There's been a request for stations selling real gas. Unless it is marked on the pump you are buying ethanol blends which lower efficiency - 25-30% reduction in miles per gallon.
Definately have seen improvement since changing to the TEXACO at 21st and Harvard.
Check with the Fiesta Mart at 21st & Columbia.
Also check with Shell at the Promenade, 31st and Memorial.
Yes that is what I thought. They are dumping that garbage in all the fuels. I have found offten the sales clerk has no idea what is in their fuels. It drops your fuel mileage alot.
To add to the list, the convieniance store at S 126th and 31st advertises 100% gas
Mckay's at 31st and Jamestown.....
I believe the Flying "J" Truck Stop on 129th & I-44 runs with pure gasoline or they did.[xx(]
Does anyone know if there's anywhere in Tulsa you can fill up on 93 octane? It's what my manual recommends but in Tulsa I can usually only find 91. And great to know about the E10! No way I'm putting that in my car ever again.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Does anyone know if there's anywhere in Tulsa you can fill up on 93 octane? It's what my manual recommends but in Tulsa I can usually only find 91. And great to know about the E10! No way I'm putting that in my car ever again.
One thing you may want to try is to dump in a bottle of Octane booster. Big Lots and Dollar General sell octane booster bottles for about 99 cents. Places like Auto Zone have it too but they charge alot more.. You dump the bottle into your fuel tank when you fill up and it boosts up the octane of the fuel. It will be cheaper than filling up with 93 octane fuel. I don't know how good it is.
Oh I'm nowhere near worried enough to resort to octane booster. 91 should work fine, but I was wondering if there was anywhere that had 93. I checked the 21st and Lewis Texaco, which is pretty top shelf, and it didn't, so I figured probably not anywhere.
But again, great to know on the E10 when I'm passing through.
Anything out east other than Flying J?
I'm not opposed to it but I usually go to the QT at 161st and Admiral or 193rd and Admiral. There aren't too many more stations around the area so Flying J may indeed be the next closest.
Thanks! And thank you, Robinson sir, for starting the thread![:)]
gawd, my car hasn't seen 93 in so long it would probably flip out.
thanks for starting this thread. I figured the station at 21st/harvard did...but then their premium is also $3.40 a gal as of 4/10 [:O]
From what I have been told, in all new cars the octane matters alot for gas mileage. The higher the octane the better the fuel mileage. The reason is because the engine's timing is computer run and when you put in low octane fuel the engine's computer backs off the timing to avoid the "pinging" and as the timing is backed off mileage & engine power drop off. When you dump in high octane fuel the computer can advance the timing and the engine runs better and gets more miles per gallon. With older cars it's another story.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
From what I have been told, in all new cars the octane matters alot for gas mileage. The higher the octane the better the fuel mileage. The reason is because the engine's timing is computer run and when you put in low octane fuel the engine's computer backs off the timing to avoid the "pinging" and as the timing is backed off mileage & engine power drop off. When you dump in high octane fuel the computer can advance the timing and the engine runs better and gets more miles per gallon. With older cars it's another story.
yes that is true to a point. But higher octane doesnt dictate higher mpg. You can't make something out of nothing and if the energy content of the fuel is lower than before it won't matter. E85 has an effective octane rating of 101+, but you don't get better gas mileage. The main problem is these lazy car manufacturers use the "hillbilly tuneup" method of running higher compression/timing to get higher hp numbers. The result of that is that premium is required for those cars a lot of times. More intelligent engine management is making some of those cars quickly detime if they detect lower octane gas, but those are not the norm.
Octane rating as it relates to what car uses what just means less likely to detonate. Many imports and some of the "high performance" cars require higher octane because they are using very high compression ratios like the Focus SVT at 10.2:1. That means you need gas willing to compress into an area 10% of it's original size without combusting(detonating/pinging.) You'll get a bit more bang out of that high compression but you're paying anywhere from 5c to 20c more a gallon due to the higher octane gas required.
The Fiesta Mart - 21st & Columbia went to E10.
Much better car performance by using the Texaco at 21st and Harvard. Three tanks have me convinced.
Any recs for mechanics?
I saw that 71/Mingo carwashextravaganza advertises no ethanol. Got some gas @ 21/Lewis, now up to 19mpg.
Haven't seen that since we were cruisin' on the highway to Destin, FLA in May, b/c it was cool enough for no a/c.
I'm convinced.
[8D]
I see no performance or MPG difference either way. My mileage is not exactly a high number to start with. Of course that is because NO station in Tulsa is selling 100% gas and haven't for 10 years. The "pure" gast stations are using 10% of MTBE (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBE%22) instead which is, ironically enough, also an alcohol product.
MTBE is also being phased out and is only currently in existence because Bush vetoed a bill eliminating it. Make sure and show your support (//%22http://www.georgewbushstore.com/200-6000.htm%22) of protecting "real gas."
So tell it like it is, are you running 10% ethanol or 10% mtbe, there is no 100% gas. Although I see no-one complaining about their being no "10% mtbe" signs.
Robinson, when you say the Texaxo at 21st and Harvard, do you mean Reeder's Phillips 66 at 21st and Lewis? Harvard and 21st is QT, Arby's, Burger Street, and a parking lot.
The station at 6th and Lewis has 100% gas, has anyone ever gotten a sandwich from there? I keep thinking I should stop and check it out.
Well, I finally stopped at the phillip 66 at 126th and 31st and filled up. I ran out all but what I needed to get to the station first. Within a few miles of leaving, I could notice the differance in the fuel. Can't give a MPG comparison because I did a full tune up the next day.
quote:
Originally posted by joiei
Robinson, when you say the Texaxo at 21st and Harvard, do you mean Reeder's Phillips 66 at 21st and Lewis? Harvard and 21st is QT, Arby's, Burger Street, and a parking lot.
The station at 6th and Lewis has 100% gas, has anyone ever gotten a sandwich from there? I keep thinking I should stop and check it out.
Yes, it is the Reeder's Phillips 66 -- Didn't that use to be a Texaco?
What about Sinclair stations? I thought I read in the other thread that they were still serving the good stuff.
Anyone know?
Ethanol Stickers to be Placed on Gas Pumps:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080521_12_OKLAH36326
I think there was another thread about this already..but ALL Sinclair gas stations(Fiesta Marts) are 100% gas and also 100% terror free oil....which means they buy NO gas from states that are known to support terrorism..and they have a plant right here in Oklahoma as well...I have been slowly getting off my QT fix..and have not bought gas from them in about 1 month...
quote:
Originally posted by zstyles
I think there was another thread about this already..but ALL Sinclair gas stations(Fiesta Marts) are 100% gas and also 100% terror free oil....which means they buy NO gas from states that are known to support terrorism..and they have a plant right here in Oklahoma as well...I have been slowly getting off my QT fix..and have not bought gas from them in about 1 month...
what states support terrorism? I will call W myself and let him know to start yet another war!
"Foreign States"...
Reeders Phillips 66 at Lewis and 21st has each pump handle labeled. The 100% has a lower octane rating than the blend. I bought gas there earlier today.
quote:
Originally posted by zstyles
but ALL Sinclair gas stations(Fiesta Marts) are 100% gas and also 100% terror free oil...
I asked once couple months ago at the Fiesta Mart at 91st/Delaware and they told me they did have ethanol.
edit: I asked again, same fiesta mart sat 5/24 and they said yes they have 10% ethanol.
Also someone mentioned Flying J. I went there 2 days ago and the lady at the counter said they are 10% ethanol as of 2 weeks ago.
I buy my gas at Phillips 66 Food Plaza (12500'ish e 31st) right by my house they have 87 pure gas for $.06 more than the E10 (they also have e10 at the same price as everyone else) as far as I can tell (and I drive 600 miles per week so I have a big sample size) it's worth it to pay 6 cents more. I get 20-22 mpg on e10 and 23-25 mpg on no ethanol gas.
14% increase in mileage on pure at less than a 2% increase in cost. ($3.659 vs. 3.599)
Good for you. Now, can we stop with the stupid gas posts? It won't be long before everyone is E10 anyway. If you're less than E10 you can advertise 100% gas according to law so even most of those stations that say they are 100% most likely aren't anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by izmophonik
Good for you. Now, can we stop with the stupid gas posts? It won't be long before everyone is E10 anyway. If you're less than E10 you can advertise 100% gas according to law so even most of those stations that say they are 100% most likely aren't anyway.
come July 1st there will be no more guessing if it is E10 or not. A state law was just passed that REQUIRES anyone selling anything less than 99% gas to put a bright orange sticker on their pumps.
QT needs to get to work, they have a lot of stickers to apply[}:)]
Hopefully this will start a revolt and we can get most stations back to 100% gas.
i think 25-30% reduction sounds wrong but i really don't care. It makes it cheaper and the oil companies can kiss my donkey. I would buy and ethanol car if they sold it from pumps in town.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
Hopefully this will start a revolt and we can get most stations back to 100% gas.
With the "100% Gas" being illegal in 26 states and growing, I doubt we will see any mass changes.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
Hopefully this will start a revolt and we can get most stations back to 100% gas.
With the "100% Gas" being illegal in 26 states and growing, I doubt we will see any mass changes.
banning MTBEs is a grand conspiracy designed to pad the farm lobbiest pockets. I mean, how come there are NO OTHER alternatives to MTBE besides ethanol? Yeah right. very little has been shown that MTBEs are harmful and WHO still does not list it as a carcinogen. Once again, the fruit heads in California overreact and we all get to pay the price.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
From what I have been told, in all new cars the octane matters alot for gas mileage. The higher the octane the better the fuel mileage. The reason is because the engine's timing is computer run and when you put in low octane fuel the engine's computer backs off the timing to avoid the "pinging" and as the timing is backed off mileage & engine power drop off. When you dump in high octane fuel the computer can advance the timing and the engine runs better and gets more miles per gallon. With older cars it's another story.
This is only true with high-compression engines. Lower compression engines can run just fine on 87 octane without pinging, and using gasoline with a higher octane rating will not affect performance or economy in any meaningful way.
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
From what I have been told, in all new cars the octane matters alot for gas mileage. The higher the octane the better the fuel mileage. The reason is because the engine's timing is computer run and when you put in low octane fuel the engine's computer backs off the timing to avoid the "pinging" and as the timing is backed off mileage & engine power drop off. When you dump in high octane fuel the computer can advance the timing and the engine runs better and gets more miles per gallon. With older cars it's another story.
This is only true with high-compression engines. Lower compression engines can run just fine on 87 octane without pinging, and using gasoline with a higher octane rating will not affect performance or economy in any meaningful way.
LOTS of cars have high compression ratios these days. But they have VVT (or something similiar) to back the timing off. It all boils down to whether the ECU is programmed to back the timing way off. A performance car is not going to do that because -duh- it is a performance car and the ECU is configured for performing under the best circumstances (high octane, high CR)
good cars these days will have an ECU and knock sensor that will take advantage of high octane gas, but not hurt the car if you want to put regular in it. Infiniti EX35 for example.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
banning MTBEs is a grand conspiracy designed to pad the farm lobbiest pockets. I mean, how come there are NO OTHER alternatives to MTBE besides ethanol? Yeah right. very little has been shown that MTBEs are harmful and WHO still does not list it as a carcinogen. Once again, the fruit heads in California overreact and we all get to pay the price.
Or maybe it's a conspiracy designed to keep the MTBE out of our precious bodily fluids. That stuff spreads like wildfire if it manages to make it into groundwater (which it always does, whether from a leaky tank or someone overfilling their tank and spilling gas on the ground).
Me, I'd rather have an oxygenate than smog, but hey, you can keep on tilting at the 3% reduction in mileage windmill if you like. I prefer breathing and not having a brown stain over my fair city, thanks. And I continue to enjoy greater than 30mpg on the highway in my old clunker. And I'd rather drink water without MTBE. I don't really dig the smell of turpentine in something I'm drinking.
Granted, I don't have much information, but it seems to me that MTBE is nasty stuff. Surely there are other compounds to fulfill the same role...
But on point, you realize that a 3% reduction in fuel economy equals more fuel burned per mile per car meaning MORE POLUTION, right?
Heck if cars burned a fuel such that emissions were heat and water only, we'd be in trouble! What gas contributes the most to negative greenhouse effects? Water vapor...
There are enough humans that need to get places that whatever fuel we use will have an impact.
quote:
Originally posted by buckeye
Granted, I don't have much information, but it seems to me that MTBE is nasty stuff. Surely there are other compounds to fulfill the same role...
But on point, you realize that a 3% reduction in fuel economy equals more fuel burned per mile per car meaning MORE POLUTION, right?
Actually, no. You actually create less pollution because the oxygenate causes the gasoline to burn completely rather than going out the tailpipe only partially combusted. I suppose it does increase the amount of carbon dioxide released, but it reduces the amount of carbon monoxide, particulates, and other byproducts. It gets us closer to just carbon dioxide and water out the tailpipe.
That goes for MTBE or an alcohol like ethanol, methanol, or one of several others that can be used for the purpose.
Additionally, the pollution output is lessened due to the cleaner burning nature of ethanol (and other alcohol) on its own vs. the gasoline, so in addition to making the 90% of the mix that is gas burn better, you're burning 10% that's much cleaner.
As far as the most objectionable pollutants, oxygenates have been shown to significantly reduce respiratory problems due to pollution in major cities that require oxygenate blended gasoline. I seem to recall the average is somewhere around a 17% reduction in particulates, sulfides, and other respiratory irritants in the first five years after adoption of blended gas.
Of course, in this part of the country, it's not such a big deal, as there's usually ample wind to blow the pollution elsewhere and dilute it in the process. In other parts of the country, not so much.
And just FWIW, there are other alcohols that can be used, some even have more energy per unit volume than gasoline and are a more ready substitute. They're difficult to mass produce, however, although that is being worked on. One of the main reasons we're using ethanol now is all the work that was done on it in the 70s and 80s. It was already known how to make ethanol from corn thanks to government subsidized research.
Personally, I think we ought to plant over as much of the area near the gulf of mexico as we can with sugar beets instead of using corn. It's a more efficient process while we're stuck with ethanol (you get more energy out of it compared to what you put in farming the stuff), and it doesn't use up a major food source.
quote:
Originally posted by buckeye
Granted, I don't have much information, but it seems to me that MTBE is nasty stuff. Surely there are other compounds to fulfill the same role...
But on point, you realize that a 3% reduction in fuel economy equals more fuel burned per mile per car meaning MORE POLUTION, right?
Heck if cars burned a fuel such that emissions were heat and water only, we'd be in trouble! What gas contributes the most to negative greenhouse effects? Water vapor...
There are enough humans that need to get places that whatever fuel we use will have an impact.
But that three percent reduction is offset by the 10% ethanol. So your burning 3% more fuel of which 10% is carbon neutral ethanol. Every once of carbon release during an ethanol burn is carbon that corn captured from the air when it was grown.
Good stuff to know.
Now, what about what about the "fun" oxygenate that comes in compressed gas bottles... ;)
quote:
Originally posted by dggriffi
quote:
Originally posted by buckeye
Granted, I don't have much information, but it seems to me that MTBE is nasty stuff. Surely there are other compounds to fulfill the same role...
But on point, you realize that a 3% reduction in fuel economy equals more fuel burned per mile per car meaning MORE POLUTION, right?
Heck if cars burned a fuel such that emissions were heat and water only, we'd be in trouble! What gas contributes the most to negative greenhouse effects? Water vapor...
There are enough humans that need to get places that whatever fuel we use will have an impact.
But that three percent reduction is offset by the 10% ethanol. So your burning 3% more fuel of which 10% is carbon neutral ethanol. Every once of carbon release during an ethanol burn is carbon that corn captured from the air when it was grown.
Ahhh, but what about all the CO2 released while turning said corn into ethanol?
quote:
Ahhh, but what about all the CO2 released while turning said corn into ethanol?
Therein lies some of the stupidity of using corn for ethanol, since you have to convert the fibers into sugar to ferment the sugar into ethanol.
However, that carbon dioxide is also released from the plant itself, so was fixed by the plant in its growth process.
No matter what you do, if you're burning fuel created from plants, you're not releasing any net carbon into the carbon cycle. There is a limited amount of it above ground. The problem comes in when you dig it up from a place where it has been sequestered for millions of years and release it.
But nitrous oxide emissions are up with E10, CO2 is about the same (from some quick googling).
I remember reading that converting the nation's entire agricultural output to corn still wouldn't satisfy our transportation fuel demand. How does Brazil do with sugarcane?
Consider also that present agriculture uses quite a bit of petroleum to grow anything and there's a net energy loss for every gallon of ethanol as fuel.
quote:
Consider also that present agriculture uses quite a bit of petroleum to grow anything and there's a net energy loss for every gallon of ethanol as fuel.
Actually, no. Ethanol from corn gets you about one and a half times the energy you put in back out. Sugar beets are more like 7 times the energy you put in and generally require less fertilizer and pesticides.
Sugar beets are more efficient because you don't have to turn the starch into sugar before converting it to ethanol.
Not that ethanol is the be all and end all of alternative fuels. There's some other alcohol that most engines designed for 100% gasoline can run on without modification. It's currently produced from petroleum due to a lack of demand, but could be made by similar processes as ethanol.
What about the octane rating listed on the pump. If they are using E10 it should be listed lower but they are not.
quote:
Originally posted by citizen72
What about the octane rating listed on the pump. If they are using E10 it should be listed lower but they are not.
Ethanol has a higher octane rating than gasoline. Both RON and MON are over 100. (MON is around 102, while RON is about 129)
There are other alcohols that are somewhat less.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by citizen72
What about the octane rating listed on the pump. If they are using E10 it should be listed lower but they are not.
Ethanol has a higher octane rating than gasoline. Both RON and MON are over 100. (MON is around 102, while RON is about 129)
There are other alcohols that are somewhat less.
Let's keep in the front of our minds though that octane rating is not the end-all of deciding how efficient a fuel is. Basically, all octane does is rate a fuels resistance to pre-ignition (knocking). Also, it has no effect or bearing on how much fuel to air is required to burn at the same efficiency as any other fuel. It's been proven that gasoline runs more efficient than E10.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
I started to buy into your story until you referenced Wikipedia. Oh well...almost had me.
Ethanol does reduce fuel mileage and more important it "grabs" water.. so to all of you out there using the majority of fuel sold at Tulsa stores.. don't let your tanks get near empty chasing the price, because a fuel tank will build condensation and you will possibly see problems with fuel injectors, fuel pumps etc. And no one has mentioned the pollution and fuel demand from the diesel thats needed to make the ethanol. You are utilizing more fuel and generating more problems than is published.
Gasoline use will rise because you will be filling your tanks more often due loss of MPG.
Ethanol as an alternative fuel will be the biggest mistake this country has taken, utilizing a food staple and you havent seen the beginning yet!
quote:
Originally posted by izmophonik
I started to buy into your story until you referenced Wikipedia. Oh well...almost had me.
I use wikipedia not as a reliable source, but as a place where it gathers reliable sources. I never uses it as the end-all, but a starting place.
And it is true. Octane rates knock resistance, not overall fuel performance. It's something the oil industry hopes you buy into in the way most have.
quote:
Originally posted by moonovrmia
Ethanol does reduce fuel mileage and more important it "grabs" water.. so to all of you out there using the majority of fuel sold at Tulsa stores.. don't let your tanks get near empty chasing the price, because a fuel tank will build condensation and you will possibly see problems with fuel injectors, fuel pumps etc. And no one has mentioned the pollution and fuel demand from the diesel thats needed to make the ethanol. You are utilizing more fuel and generating more problems than is published.
Gasoline use will rise because you will be filling your tanks more often due loss of MPG.
Ethanol as an alternative fuel will be the biggest mistake this country has taken, utilizing a food staple and you havent seen the beginning yet!
A little ethanol allows the water to be dissolved in the gas and alcohol. This allows the water to pass through the system rather than becoming a slug of stuff that won't pass through the filters and remainder of the fuel system. We used to put some denatured alcohol (ethanol) in our boat gas tank at the beginning of the season just for that very reason, to take care of the condensation. Too much ethanol affects things like gaskets and o-rings. Winter blend gasoline used to contain small amounts of ethanol to prevent gas line freeze.
I too drive a lot of miles (600-1200) each week. I have a spreadsheet running on my mileage and logging each tank.
I recently quit using QT (2 tanks ago) after 27 years of loyalty after finding out I have been getting blended fuel since September of '07.
My first tank of gas I got 39.3 miles per gallon (filled up in fayetville Sinclair?). Since arriving back in Tulsa and using QT exclusively, my best tank has been 38 and dropping to 33 (hwy) now. I contribute a lot of this to a/c on a 4 cylinder drag. City has been from 27 to 29 mpg.
My first tank on Phillips (21st and Lewis) city tank was 30.95 mpg. I'm quite happy with this 1st tank result.
I have been hearing alot of different opinions on ethanol blends robbing gas mileage which is important with my amount of driving.
I am actively seeking out stations that have non-blended gas and can post my findings later as I continue to accumulate them. (I think there should be a thread on this exclusively) but this is my first or 2nd post so I am not there as of now.
I am on only my 2nd tank of non-blended gas and have not hit a Hwy route to get a good gauge of my hwy efficiency. I am also using a gas covalizer. sp? and still have mixed feelings about this crap right now.
I almost blew a wad on a Hydro-assist system that I could pay for in 3 months driving but a knowledgable mechanic said to wait a couple of months for some new developments that are in the works. I am definately not scared to be a test subject for any of these new systems if they are proven. The covalizer was cheap enough for me to try without a huge layout.
I have also heard pros and cons on what ethanol does to an engine (ie fuel injectors) over time so I have got to do some more internet research. I am just posting for anybody else that has an interest or has done some of this research already that can share. ie harm to engines or injectors from ethanol.
Getting late, gotta go.
No ethanol in the fuel at the Sinclair 1-Stop at 41st & Union.