But please don't tell people to go back to school; sounds like a facebook comment.
 
you're right; you sound like a really nice person...


In addition, I actually have run Shell 91 for about 30,000 km I believe and then switched back to Shell 87 just to see if the mileage difference made sense on a financial perspective. It didn't.

Two questions for you

1. What car was this run on ?
2. Is the car designed to run on 91 or 87?
 
A peu près toute les voitures "récentes" vont être en mesure de prendre avantages d'une essence a indice d'octane plus élevé. (Jouer sur le timing, Cam variable, etc etc)

Par contre, être capable de le gérer ne signifie pas nécessairement un gain d'utiliser du 91 ou 93 vs du 87 si la voiture a la base demande du 87.

Sur ma baleine avec un 2grfe (V6 3.5 Toyota) je fais entre 0.5 et 1L au 100 de mieux sur du 91. La différence de prix ne rend pas cette économie d'essence viable et le but meter be perçoit rien. Ça reste une baleine de presque 2 tonnes.

Sur une voiture turbo, ce qui est très fréquent depuis quelques année, il est plus probable de voir une différence. Faites le test, calculer A LA MAIN (pas au dash Meter) votre consommation sur 4-5 tank en ligne sur du 87 puis refaites la même chose au 91 ou 93.

P.S. faites pareil d'une station service a l'autre si jamais vous doutez du mélange de X station.

Envoyé de mon Pixel en utilisant Tapatalk
 
Two questions for you

1. What car was this run on ?
2. Is the car designed to run on 91 or 87?

Mazda3 2.0L calibrated for 87.

My little personal test wasn't so much for timing adjustment towards the 91 (although I did want to see if there would be any noticeable difference in power which there obviously wasn't) it was actually more to see if the lesser ethanol content made a difference in efficiency and power density enough to justify the premium, if it would break even or if it was just a waste.

Conclusion; just a waste. The difference in efficiency wasn't even noticeable and could easily be chucked to driving style. I did so for over a year to see if the 'winter blend' had any difference between one grade of gas or the other. I did that many years ago and have been using 87 ever since.
 
A peu près toute les voitures "récentes" vont être en mesure de prendre avantages d'une essence a indice d'octane plus élevé. (Jouer sur le timing, Cam variable, etc etc)

Par contre, être capable de le gérer ne signifie pas nécessairement un gain d'utiliser du 91 ou 93 vs du 87 si la voiture a la base demande du 87.

Sur ma baleine avec un 2grfe (V6 3.5 Toyota) je fais entre 0.5 et 1L au 100 de mieux sur du 91. La différence de prix ne rend pas cette économie d'essence viable et le but meter be perçoit rien. Ça reste une baleine de presque 2 tonnes.

Sur une voiture turbo, ce qui est très fréquent depuis quelques année, il est plus probable de voir une différence. Faites le test, calculer A LA MAIN (pas au dash Meter) votre consommation sur 4-5 tank en ligne sur du 87 puis refaites la même chose au 91 ou 93.

P.S. faites pareil d'une station service a l'autre si jamais vous doutez du mélange de X station.

Envoyé de mon Pixel en utilisant Tapatalk

j'ai fait exactement ça, une grosse table Excel. Aucune différence notable du tout. Si ton auto est calibré pour du 87, du 91 (sans éthanol) est une perte totale. L'argument de "oui mais gas pur, j'irai plus loin sur le litre et ça vaut la peine financièrement" sur une voiture qui est calibré pour le 87 est un mensonge.
 
Back
Top