- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 2,233
I'd be good with Beef wars....steaks and ground beef are ridic.
BP gasoline with invigorate
- Thread starter aimatdeer
- Start date
This isn't the video I saw but you were right about Shell and BP premium and I was right about Exxon regular according to this video.
I use only regular and a lot of Sunoco, Valero and Shell because they are convenient but if I have a choice I try to use Exxon.
In reality, 93 octane burns slower, so that it doesn't ignite before TDC or spark.I use what ever gas is on sale. Period ( my cars only require 87 ). Once in a blue moon I'll throw in 93 if on sale. Noticed it burns much faster than 87. So, screw that . 87 is 87. They add the additives at the station or the depot. My bro-in-low trucks gas and that's how it works. I throw in a bottle of Chevron and dry gas every now and again to clean things up, and get moisture out. Only use the red bottle of HEET. That is the real isopropryl alcohol that removes moisture. The yellow bottle does squat. This ethanol fuel sux anyway. Now I heard they want to increase the percentage. GREATMore black tailpipes. Garbage corn liquor they're feeding us. LOL
I don't care much about TT. I just try to remember who gets new tanks and how clean they keep their facility. On 2 recent trips I filled up with BP regular on the first trip and got 33.5 calculated and on a second roadtrip I got a fillup at local Marathon and got 31,5 calculated. Neither fillup was very scientific but I just fill till the pump shuts off and wait 20 or 30 seconds and fill till pump quits again.
I've seen that linked here before. The issue I have with it is it's so old that the data is outdated. For example, Citgo is now Top Tier so it's 87 levels have to meet the TT minimum so it's surely higher than the Speedway EPA minimum 87 octane.
Here's is what I'm personally doing. I do try to get the cheapest gas and try to get top tier. Costco usually fits both but on some on my longer routes, BP/Amoco fits that. I believe that they just decided to stop paying the fee to TT and kept their detergent levels the same. It would be false advertising for them to claim to meet the standards. It also seems like they've always advertised having better gas, especially in their premium version which is something I don't recall cheaper stations like Speedway doing. I don't use enough Amoco/BP for it to affect my vehicles as I do mostly TT (especially Costco).
I also have a different set of logic for my two cars. For my Taurus, I used to get the cheapest gas for years from Sam's, Speedway whenever. Now I've decided I only get TT for it and some BP/Amoco. I try to get Costco bc they claim to have 5x Top Tier minimum (and they happen to be cheapest with Sam's). My logic is I neglected it for so long that I might as well maximize the detergent levels (or at least have better than EPA standards with TT).
With my 300k plus TL, I still try to do TT but I'm more willing to put in Sam's or Speedway if cheaper/more convenient. My friend put only premium in it until I bought it from him 50k miles ago. Even if he was using cheap stuff like Speedway, the premium there has higher detergent levels (as seen in that news segment). I figure it can afford the occasional cheap non TT gas in it. Also I put 87 in it as I'm not paying $1-1.10 more for premium for this old clunkers when the extra mile or two I get per gallon from 93 octane will never make up for the cost difference. (I sometimes go to Iowa and the premium was only 30 cents more. I'll get premium for that "deal" when I'm there).
It doesn't burn any slower nor any faster, nor is it cooler nor hotter. It resists pre-ignition better.
All my cars live on 87 and we have a rather large selection of different gas stations brands here in Atlanta. Chevron/Texaco is my go-to but will gladly use BP or Exxon as backup.
My DTS with the Northstar V8 is the only one I “treat” with Shell 93 V-Power Nitro as it’s mostly a highway cruiser (we take lots of road trips) and it consistently turns in 25 mpg which I don’t think I could hope for any better from that engine. Running great with 150k on the clock.
My DTS with the Northstar V8 is the only one I “treat” with Shell 93 V-Power Nitro as it’s mostly a highway cruiser (we take lots of road trips) and it consistently turns in 25 mpg which I don’t think I could hope for any better from that engine. Running great with 150k on the clock.
They don't publish test results, but part of the requirement is that the fuel marketer submit the test results to TT.
For quite a few fuel marketers, all they need to do is find a product where the additive maker has already conducted the tests. They don't have to specifically pay for separate tests if it's already been done. They just submit the manufacturer’s tests as part of the application.
Last edited:
I don't doubt that BP meets a high standard, regardless of whether or not they're licensed with Top Tier. They were recommended specifically by BMW before they got licensed, and it's not really all that difficult to know that they meet the testing requirements without paying TT to be licensed. I remember when Costco went TT, the only thing that changed was that every station had their detergent dispensing equipment. But before then, they had several years of their "Clean Power" brand where the equipment was installed.
As far as the detergent, I would think BP has its own proprietary additive made just for them. I'm pretty sure this is it:
https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/fuels1/ffars/web-detrg.htm
Basf Corporation
Additive Name
As far as the detergent, I would think BP has its own proprietary additive made just for them. I'm pretty sure this is it:
https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/fuels1/ffars/web-detrg.htm
Basf Corporation
Additive Name
| Invigorate 1 (National Generic Certification) |
| Invigorate 3.0 (National Generic Certification) |
- Joined
- May 24, 2025
- Messages
- 27
bp is the only non TT fuel I'd consider using indefinitely (see my siggy) since they've been in/out of TT. However, I too would like to see some test data supporting bp's claims.
Let's actually go a step further...I'd like to see some virgin fuel analysis that'd cover things like:
- ethanol concentration
- additive concentration by element/compound, including:
- detergents
- friction modifiers
- antiknock compounds
- flash point
- ???
That way, we can really start over-analyzing another engine fluid
Let's actually go a step further...I'd like to see some virgin fuel analysis that'd cover things like:
- ethanol concentration
- additive concentration by element/compound, including:
- detergents
- friction modifiers
- antiknock compounds
- flash point
- ???
That way, we can really start over-analyzing another engine fluid
bp is the only non TT fuel I'd consider using indefinitely (see my siggy) since they've been in/out of TT. However, I too would like to see some test data supporting bp's claims.
Let's actually go a step further...I'd like to see some virgin fuel analysis that'd cover things like:
- ethanol concentration
- additive concentration by element/compound, including:
- detergents
- friction modifiers
- antiknock compounds
- flash point
- ???
That way, we can really start over-analyzing another engine fluid
At a certainly point it's going way into obsession. Fuel is for the most part a fungible commodity regardless of how much marketing makes it sound like Brand X is unique.
Yes, exactly.
If you actually look at the top tier spec it is simply referring to specs already controlled by the EPA at the refinery level. Base fuel conforms to ASTM D 4814, additives conform to Clean Air act section 211f., blah, blah, blah. Its really just re-stating all the things the government actually controls for us already. Sure, its "tested" but do you really think a US refiner is going to risk a EPA fine? All thats left is they can add more of the detergent add-pack. Anything added to the fuel must be approved by the EPA as well.
The downside is it MUST contain at least 8% ethanol. Thats sort of a bummer actually.
Primary reason I don't put too much weight into TT anyway. But if its the same price - sure why not?
The biggest thing about fuel is that for the most part it's a fungible commodity that's traded and transported in a way to minimize transportation costs.
As far as Arco goes, that's kind of a mess. BP still owns the ampm brand and licenses it out for use by Arco stations outside of where BP franchises Arco stations under license. I suppose both parts of the Arco brand operate independently, but have agreed to use an additive meeting Top Tier requirements. I would think it doesn't have to be the same. And in any case there are probably brands that use more than one additive package where they've all been tested to meet TT performance requirements.
They can use what the EPA says they can use. Top tier simply re-states it.
"4.2 Deposit Control Additive Requirements. The deposit control additive used to meet the performance Standards described in 4.3 shall meet the substantially similar definition under Section 211(f) of the Clean Air Act. Also, the additive shall be certified to have met the minimum deposit control requirements established by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 40 CFR Part 80. Lastly, the additive shall be registered with the EPA inaccordance with 40 CFR Part 79."
That's part of it. It has to minimally meet the requirements under the Code of Federal Regulations. But that's a legal requirement for gasoline sold in the United States anyways.
There's 4.3, which is their more stringent requirement than the EPA.
4.3.1.3 Demonstration of Performance. The base fuel from 4.3.1.2 shall contain enough deposit control additive
such that IVD is no more than 50 mg averaged over all intake valves. This amount of deposit control additive shall
be the Minimum Treat Rate. Results for individual valves and an average shall be reported. The unwashed gum level
of the fuel containing deposit control additive shall be determined according to ASTM D 381 and reported.
4.3.2.3 Demonstration of Performance. The base fuel from 4.3.1.2 treated with additive at the concentration
meeting the standard found in 4.3.1.3 shall not result in more than 140% of the average CCD weight for the base fuel
without additive.
4.3.3.2.1 Demonstration of Performance. A pass shall result in no stuck valves during any of the three cold starts.
A stuck valve is defined as one in which the cylinder pressure is less than 80% of the normal average cylinder
compression pressure.
There are actually three possible test methods specified in federal regulations - Top Tier, CARB (California Air Resource Board), and EPA BMW. There can also be alternative test methods.
§ 1090.1395 Gasoline deposit control test procedures.
A gasoline detergent manufacturer must perform testing using one of the methods specified in this section to establish the lowest additive concentration (LAC) for the detergent.
(a) Top Tier-based test method. Use the procedures specified in ASTM D6201 (incorporated by reference, see § 1090.95), as follows:
(b) CARB test method. Use the procedures specified by CARB in Title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 2257 (incorporated by reference, see § 1090.95).
(c) EPA BMW method. Use the procedures specified in ASTM D5500 (incorporated by reference in § 1090.95), as follows:
(d) Alternative test methods.
(1) An EPA-approved alternative test method may be used if the alternative test method can be correlated to any of the methods specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(2) Information describing the alternative test method and analysis demonstrating correlation must be submitted for EPA approval as specified in § 1090.10.
Yes, but all of that simply says what I stated in post 52 - all TT can do is add more of their detergent add pack. That in the end is all TT says. Its not some secret sauce. Its extra ketchup.
So were back to whether you believe BP adds the TT minimum detergent like they say they do. There is nothing else to debate.
The only other thing TT really states beyond government regs is they will have a minimum of 8% ethanol. Zero is my preference so fine with me if BP doesn't.
That's not a requirement for the fuel delivered to the consumer. That's a requirement for the base fuel used in the testing. You can read the requirements. Most of it is a laundry list with minimum concentrations of components that will theoretically result in a reasonable amount of deposits. I don't believe ethanol necessarily produces more deposits. Olefins and aromatics will. Not sure why they limit the amount of sulfur though. If you read the section on base fuel, a lot of it seems to just be to have a representative fuel for the testing. And there's a requirement that the fuel produces a certainly amount intake valve deposits.
4.3.1.2 Base Fuel. The base fuel shall conform to ASTM D4814 and shall contain commercial fuel grade ethanol
conforming to ASTM D4806. All gasoline blend stocks used to formulate the base fuel shall be representative of
normal territory refinery operations and shall be derived from conversion units downstream of distillation. Butanes
and pentanes are allowed for vapor pressure adjustment. The use of chemical streams to accelerate deposit build-
up are prohibited unless approved by GM engineering in advance of engine testing. The base fuel shall have the
following specific properties after the addition of ethanol:
1. Contain enough denatured ethanol such that the ethanol content is no less than 8.0 and no more than 10.0
volume percent as measured by ASTM D 4815 or D 5845. In markets with lower fuel ethanol content, fuel
matching the market conditions of fuel ethanol content can be used up on approval.
2. Contain no less than 8 volume percent olefins as measured by ASTM D 1319 or D 6729.
3. Contain no less than 15 volume percent aromatics as measured by ASTM D 1319 or D 6729.
4. Contain no more than 80 mg/kg sulfur as measured by ASTM D 2622 or D 5453.
5. Produce a 90% evaporated distillation temperature no less than 290F as measured by ASTM D86.
6. Produce IVD no less than 500 mg averaged over all intake valves.
7. A Certificate of Analysis showing both the detailed test fuel composition results and source should
accompany the additive results package. This certificate should also contain the unwashed and washed
gum level of the base fuel according to ASTM D381.
I absolutely guarantee you the base fuel is the same for TT vs non TT. The refinery doesn't deliver one fuel to TT and one to the others. They produce fuel per EPA specs and it gets dumped into the Colonial Pipeline and sold to everyone between Houston and NYC. Its all the same.
Precisely. In one part of the country, they (BP) operate as a TT under a leased name. Yet, in the rest of the country they don't PTL.
I don’t doubt that. But I’m just saying that the requirement for there to be ethanol isn’t for the consumer, but to be a control for the test fuel of the additive to see if it meets the deposit control requirement.
Similar threads
