Anyone switched to 87 octane?

[HEMIMANN]

What kind of carb failures were you seeing? Moisture relate? Seals? Just curious.

Elastomers hardening and cracking, lost sealing, in some cases disolving, varnishing that couldn't be cleaned. My memory fails - we shipped 80,000 gasoline generators per year, 20,000 diesel generators.

At any given time, around 12 were in the test cells for development, and any number in storage upstairs for future tests. We had a fuels group that specified all engine liquids.

 

[Travis8352]

It's worth it for the better fuel economy, usually. In any case, you don't have to fuel as often than alcohol gas.

Holiday Gas Station?

Nope a marathon. Our holidays have 91 ethanol free and 10 miles north 92 ethanol free

I may try it soon here as an experiment

 

[HEMIMANN]

Nope a marathon. Our holidays have 91 ethanol free and 10 miles north 92 ethanol free

I may try it soon here as an experiment

Crap - SuperAmerica (Ashland Oil) pulled out of Minnesota and sold to Marathon, BUT - most locations went with their cheapo brand, Speedway. Speedway is not Top Tier gasoline (nobody is right now due to supply chain screwups), only the premium Marathon Brand is. There are very few around here. Minnesotans are cheapskates.

For Top Tier gasoline, we only have Kwik Trip (don't have 89 octane / 10% ethanol, only 88 octane 15% ethanol), Holiday, and Shell. Most majors pulled out of here decades back is too far to the edge of civilization. They're not wrong. I should too.

 

[HEMIMANN]

Ok, self-appointed fuel experts. Here's some data for ya why ethanol is a taxpayer welfare program for rich agribusiness. They don't even get into the detrimental storage capability or the fact that corn doesn't grow year round (unlike say, conifer trees), or that it's also a food source. It's ridiculous.

Study by University of Wisconsin-Madison, my alma mater, known for agriculture and engine combustion engineering. I graduated in Mechanical Engineering.

America Was Wrong About Ethanol - Study Shows

Using Corn For Fuel Seems Like A Dumb Idea In Light Of New ResearchSubscribe to Engineering Explained for more videos! - https://goo.gl/VZstk7Recommended Boo...

www.youtube.com

 

[Travis8352]

Crap - SuperAmerica (Ashland Oil) pulled out of Minnesota and sold to Marathon, BUT - most locations went with their cheapo brand, Speedway. Speedway is not Top Tier gasoline (nobody is right now due to supply chain screwups), only the premium Marathon Brand is. There are very few around here. Minnesotans are cheapskates.

For Top Tier gasoline, we only have Kwik Trip (don't have 89 octane / 10% ethanol, only 88 octane 15% ethanol), Holiday, and Shell. Most majors pulled out of here decades back is too far to the edge of civilization. They're not wrong. I should too.

I have heard though that all our marathons are goinf unbranded as they say they cannot get the marathon additive anymore. Heard this from a fuel supplier that i deliver to. They own a marathon and a bp station

 

[Travis8352]

Ok, self-appointed fuel experts. Here's some data for ya why ethanol is a taxpayer welfare program for rich agribusiness. They don't even get into the detrimental storage capability or the fact that corn doesn't grow year round (unlike say, conifer trees), or that it's also a food source. It's ridiculous.

Study by University of Wisconsin-Madison, my alma mater, known for agriculture and engine combustion engineering. I graduated in Mechanical Engineering.

America Was Wrong About Ethanol - Study Shows

Using Corn For Fuel Seems Like A Dumb Idea In Light Of New ResearchSubscribe to Engineering Explained for more videos! - https://goo.gl/VZstk7Recommended Boo...

www.youtube.com

I get ads on the radio here that say "buy ethanol gas, it supports michigan jobs!"

 

[HEMIMANN]

I get ads on the radio here that say "buy ethanol gas, it supports michigan jobs!"

Then I should be paid to pi$$ in DEF tanks, also!

 

[62Blazer]

It's worth it for the better fuel economy, usually. In any case, you don't have to fuel as often than alcohol gas.

Holiday Gas Station?

Saying it is "worth it" depends on the price difference of the fuel. Regular pump gas contains 10% or less ethanol (E10), so even at the worst case this ethanol blend gas has around 5% less BTU (energy content) as compared to "pure gas". This of course means it requires 5% more fuel use to get the same power, or basically 5% lower fuel mileage. Equate that to the price difference between the different types of gas. Right now the major gas station down the road is $4.35 for 87 and $4.95 for 91 (which I believe is ethanol free) which is almost a 14% price increase, so the math doesn't work there as you pay 14% in price to achieve 5% better fuel economy.

To expand on the subject you see E85 (85% ethanol) fuel available as some stations. This fuel should ONLY be used on vehicles that are properly setup for it such as what the manufacturers commonly refer to as "flex fuel" vehicles. Typically these vehicles actually have sensors in them that detect the percentage of ethanol in the fuel and thus increase the fueling rate to make up for it. Yes, every modern vehicle has the capability in adjust the fueling rates and air/fuel ratio to a certain extent but usually don't have that much capability to fully adjust for the extra 30% or so of fuel needed with E85. That may require modified fuel systems and increase fuel pump volume capacity. Obviously you have to make sure all the seals and rubber components won't degrade when exposed to ethanol, but nowadays that is rarely an issue as manufacturers just use pieces that are not affected by ethanol on everything.

 

[HEMIMANN]

Saying it is "worth it" depends on the price difference of the fuel. Regular pump gas contains 10% or less ethanol (E10), so even at the worst case this ethanol blend gas has around 5% less BTU (energy content) as compared to "pure gas". This of course means it requires 5% more fuel use to get the same power, or basically 5% lower fuel mileage. Equate that to the price difference between the different types of gas. Right now the major gas station down the road is $4.35 for 87 and $4.95 for 91 (which I believe is ethanol free) which is almost a 14% price increase, so the math doesn't work there as you pay 14% in price to achieve 5% better fuel economy.

To expand on the subject you see E85 (85% ethanol) fuel available as some stations. This fuel should ONLY be used on vehicles that are properly setup for it such as what the manufacturers commonly refer to as "flex fuel" vehicles. Typically these vehicles actually have sensors in them that detect the percentage of ethanol in the fuel and thus increase the fueling rate to make up for it. Yes, every modern vehicle has the capability in adjust the fueling rates and air/fuel ratio to a certain extent but usually don't have that much capability to fully adjust for the extra 30% or so of fuel needed with E85. That may require modified fuel systems and increase fuel pump volume capacity. Obviously you have to make sure all the seals and rubber components won't degrade when exposed to ethanol, but nowadays that is rarely an issue as manufacturers just use pieces that are not affected by ethanol on everything.

I meant 10% alcohol at the same octane rating - comparing two different octane ratings with differing alcohol content is comparing apples and watermelon.....it makes no sense. Fuel costs vary by both octane rating and alcohol content. Further, alcohol content is (or was) taxpayer subsidized over and above the subsidy paid to oil companies for gasoline, but there is zero subsidy for higher octane content pure gasoline.

The topic isn't as simple as one-dimensional parameters such as "octane good" or "alcohol bad". Cost enters into all of it. What's best for Hemi engines that were developed to be able to benefit from 89 octane gasoline is the topic.

 

[62Blazer]

I meant 10% alcohol at the same octane rating - comparing two different octane ratings with differing alcohol content is comparing apples and watermelon.....it makes no sense. Fuel costs vary by both octane rating and alcohol content. Further, alcohol content is (or was) taxpayer subsidized over and above the subsidy paid to oil companies for gasoline, but there is zero subsidy for higher octane content pure gasoline.

The topic isn't as simple as one-dimensional parameters such as "octane good" or "alcohol bad". Cost enters into all of it. What's best for Hemi engines that were developed to be able to benefit from 89 octane gasoline is the topic.

I agree with you, and should have clarified that I wasn't really trying to argue or say you were incorrect. In regards to the 87 E10 versus 91 that is the only prices I could find locally to compare. However the comparison is not completely apples to oranges as octane does not influence the BTU (energy content) of gas. As mentioned in one of my previous posts, if the engine is running at the optimal timing with 87 octane gas than going to 91 octane really does nothing. Therefore the primary difference would be in the ethanol content. But yes, if the ECM is pulling timing with 87 octane fuel but can go with optimal timing on 91 octane there are more factors than just the ethanol content.

 

[Fediej]

87 octane? Haven't seen any up here except for the Cenex in Hayward.
I fill my 12 gallon gas caddy and use for all my Briggs engines. Need 91 nobody for the 2 strokers per OEM requirement.

Down south in Whitewater...

 

[Grand Mesa]

One pump available of unleaded at $5.599 per gallon. The other is diesel at an insane price.

85 octane with 10% ethanol. It's not like there's a choice in rural Colorado.

 

[06 Dodge]

In west Portland metro area we had 87 octane with 10% ethanol jump 30 cents a gallon in 24 hours to 5.29

 

[CheechDogg.0n37s]

Read through this whole thread and wow ..

I have always used nothing but 91 on all my vehicles even my 1993 Corolla which I still fill up with 91 and always from Shell or Chevron ...

On my truck when I first got it I used nothing but 91 for the first year until I read somewhere that these trucks should stay with 89 for best performance .... Well I started filling up with 89 and my MPGs dropped by 2 almost 3 city driving not on the highway though ....

I just filled up my tank but next fill up I will go back to 91 and see if my MPGs go back up ... Our company trucks at Dish Network ran 87 because the company also wanted to save money but what they didn't consider was the long term effects that 87 could cause to those truck's engines after months of hard driving since those trucks are driven hard ....

The company began having to replace full engines on the trucks .. a total of eight 2011 5.7s had to get their engines replaced in the first 2 years.... the shop that handled the replacements told them that the reason for this was the use of 87 octane on these trucks ... the shop manager suggested they start using 91 but 89 was fine ...

Not worth risking damaging these truck's engines just to save some money by using 87 .... yes "WE" might feel like everything is running fine and "WE" don't notice the loss in power or knocking, but it "IS" happening and it is damaging the engines slowly but surely ...

I personally will never run 87 on a 5.7 but will run 89 since I have being doing so for the last year now on my own truck ... Unless you are not planning on keeping your trucks then hey go ahead and throw that 87 in there, but if you plan on keeping them use 91 if you have the cash and if you don't stay with 89 .....

I will post the results of me going back to 91 as soon as I fill the tank up with it ....

 

[CheechDogg.0n37s]

Check this video out form Reckless Motorsports USA ...Randy took some logs and found tons of knock using 87 and 89 on the 5.7 hemi .. just talked to someone about using 91 instead of 89 and 87 and he told me to check this video out ....

I will definitely be going back to 91 ... I liked how my truck felt with 91 and if I can get the 2 MPG back and avoid knock then it's a no brainer ...

87 vs 89 Ram 1500 5.7 hemi

Finally touching base on 87 vs 89 as everyone wants to fight but nobody has real information to share.

www.youtube.com

 

[Jeepwalker]

I switched to 87 oct about 35 years ago... lol. Ram's got ~172k ...so, IDK if the gas is going to prematurely kill it at this point. But interesting ideas....

 

[CheechDogg.0n37s]

I switched to 87 oct about 35 years ago... lol. Ram's got ~172k ...so, IDK if the gas is going to prematurely kill it at this point. But interesting ideas....

But I am pretty sure you maintain your truck right ?

Most people, daily drivers don't care for their vehicles like they should and just want to save money on gas ... people like you and I "personally" take care of our vehicles and we are always monitoring them, at least I have always done so ...

So honestly 87 if you maintain your 5.7 is going to be just fine ... will there be some issues?, probably but "I" rather avoid issues even though I personally maintain my truck as much as I can ... I have used 91 on every single vehicle I have owned, old and new and the fact that my 1993 corolla is still running fine is enough to convince me that my 2018 5.7 on 91 will only benefit in the long run ...

I don't plan on getting rid of this truck unless it craps out, so for me running 87 on it after personally seeing what it can do to these engines is a hard NO !

I do a lot of city driving and just about every mechanic I have talked to has always told me to go with 91 Chevron especially since it doesn't have any ethanol here ...

 

[1979PowerWagon360]

My manual states 89 octane so I won't go below that. I was dumb enough to be using 93 for long time until I realized I was wasting my money. It's different on an old car in which I've set the timing fairly aggressively.

I only run fuels with good additives such as Shell, Chevron, etc. but I still use Amsoil F.I. Cleaner once a year or so (8k miles).

 

[HEMIMANN]

91 octane provides no more power or economy for Hemi engines, according to owner's manual data. 89 is preferred, which means the stock PCM is programmed to advance ignition timing to provide more pressure over piston power stroke cycle UP TO 89 octane. Which means slightly more torque and fuel economy.

91 octane is not only wasted money and resources, it will leave more deposits due to it's resistance to combustion for the ignition timing available. These are combustion facts, you can google them yourselves.

Octane is misunderstood frequently. It is a measure of the resistance of gasoline to ignition. Different octane gasolines have little difference in energy density. Their use is a function of ENGINE DESIGN - not fuel capability. There are only two design parameters that benefit from higher octane gasoline:

1) Advanced ignition (spark) timing: allow the combustion pressure to act longer upon the piston power stroke (up to a point - too much advance produces backfire). Higher octane is needed for the higher peak cylinder pressure induces by this.

2) Higher Compression: by higher compression ratio or forced air induction. Higher octane is needed for the higher pressure (& corresponding temperature) to resist auto-ignition before the spark, a.k.a. "knock".

Both engine design features produce more power from a given displacement engine. NOT because the fuel has more energy - because the engine can use more of the available energy.

Oh, and use Top Tier additized fuels only to minimize injector nozzle deposits, and intake valve deposits for port-injected engines.

*end rant*

 

[CheechDogg.0n37s]

91 octane provides no more power or economy for Hemi engines, according to owner's manual data. 89 is preferred, which means the stock PCM is programmed to advance ignition timing to provide more pressure over piston power stroke cycle UP TO 89 octane. Which means slightly more torque and fuel economy.

91 octane is not only wasted money and resources, it will leave more deposits due to it's resistance to combustion for the ignition timing available. These are combustion facts, you can google them yourselves.

Octane is misunderstood frequently. It is a measure of the resistance of gasoline to ignition. Different octane gasolines have little difference in energy density. Their use is a function of ENGINE DESIGN - not fuel capability. There are only two design parameters that benefit from higher octane gasoline:

1) Advanced ignition (spark) timing: allow the combustion pressure to act longer upon the piston power stroke (up to a point - too much advance produces backfire). Higher octane is needed for the higher peak cylinder pressure induces by this.

2) Higher Compression: by higher compression ratio or forced air induction. Higher octane is needed for the higher pressure (& corresponding temperature) to resist auto-ignition before the spark, a.k.a. "knock".

Both engine design features produce more power from a given displacement engine. NOT because the fuel has more energy - because the engine can use more of the available energy.

Oh, and use Top Tier additized fuels only to minimize injector nozzle deposits, and intake valve deposits for port-injected engines.

*end rant*

I understand that 91 doesn't add more power but in my case I have noticed a drop in the MPGs using 89 ... I just posted on the other thread lol ...

I am going to run 91 again and see if my MPGs go up and if they do I am going to stick with 91 ... But honestly like @Burla, when I was running 91 on my truck before it just felt stronger ... when we pay attention to our vehicles we definitely notice power loss and there is noticeable power loss going down from 91 to 89 but no actual power gain going to 91 ..

All the power my truck can actually produce is already there using 91, but running 89 is what drops the potential power it can generate .....