Canadian gas. My test.

[Ded Mazai]

Originally Posted by Mau
What are you using to test? I want to compare Esso 93 vs Petro 94 on my tuned C43 AMG. I have torque app with bluetooth dongle.


I use Torque app too. I've started new tests with 93 and 94 octane. Currently I am running Petro 94. And the car is happier with it compared to any 91 gas. The timing advancement sits mostly at 11 degrees in my test which was impossible before. Clearly the car can take advantage of the higher octane. I am planning to compare Petro 94 to Esso 93. I doubt I will be able to see any difference but who knows.

 

[Ded Mazai]

Tested Esso 93. The results are:

Esso 87 - Timing -1...0 degrees.
Esso 91 - Timing 5...6 degrees.
Esso 93 - Timing 8...9 degrees.
Petro 94 - Timing 11...11.5 degrees.

Still I want to retest Petro 94. It gave me 11 degrees last time. If it stays the same than PC 94 is the clear winner. I did not notice any better fuel efficiency on Esso 93 or higher engine power compared to Esso 91. They feel about the same but the timing is better on Esso 93. What surprised me is the fact that 93 octane is not good enough for this car.

 

[Ded Mazai]

I have been using primarily Petro 94 and Shell 91 for a few month since my last post. I have got some new data. Consumption on shell 91 is 4% less than on Petro 94. Apparently Petro 94 contains 10% of ethanol. The timing advancement on Shell 91 is consistently at 6...7 degrees which is 1 deg better than on Esso 91 (5...6 deg). A nice bonus, I think. Every degree counts for engine longevity.

 

[mcwilly]

Nice to see, I have run Petro Ultra 94 exclusively for years in my STI.

 

[Ded Mazai]

Yes, the Petro-Canada 94 indeed has the highest octane number here in Southern Ontario. However I don't feel that it is a good choice unless your car cannot adjust the ignition timing to compensate for a lower octane number. Because of the ethanol and poor fuel efficiency. I am not arguing about the prices and the price differences. My test is a small pure technical research. What I have found so far. 1. Confirmed that 1 octane point changes the ignition timing by 1.5 degrees. 2. a fuel with 10% of ethanol gives about 4% higher fuel consumption. Not 10% and not 20%. 3 A car heavily relies on the knock sensor. So the knock sensor is not just a safety feature. A car pretty much can accept any gasoline and it will calculate the ignition timing on the fly.

What I haven't found from the test but I'd like to know. 1.How much ignition timing delay is acceptable. From my past experience 2 or 3 degrees is not a problem at all. Here I have around 5 degrees of delay on 91 gas. Is it a problem? I don't know. 2. What is worse: having 5 degrees of delay or having 10% of ethanol in the fuel?

I feel that Esso 93 might be a better compromise if it has less than 10% of ethanol. We need to find out the ethanol content in Esso 93.

 

[bbhero]

Maybe I'm wrong but if a ECM can add timing for lower octane gas then why would it not lower timing for gasoline with higher octane like 94?? Sure seems like that could well be done... Maybe I have this backwards by the way

I do appreciate your work and observations on this. Well done.

 

[Ded Mazai]

I am trying to determine the ethanol content by mixing gas with water and measuring the volumes before and after. So this is my first try with Petro-Canada 94.

I mixed 2 ml of water and 15 ml of gas:

After some time the water level went up to 3.1 ml:

Simple calculation gives 7.3% of ethanol.
I am going to leave the mixture longer to see if the water level will move up higher.

 

[Ded Mazai]

So far I have tested PC87, PC91, and PC94

I did my best and the results are here:

PC87 - 6% of ethanol,
PC91 - 7% of ethanol,
PC94 - 7.5% of ethanol.

It is frustrating that all gas contains about the same amount of ethanol despite the consensus that all octane 91 in Canada is ethanol free.

 

[Ded Mazai]

Today I tested Shell 87 and Shell 91.

Shell 87 - 7% of ethanol.
Shell 91 - 0% of ethanol.

At this point I can say that there is no single reason to prefer Petro-Canada 91 over Shell 91.

 

[Ded Mazai]

Esso 91 - 7% of ethanol
Esso 93 - 6% of ethanol.

Esso 93 has slight advantage over Petro-Canada 94. And again Esso 91 contains ethanol. I may check Ultramar as well but I doubt that it will be any different from Esso or Petro-Canada.

Overall Shell 91 is the best value.

 

[gamefoo21]

In Torque in my RSX, tested CO-OP regular 87 E10/15 vs premium 91 E0

Cruising down the highway with cruise control at 115Kph. Timing advance measured via OBD2 on the Torque Pro app.

Vehicle is an RSX K20A series 5spd manual, stock computer, recommended fuel is 87 octane. Freshly tuned up, new Denso TT plugs, new coils, etc.

Results:

87 Octane: 28-32 degrees advance, lots of shifting
91 Octane: 40 degrees advance, stable, rare drop to 39 degrees

Under hard acceleration it is similar, regular goes into retard up to +6 degrees, while premium would still stay in the advanced timing.

My mom's Fusion AWD with the 2L EB, would pick up 30HP using 91 octane e0 vs regular and improve 1.5-2L/100km on the highway. It would crawl up hills on premium, without unlocking the TC vs regular it would have to unlock and downshift.

Ford officially dyno'd the engine at 240/270 on regular and 270/270 on premium. It also hated not having a full sump, half a litre low was enough for it to start pulling power. Also interestingly enough, on premium and a full fill of Motorcraft Syn 5w30, it wouldn't dilute the oil with gas. It wasn't fun arguing with the Ford service goons who would try to leave it low because everyone else had fuel dilution issues.

 

[Mau]

Great work on the Ethanol testing!. I switched from Esso 93 to Petro 94 few months back. I have a Mercedes-Benz c43 AMG that is aftermarket tuned so it definitely makes use of higher octane. Unfortunately, until Shell can bring to market an ethanol free 93 or 94 octane gas, im stuck with PC 94

 

[Ded Mazai]

Update on ethanol content:

Husky 91 - 0% of ethanol.
Ultramar 91 - 7% of ethanol.

Looks like Husky might be a better deal than Shell since it tends to be cheaper. By the way Shell and Husky have yellowish colour. All other types of gasoline I have tested were water like. And yes, the Husky pump says that octaine 91 contains 10% of ethanol which is not true.

 

[Surestick]

Originally Posted by Ded Mazai
Update on ethanol content:

Husky 91 - 0% of ethanol.
Ultramar 91 - 7% of ethanol.

Looks like Husky might be a better deal than Shell since it tends to be cheaper. By the way Shell and Husky have yellowish colour. All other types of gasoline I have tested were water like. And yes, the Husky pump says that octaine 91 contains 10% of ethanol which is not true.


Don't the pumps here say "may contain up to 10% ethanol" not that the gas does contain 10% ethanol?

 

[Ded Mazai]

You are correct. It says "may contain".

 

[Ded Mazai]

Tried Husky gas and the results are disappointing. I will copy my table from the previous posts and add Husky and Shell:

Esso 87, Petro 87, both E10 - Timing -1...0 degrees.
Esso 91, Petro 91, both E10 - Timing 5...6 degrees.
Esso 93, E10 - Timing 8...9 degrees.
Petro 94, E10 - Timing 11...11.5 degrees,
Husky 91, E0 - Timing 2...3 degrees,
Shell 91, E0 - Timing 6...7 degrees.

When I put Husky 91 after Shell 91 the car was pinging for a while until the computer retarded the ignition. Despite the fact that Husky 91 is ethanol free it is not a quality fuel. Not recommended. Here is my conclusion after all these tests:

Very poor choice. Only 3 types of gas are worth considering in Ontario.
1. 95% of all cars on the market will be happy with Shell 91, E0.
2. Those who want to save a few dollars per month and don't mind 5% of ethanol can use Shell 89, E5.
3. If your car cannot handle Shell 91 than your only option is Petro 94, E10.