No more 93 octane pure gas in NC
03-12-2016, 02:00 PM
#1
Drifting
Thread Starter
No more 93 octane pure gas in NC
There were several pure gas stations where I was able to purchase 93 pure gas when passing through NC. Now they are all 90 octane. They said it has something to do with new government regulations. Just checking if anyone on the forum has any information about this.
Popular Reply
03-12-2016, 09:27 PM
Drifting
JoesC5, I appreciate the fact that you don’t like ethanol in gasoline. I don’t either. But I think we should keep our facts straight. It just gives those opposed to ethanol a black eye if some bad mouth it with misleading half truths. If we could simply get people to focus on the main two points, the rest would go away. Point number one is that it’s way more costly than claimed. Most of the ethanol plants were built with tax credits, much of the corn gets farm subsidies, and the rest to which those don’t apply is forced in by mandates. One can debate how much more than gasoline it costs, but it is clearly not a small number. Thus it makes sense only if it delivers environmental benefits, and once all the offsets are properly figured in, it clearly does not. The biggest of the typically ignored offsets is that if the land wasn’t growing corn and absorbing CO2, it would be growing something else and absorbing a similar amount of CO2. It would not be left as bare dirt, not absorbing CO2.
The performance horror stories about ethanol are mostly nonsense. Yes, there is a 3-5% mileage penalty, but that’s piddly in comparison to the cost issues in the prior paragraph. Yes, it has slightly more potential to absorb water, but that has not proven to be a widespread issue, and in the riskiest application, winter storage, that can be countered with stabilizer. So while there are minor performance issues, there are certainly no widespread serious problems.
I think when Kracka mentioned better additives, he probably meant that most ethanol free gas is sold at non-top-tier stations. You are correct in saying that if sold at a top tier station as a branded gas, it must have top tier additives. But I’d agree with what I think Kracka was saying, namely, that if given a choice between top-tier E10 and non-top-tier ethanol free, from a performance standpoint, it’s a no-brainer. Top tier E10 wins.
And finally, Obama. You are exactly half correct. Exactly half the ethanol fiasco is the fault of Obama and the Democrats who incorrectly think it is a big environmental winner. The other half of the ethanol fiasco is the fault of the farm state Republicans who blindly support it because it helps the farmers who solidly keep the farm states in the Republican column. Sadly, one of the only places where the two parties cooperate is the ethanol fiasco.
Anyway, the bottom line is, if you want to avoid ethanol, great. But do it for the right reasons in the first paragraph, not the wrong ones in the second. And if you want to vote Republican, fine. But don’t do it because you’re mad at the Democrats over ethanol. It’s a 50/50 deal, equally supported by both parties. Their reasons for supporting it are different, but they are equally misguided.
The performance horror stories about ethanol are mostly nonsense. Yes, there is a 3-5% mileage penalty, but that’s piddly in comparison to the cost issues in the prior paragraph. Yes, it has slightly more potential to absorb water, but that has not proven to be a widespread issue, and in the riskiest application, winter storage, that can be countered with stabilizer. So while there are minor performance issues, there are certainly no widespread serious problems.
I think when Kracka mentioned better additives, he probably meant that most ethanol free gas is sold at non-top-tier stations. You are correct in saying that if sold at a top tier station as a branded gas, it must have top tier additives. But I’d agree with what I think Kracka was saying, namely, that if given a choice between top-tier E10 and non-top-tier ethanol free, from a performance standpoint, it’s a no-brainer. Top tier E10 wins.
And finally, Obama. You are exactly half correct. Exactly half the ethanol fiasco is the fault of Obama and the Democrats who incorrectly think it is a big environmental winner. The other half of the ethanol fiasco is the fault of the farm state Republicans who blindly support it because it helps the farmers who solidly keep the farm states in the Republican column. Sadly, one of the only places where the two parties cooperate is the ethanol fiasco.
Anyway, the bottom line is, if you want to avoid ethanol, great. But do it for the right reasons in the first paragraph, not the wrong ones in the second. And if you want to vote Republican, fine. But don’t do it because you’re mad at the Democrats over ethanol. It’s a 50/50 deal, equally supported by both parties. Their reasons for supporting it are different, but they are equally misguided.
03-12-2016, 03:16 PM
#2
Le Mans Master
Run 93 E10, it's better quality fuel, with better additives, anyway.
03-12-2016, 03:32 PM
#3
Race Director
Member Since: Oct 2011
Location: Holly Springs NC
Posts: 14,376
Received 1,609 Likes
on
1,037 Posts
St. Jude Donor '16-'17,'22,'24
If you'd like I can check on the Citgo in Fuquay-Varina and get back to you.
Now that the C5 is gone, I don't worry about ethanol in the gas.
Now that the C5 is gone, I don't worry about ethanol in the gas.
03-12-2016, 03:56 PM
#4
Team Owner
Member Since: Sep 2005
Location: Big Bend Country, TX
Posts: 29,114
Received 2,186 Likes
on
1,337 Posts
St. Jude Donor '06-'07-'08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15- '16-'17-‘18-‘19-'20-'21
NCM Lifetime Member
03-12-2016, 06:23 PM
#6
Team Owner
I doubt it. All gasolines have to have a minimum additive package per the .gov. If the gas is a Top Tier brand, every grade(87, 89, 91, 93, etc,) has to have the same additive package in every grade, whether it has ethanol or not. The minimum additive performance standards were first established by EPA in 1995
"Is TT only for my premium gasoline?
No. TOP TIER fuel marketers use the same detergency treat rate for all octane grades of gasoline sold at their stations.
Also, TOP TIER gasoline can contain ethanol up to a maximum of 10% by volume. In areas where ethanol is not always used for blending, a TOP TIER gasoline that has passed all performance testing is still qualified as the additive supplier would have tested their product on the appropriate fuel."
http://www.toptiergas.com/faqs/
"Is TT only for my premium gasoline?
No. TOP TIER fuel marketers use the same detergency treat rate for all octane grades of gasoline sold at their stations.
Also, TOP TIER gasoline can contain ethanol up to a maximum of 10% by volume. In areas where ethanol is not always used for blending, a TOP TIER gasoline that has passed all performance testing is still qualified as the additive supplier would have tested their product on the appropriate fuel."
http://www.toptiergas.com/faqs/
Last edited by JoesC5; 03-12-2016 at 07:35 PM.
03-12-2016, 06:36 PM
#7
Team Owner
Locally, a couple of stations still sell 93 ethanol free gasoline but the manager told me that it was really getting expensive as it has to be trucked in from out of state. No 93 octane gas is shipped to our local terminal via pipeline.
Most local stations carry 91 E10 with a few carrying 91 ethanol free, that they can get from the local terminal.
Most stations decide what they want to sell, not what the .gov makes them sell. In Missouri, the law states that regular 87 octane gas has to be E10, but premium(91 & 93) can be ethanol free or E10. It's up to the individual retailer to decide what he wants to sell, and most of them just decide to sell E10 91 octane premium.
Most states do not stipulate by law that the gas has to be E10. I think only six of them do. Some local areas in some states require that the gas be oxygenated because of air quality in some areas of that state(like Texas).
BUT, Obama is doing an end run around the states not requiring that gas have ethanol added, by requiring a minimum amount of ethanol be produced and used. This applies to the oil companies and they have to sell most of their gas with ethanol added to comply with the federal government's rules.
Just like when the federal government wanted the 55 MPH national speed limit. They couldn't tell the states to lower their speed limits, so but they did tell the states that if they didn't, they would lose their federal highway money. Extortion in it's purest form.
Last edited by JoesC5; 03-12-2016 at 06:45 PM.
03-12-2016, 09:27 PM
#8
Drifting
JoesC5, I appreciate the fact that you don’t like ethanol in gasoline. I don’t either. But I think we should keep our facts straight. It just gives those opposed to ethanol a black eye if some bad mouth it with misleading half truths. If we could simply get people to focus on the main two points, the rest would go away. Point number one is that it’s way more costly than claimed. Most of the ethanol plants were built with tax credits, much of the corn gets farm subsidies, and the rest to which those don’t apply is forced in by mandates. One can debate how much more than gasoline it costs, but it is clearly not a small number. Thus it makes sense only if it delivers environmental benefits, and once all the offsets are properly figured in, it clearly does not. The biggest of the typically ignored offsets is that if the land wasn’t growing corn and absorbing CO2, it would be growing something else and absorbing a similar amount of CO2. It would not be left as bare dirt, not absorbing CO2.
The performance horror stories about ethanol are mostly nonsense. Yes, there is a 3-5% mileage penalty, but that’s piddly in comparison to the cost issues in the prior paragraph. Yes, it has slightly more potential to absorb water, but that has not proven to be a widespread issue, and in the riskiest application, winter storage, that can be countered with stabilizer. So while there are minor performance issues, there are certainly no widespread serious problems.
I think when Kracka mentioned better additives, he probably meant that most ethanol free gas is sold at non-top-tier stations. You are correct in saying that if sold at a top tier station as a branded gas, it must have top tier additives. But I’d agree with what I think Kracka was saying, namely, that if given a choice between top-tier E10 and non-top-tier ethanol free, from a performance standpoint, it’s a no-brainer. Top tier E10 wins.
And finally, Obama. You are exactly half correct. Exactly half the ethanol fiasco is the fault of Obama and the Democrats who incorrectly think it is a big environmental winner. The other half of the ethanol fiasco is the fault of the farm state Republicans who blindly support it because it helps the farmers who solidly keep the farm states in the Republican column. Sadly, one of the only places where the two parties cooperate is the ethanol fiasco.
Anyway, the bottom line is, if you want to avoid ethanol, great. But do it for the right reasons in the first paragraph, not the wrong ones in the second. And if you want to vote Republican, fine. But don’t do it because you’re mad at the Democrats over ethanol. It’s a 50/50 deal, equally supported by both parties. Their reasons for supporting it are different, but they are equally misguided.
The performance horror stories about ethanol are mostly nonsense. Yes, there is a 3-5% mileage penalty, but that’s piddly in comparison to the cost issues in the prior paragraph. Yes, it has slightly more potential to absorb water, but that has not proven to be a widespread issue, and in the riskiest application, winter storage, that can be countered with stabilizer. So while there are minor performance issues, there are certainly no widespread serious problems.
I think when Kracka mentioned better additives, he probably meant that most ethanol free gas is sold at non-top-tier stations. You are correct in saying that if sold at a top tier station as a branded gas, it must have top tier additives. But I’d agree with what I think Kracka was saying, namely, that if given a choice between top-tier E10 and non-top-tier ethanol free, from a performance standpoint, it’s a no-brainer. Top tier E10 wins.
And finally, Obama. You are exactly half correct. Exactly half the ethanol fiasco is the fault of Obama and the Democrats who incorrectly think it is a big environmental winner. The other half of the ethanol fiasco is the fault of the farm state Republicans who blindly support it because it helps the farmers who solidly keep the farm states in the Republican column. Sadly, one of the only places where the two parties cooperate is the ethanol fiasco.
Anyway, the bottom line is, if you want to avoid ethanol, great. But do it for the right reasons in the first paragraph, not the wrong ones in the second. And if you want to vote Republican, fine. But don’t do it because you’re mad at the Democrats over ethanol. It’s a 50/50 deal, equally supported by both parties. Their reasons for supporting it are different, but they are equally misguided.
The following 14 users liked this post by LDB:
Bavaria (06-13-2019),
BenCasey (03-12-2016),
Benwish (03-13-2016),
Bills17n72 (04-23-2021),
Boiler_81 (06-13-2019),
and 9 others liked this post.
03-12-2016, 10:08 PM
#9
Le Mans Master
One thing to note, most E0 fuel is sold as off-road fuel therefore is does not have to abide by the same standards, additive packages, etc. Also, premium fuels typically have more additives and detergents in them than the regular and mid-grade fuels, including Top Tier.
03-12-2016, 11:41 PM
#10
JoesC5, I appreciate the fact that you don’t like ethanol in gasoline. I don’t either. But I think we should keep our facts straight. It just gives those opposed to ethanol a black eye if some bad mouth it with misleading half truths. If we could simply get people to focus on the main two points, the rest would go away. Point number one is that it’s way more costly than claimed. Most of the ethanol plants were built with tax credits, much of the corn gets farm subsidies, and the rest to which those don’t apply is forced in by mandates. One can debate how much more than gasoline it costs, but it is clearly not a small number. Thus it makes sense only if it delivers environmental benefits, and once all the offsets are properly figured in, it clearly does not. The biggest of the typically ignored offsets is that if the land wasn’t growing corn and absorbing CO2, it would be growing something else and absorbing a similar amount of CO2. It would not be left as bare dirt, not absorbing CO2.
The performance horror stories about ethanol are mostly nonsense. Yes, there is a 3-5% mileage penalty, but that’s piddly in comparison to the cost issues in the prior paragraph. Yes, it has slightly more potential to absorb water, but that has not proven to be a widespread issue, and in the riskiest application, winter storage, that can be countered with stabilizer. So while there are minor performance issues, there are certainly no widespread serious problems.
I think when Kracka mentioned better additives, he probably meant that most ethanol free gas is sold at non-top-tier stations. You are correct in saying that if sold at a top tier station as a branded gas, it must have top tier additives. But I’d agree with what I think Kracka was saying, namely, that if given a choice between top-tier E10 and non-top-tier ethanol free, from a performance standpoint, it’s a no-brainer. Top tier E10 wins.
And finally, Obama. You are exactly half correct. Exactly half the ethanol fiasco is the fault of Obama and the Democrats who incorrectly think it is a big environmental winner. The other half of the ethanol fiasco is the fault of the farm state Republicans who blindly support it because it helps the farmers who solidly keep the farm states in the Republican column. Sadly, one of the only places where the two parties cooperate is the ethanol fiasco.
Anyway, the bottom line is, if you want to avoid ethanol, great. But do it for the right reasons in the first paragraph, not the wrong ones in the second. And if you want to vote Republican, fine. But don’t do it because you’re mad at the Democrats over ethanol. It’s a 50/50 deal, equally supported by both parties. Their reasons for supporting it are different, but they are equally misguided.
The performance horror stories about ethanol are mostly nonsense. Yes, there is a 3-5% mileage penalty, but that’s piddly in comparison to the cost issues in the prior paragraph. Yes, it has slightly more potential to absorb water, but that has not proven to be a widespread issue, and in the riskiest application, winter storage, that can be countered with stabilizer. So while there are minor performance issues, there are certainly no widespread serious problems.
I think when Kracka mentioned better additives, he probably meant that most ethanol free gas is sold at non-top-tier stations. You are correct in saying that if sold at a top tier station as a branded gas, it must have top tier additives. But I’d agree with what I think Kracka was saying, namely, that if given a choice between top-tier E10 and non-top-tier ethanol free, from a performance standpoint, it’s a no-brainer. Top tier E10 wins.
And finally, Obama. You are exactly half correct. Exactly half the ethanol fiasco is the fault of Obama and the Democrats who incorrectly think it is a big environmental winner. The other half of the ethanol fiasco is the fault of the farm state Republicans who blindly support it because it helps the farmers who solidly keep the farm states in the Republican column. Sadly, one of the only places where the two parties cooperate is the ethanol fiasco.
Anyway, the bottom line is, if you want to avoid ethanol, great. But do it for the right reasons in the first paragraph, not the wrong ones in the second. And if you want to vote Republican, fine. But don’t do it because you’re mad at the Democrats over ethanol. It’s a 50/50 deal, equally supported by both parties. Their reasons for supporting it are different, but they are equally misguided.
The following users liked this post:
Rob531 (06-14-2019)
03-12-2016, 11:46 PM
#11
Team Owner
Take a look at pure-gas.org and see how many Top Tier brand retailers are listed and how many are your normal gas stations, not marina or "off road" retailers.
It is also BS about your statement that E0 premium fuels having more additive and detergents than ethanol free premium gasoline.
Here in Springfield, MO we have 17 stations selling ethanol free gasoline and 9 are unbranded and 8 are Top Tier brands. Not a single one of the 17 stations is a marina, but they are your normal everyday convenience store that sells gasoline to tens of thousands of motorists(that drive cars like my Mercedes and my Z06).
Your remarks about premium gas having more additives and detergents is unfounded and is BS.
When I fill up with Phillips 66, Conoco, Shell, EXXON, CO-OP, etc(all Top Tier brands) nationwide that sell ethanol free premium, I'm getting the same additives and detergents as you get in E10 gas from those same brands.
The ethanol free premium I put in my Mercedes and my Z06 is Top Tier and I get the exact same additives and detergents that I would get from the very same brands when they sell E10 premium.
Top Tier brands/retailers can not pick and choose which gas they sell that gets the Top Tier additives. EVERY gallon they sell, whether in Missouri or in North Carolina must have the Top Tier additive in every gallon of gas, whether it's regular or premium or E10 or ethanol free.
03-13-2016, 08:41 AM
#12
Drifting
Well, actually JoesC5, you’re a bit into overkill again. While true that with top tier, all grades must meet top tier standards, it is not true that all grades must be exactly the same. For example, Shell specifically advertises that their V Power premium contains what they call “Nitro +” additives, as opposed to the “Nitrogen enriched” in other grades. Top tier does not forbid selling a premium that performs even better than the top tier standards as long as the other grades are at least as good as the top tier standards. Now mind you, top tier standards are so high that the incremental gain from Shell’s Nitro + in V power is almost certainly teeny. It’s likely to mean that if you have a grossly dirty engine, Nitro+ will clean it up a bit faster and better than their other additives. But if you start out with a clean engine, all of their additives will keep things very clean.
On your other objection, while Kracka’s point about ethanol free being mostly off road or marina was probably over-stated, it does seem true based on what I see on the forum that it’s relatively uncommon to find top tier ethanol free gas. If your stations have it, you are fortunate. One caution. Top tier has an exception for unbranded gas at a branded station. This is to cover the situation where in a remote area, a company supplies that station on an exchange basis and cannot find a supplier to supply top tier. In that case, their pumps would have to just say generic regular and premium, not their company brands. So for example, in the Shell case, rather than the pump saying Shell V-Power, it would just have to say generic premium. That rule was not intended to be a loophole for a populated area, but it might be worth checking to see if your ethanol free pump is branded (such as V-Power) or just says premium. If the latter, the station may be using the remote area loophole in a misleading fashion.
On your other objection, while Kracka’s point about ethanol free being mostly off road or marina was probably over-stated, it does seem true based on what I see on the forum that it’s relatively uncommon to find top tier ethanol free gas. If your stations have it, you are fortunate. One caution. Top tier has an exception for unbranded gas at a branded station. This is to cover the situation where in a remote area, a company supplies that station on an exchange basis and cannot find a supplier to supply top tier. In that case, their pumps would have to just say generic regular and premium, not their company brands. So for example, in the Shell case, rather than the pump saying Shell V-Power, it would just have to say generic premium. That rule was not intended to be a loophole for a populated area, but it might be worth checking to see if your ethanol free pump is branded (such as V-Power) or just says premium. If the latter, the station may be using the remote area loophole in a misleading fashion.
03-13-2016, 10:31 AM
#14
Le Mans Master
Take it for what you will, but this is industry info, not internet hype/propaganda, I'm posting 
Last edited by Kracka; 03-13-2016 at 10:34 AM.
06-12-2019, 09:33 PM
#15
Instructor
If you look in the program of a modern Chevy engine you will see that Stoichiometric is 14.108 not 14.7 as years gone by. Power enrichment tables are also richer that in the past .What I am saying is the engines are tuned to run E10 and Stoic values reflect that .If you run non ethanol fuel you are too rich at cruise and at full throttle .
06-12-2019, 10:07 PM
#16
Agree, we had a top tier station selling unbranded 100 octane fuel at a stand alone pump market "Racing Gas". Was there on occasion when they were taking deliveries & it came in a straight tanker, not a semi-trailer with the rest of the gas.
Also only one station near me has pure gas & its an Exxon Tier 1 @ 90 octane. Never really looked, have no interest in pure, but don't remember ever seeing a 93 pure pump near me.
Also only one station near me has pure gas & its an Exxon Tier 1 @ 90 octane. Never really looked, have no interest in pure, but don't remember ever seeing a 93 pure pump near me.
06-13-2019, 05:50 AM
#18
Drifting
If you look in the program of a modern Chevy engine you will see that Stoichiometric is 14.108 not 14.7 as years gone by. Power enrichment tables are also richer that in the past .What I am saying is the engines are tuned to run E10 and Stoic values reflect that .If you run non ethanol fuel you are too rich at cruise and at full throttle .
06-13-2019, 06:29 AM
#19
Race Director
Member Since: Apr 2016
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 10,679
Received 4,713 Likes
on
2,998 Posts
2023 C6 of the Year Finalist - Unmodified
2022 C6 of the Year Finalist - Unmodified
2021 C6 of the Year Finalist - Unmodified
C6miller, Just use the E10 93 octane & you will have a happy car...E10 is not the big bugaboo that people say it is. I use it in my cars & boats and never once had any problems including storing my boat for 5-6 months during the winter months
06-13-2019, 06:34 AM
#20
E-Ray, 3LZ, ZER, LIFT
Member Since: Sep 2007
Location: NE South Carolina
Posts: 29,498
Received 9,625 Likes
on
6,629 Posts
The other half of the ethanol fiasco is the fault of the farm state Republicans who blindly support it because it helps the farmers who solidly keep the farm states in the Republican column. Sadly, one of the only places where the two parties cooperate is the ethanol fiasco.
It’s a 50/50 deal, equally supported by both parties. Their reasons for supporting it are different, but they are equally misguided.
It’s a 50/50 deal, equally supported by both parties. Their reasons for supporting it are different, but they are equally misguided.
About the only thing our Federal legislators foolishly agree on! That and taking campaign money, junkets, gifts etc from the many overpaid lobbyists!
Last edited by JerryU; 06-13-2019 at 09:22 AM.