Notices
C7 General Discussion General C7 Corvette Discussion not covered in Tech
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

No more 93 octane pure gas in NC

 
Old 03-12-2016, 02:00 PM
  #1  
c6miller
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
c6miller's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2009
Location: marietta, GA
Posts: 1,333
Received 75 Likes on 54 Posts
Default 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.
c6miller is offline  
Old 03-12-2016, 03:16 PM
  #2  
Kracka
CF Senior Member
 
Kracka's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2014
Location: Watertown, SD
Posts: 4,229
Received 737 Likes on 508 Posts
Default

Run 93 E10, it's better quality fuel, with better additives, anyway.
Kracka is offline  
Old 03-12-2016, 03:32 PM
  #3  
roadbike56
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
roadbike56's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2011
Location: Holly Springs NC
Posts: 6,631
Received 845 Likes on 621 Posts
St. Jude Donor '16-'17
Default

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.
roadbike56 is offline  
Old 03-12-2016, 03:56 PM
  #4  
MikeyTX
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
MikeyTX's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2005
Location: Slowly driving my way around the United States
Posts: 25,563
Received 620 Likes on 494 Posts
St. Jude Donor '06-'07-'08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15- '16-'17
NCM Lifetime Member

Default

Originally Posted by Kracka View Post
Run 93 E10, it's better quality fuel, with better additives, anyway.
So true.
MikeyTX is offline  
Old 03-12-2016, 04:07 PM
  #5  
chefcg1
CF Senior Member
 
chefcg1's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2008
Location: Mount Airy NC
Posts: 1,900
Received 453 Likes on 321 Posts
C7 of Year Finalist (performance mods) 2019
Default

Humm, the shell next to my house in Mount Airy , NC still has ethanol free gas. It's what I use in my 65 Buick.
chefcg1 is offline  
Old 03-12-2016, 06:23 PM
  #6  
JoesC5
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Sep 1999
Location: Springfield MO
Posts: 40,436
Received 1,484 Likes on 1,068 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Kracka View Post
Run 93 E10, it's better quality fuel, with better additives, anyway.
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/

Last edited by JoesC5; 03-12-2016 at 07:35 PM.
JoesC5 is offline  
Old 03-12-2016, 06:36 PM
  #7  
JoesC5
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Sep 1999
Location: Springfield MO
Posts: 40,436
Received 1,484 Likes on 1,068 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by c6miller View Post
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.
Sounds as if your local retailer doesn't want to mess with carrying ethanol free gasoline. At last count, there were 619 stations selling ethanol free gas in North Carolina.

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.
JoesC5 is offline  
Old 03-12-2016, 09:27 PM
  #8  
LDB
CF Senior Member
 
LDB's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2005
Location: Houston Tx
Posts: 1,544
Received 645 Likes on 285 Posts
Default

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.
LDB is offline  
The following 11 users liked this post by LDB:
Bavaria (06-13-2019), BenCasey (03-12-2016), Benwish (03-13-2016), Boiler_81 (06-13-2019), cowboy casey (06-13-2019), Gary '09 C6 (03-12-2016), JerryU (06-13-2019), joemessman (03-12-2016), LimeyC5 (06-13-2019), NSC5 (06-13-2019), Strake (06-13-2019)
Old 03-12-2016, 10:08 PM
  #9  
Kracka
CF Senior Member
 
Kracka's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2014
Location: Watertown, SD
Posts: 4,229
Received 737 Likes on 508 Posts
Default

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.
Kracka is offline  
Old 03-12-2016, 11:41 PM
  #10  
petee1997
CF Member
 
Member Since: Aug 2013
Location: Ottawa ON
Posts: 62
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by LDB View Post
JoesC5, I appreciate the fact that you donít like ethanol in gasoline. I donít 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 itís 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 donít 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 wasnít 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 thatís 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 Iíd 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, itís 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 donít do it because youíre mad at the Democrats over ethanol. Itís a 50/50 deal, equally supported by both parties. Their reasons for supporting it are different, but they are equally misguided.
I love reading intelligent people.
petee1997 is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Rob531 (06-14-2019)
Old 03-12-2016, 11:46 PM
  #11  
JoesC5
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Sep 1999
Location: Springfield MO
Posts: 40,436
Received 1,484 Likes on 1,068 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Kracka View Post
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.
BS.

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.
JoesC5 is offline  
Old 03-13-2016, 08:41 AM
  #12  
LDB
CF Senior Member
 
LDB's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2005
Location: Houston Tx
Posts: 1,544
Received 645 Likes on 285 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JoesC5 View Post
BS.
Well, actually JoesC5, youíre 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 ďNitro +Ē additives, as opposed to the ďNitrogen enrichedĒ 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 Shellís Nitro + in V power is almost certainly teeny. Itís 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 Krackaís 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 itís 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.
LDB is offline  
Old 03-13-2016, 09:05 AM
  #13  
mksz51
CF Senior Member
 
mksz51's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2007
Location: Coralville Iowa
Posts: 4,075
Received 144 Likes on 89 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by petee1997 View Post
I love reading intelligent people.
Truly agree - and it is so rare. Defines the word "treat".
mksz51 is offline  
Old 03-13-2016, 10:31 AM
  #14  
Kracka
CF Senior Member
 
Kracka's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2014
Location: Watertown, SD
Posts: 4,229
Received 737 Likes on 508 Posts
Default

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.
Kracka is offline  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:33 PM
  #15  
marsheng
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Dec 2017
Location: Strathroy,Ontario Can
Posts: 128
Received 34 Likes on 30 Posts
Default

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 .
marsheng is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by marsheng:
Kracka (06-12-2019), MikeyTX (06-13-2019)
Old 06-12-2019, 10:07 PM
  #16  
BEAR-AvHistory
CF Senior Member
 
BEAR-AvHistory's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2019
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 502
Received 209 Likes on 138 Posts
Default

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.
BEAR-AvHistory is offline  
Old 06-12-2019, 10:21 PM
  #17  
Matthewstorm
CF Senior Member
 
Matthewstorm's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2017
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,209
Received 127 Likes on 111 Posts
Default

I only run ethanol in my Z51. Zoom Zoom.
Matthewstorm is offline  
Old 06-13-2019, 05:50 AM
  #18  
LDB
CF Senior Member
 
LDB's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2005
Location: Houston Tx
Posts: 1,544
Received 645 Likes on 285 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by marsheng View Post
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 .
While I donít know for sure, it may be true that the default tables have changed to reflect E10 being the most common fuel. But even if default tables are now set for E10, that does not mean you run rich on pure gas. The default tables are simply a starting point, which is continuously updated and corrected by your engine computer via fuel trims. Suppose you are running E10 and switch to E0. For an instant, your engine will run a bit rich. But that causes the excess oxygen in your exhaust gas to drop, and your O2 sensors tell that to your engine computer. The engine computer than pulls some fuel trim, meaning that everywhere on the default table, it squirts a bit less gas per injector pulse, such that the A/F ratio is now proper for E0, not E10. If youíve been running E0 and switch to E10, the same thing happens in reverse, meaning it adds a bit of fuel trim, squirting a bit more gas per injector pulse. The only time the default table is used without adjustment/correction by fuel trims is failure of closed loop control system, and when that happens, your engine trouble light comes on. If your engine trouble light is not on, then you are running the correct A/F ratio for whatever fuel you happen to be using at the time.

LDB is offline  
Old 06-13-2019, 06:29 AM
  #19  
449er
CF Senior Member
 
449er's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2016
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,540
Received 354 Likes on 299 Posts
Default

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
449er is offline  
Old 06-13-2019, 06:34 AM
  #20  
JerryU
2017 GS, M7, 2.5LT
Support Corvetteforum!
 
JerryU's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 13,528
Received 2,950 Likes on 2,158 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by LDB View Post
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.

Itís 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.
JerryU is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: No more 93 octane pure gas in NC


Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: