[prostreet64]

New Sunoco station just opened here in Gainesville. They have 90 octane non ethanol. Anybody done a comparison between 93 octane with 10% ethanol vs. the 90 octane ethanol free? Have always used 93 in the my Trans Am and in my son's Bird but would like to try the ethanol free if it offer any performance advantage.

[Sirrotica]

Originally Posted by prostreet64

New Sunoco station just opened here in Gainesville. They have 90 octane non ethanol. Anybody done a comparison between 93 octane with 10% ethanol vs. the 90 octane ethanol free? Have always used 93 in the my Trans Am and in my son's Bird but would like to try the ethanol free if it offer any performance advantage.

My 2005 LS2 GTO requires premium fuel, ad I've always used E 10, 93 octane in it since I bought it new. We recently had 2 new Sheetz stations open this past summer so I tried their 90 octane E 0 fuel in the GTO. It runs exactly the same as far as seat of the pants dyno, but I gained 2 MPG with the non ethanol fuel. Mileage before was right around 20 MPG, and I have gortten as high as 22.4 with the E 0.

YMMV, but here the E 0 90 octane is actually a few cents higher per gallon than the E10 93 octane is, but a 2 MPG fuel mileage improvement more than offsets the few cents per gallon.

Since I drove a fuel tanker for a few years before I retired, the 90 octane E 0 is the basis of the 93 E 10 before they blend the ethanol into it, giving it the 3 extra points of octane. The federal government also subsidizes ethanol fuel usage by paying for some of the ethanol used in E based fuels. They also subsidize the soybean oil used in diesel fuel blends. If the fuel companies don't use an agricultural based blends, there is no government subsidy. Therein lies the reason that the E 0 fuel is a little higher in price.

That's my experience, with the 90 E 0, FWIW.

[prostreet64]

Thanks for the info. And yea the 90 E-free is a little more than the 93 E10 but not enough to matter for the low mileage I put on my Trans Am.

[mgarblik]

If your engine runs good, (no detonation) on the 0 ethanol 90 octane, that is what I would run. I have found on any car with a carburetor, the 0 ethanol fuel runs better and the carburetor interior remains much cleaner not building the white crusty deposits from ethanol and the water it attracts. The biggest benefit to 0 ethanol is in small engines both 2 and 4 cycle. They run much better on 0 ethanol. If you need the extra octane because of compression ratio, timing or detonation issues, your stuck with E10 93 octane.

[prostreet64]

Originally Posted by mgarblik

If your engine runs good, (no detonation) on the 0 ethanol 90 octane, that is what I would run. I have found on any car with a carburetor, the 0 ethanol fuel runs better and the carburetor interior remains much cleaner not building the white crusty deposits from ethanol and the water it attracts. The biggest benefit to 0 ethanol is in small engines both 2 and 4 cycle. They run much better on 0 ethanol. If you need the extra octane because of compression ratio, timing or detonation issues, your stuck with E10 93 octane.

May give it a try. Have always used non-ethanol in my lawn mowers and such. And even after the seals and other rubber parts improved to handle the ethanol I have stuck with E-free gas.

[Elarson]

The non-ethanol stuff is getting more common. Choices are good.

I watched an interesting YouTube video about it. One of the points they made was that if the fuel was dispensed out of the same hose as the E10, then the first partial gallon that you get has ethanol. It's only true non-ethanol if it comes out of a completely separate hose.

FWIW,
Eric

[grandam1979]

About 2 mpg increase is what I experienced using EO90 in my 04 Ram truck.

[grandam1979]

Originally Posted by Elarson

The non-ethanol stuff is getting more common. Choices are good.

I watched an interesting YouTube video about it. One of the points they made was that if the fuel was dispensed out of the same hose as the E10, then the first partial gallon that you get has ethanol. It's only true non-ethanol if it comes out of a completely separate hose.
O
FWIW,
Eric

I always thought about that but figured when you’re adding 25+ gallons with it probably not a big deal and if the guy before you got it your really doing good.

[Sirrotica]

There is roughly 1 quart in the hose of the pre blended E 10 if you don't have a seperate hose on the dispenser/pump. The amount of ethanol left in the hose would be roughly 3.2 ounces. If you're buying it for lawn equipment in 5 gallon cans your going to notice the dilution more than filling a tank up in a car.

So far all the stations I have bought gas at have a seperate hose, and nozzle for E 0 fuel. It did take about 3 tankfuls before I had gained the full mileage advantage from the E 0 fuel, and didn't have any dilution from the E 10 left in the tank.

My first fillup did show the mileage improving steadily by the average from the ECM instant fuel mileage average. Had I run it down closer to empty on the first tankful I likely would have shown better averages sooner, but there was roughly 3 gallons left in the car when I switched over to the E 0. I have noticed that interstate driving is where I got the highest average at 22.4, compared to 20 with E 10.

Next spring when I get the 2005 GTO out of storage, I'll probably run a few cans of fuel system cleaner through it to clean up the 150,000 miles of deposits from the E 10 fuel, then see if I get more than 2.4 MPG improvement.

[leeklm]

Best thing to do is test a tankful or 2. Motor in my signature runs best with 93 octane 10% ethanol. About 11.0 CR. my 2019 Buick 2.0 turbo recommends high octane. I have tested a couple tanks, but cannot tell any difference vs 87 octane. Suppose I need to make some comparisons down the track lol.