Does Premium Gasoline Have More Energy Than Regular?

Regular and premium will have the "same" energy potential (BTU/lb of air) within a margin of error. Pump gas changes from batch to batch. One batch, the premium may be +1.5% higher BTU. The next, regular may have +1.2% higher. They're the "same" for practical purposes.
 
The energy content of gasoline may have more to do with the crude oil used. However, that's kind of hard to control. You get what you get and refineries don't exactly worry about it. A lot of crude and finished gasoline are considered commodities where they're just required to meet a range of specifications. A lot of it is mixed together after being delivered through pipelines.
 
All brands of high octane in this video have higher detergent level than the 87 . Is old , so not sure if detergent levels would still apply . Go to 2:19 in the video and watch rest of video where brands are tested at a lab for detergent levels . The whole video is worth a look .

 
  • Like
Reactions: 4WD
I wouldn’t buy premium for “more” detergents. I want “enough” for sure but will I pay 60 cents per gallon for “much more than enough”. Nope. It will do nothing for DI valve deposits, and I haven’t had an engine problem in the last 45 years of driving that more than enough detergents would have either prevented or corrected.
 
I'll pay the extra . Not going to put too much of a dent in the wallet . Also been using it close to 15 years for the small engines and old habits are hard to break .
 
Regular and premium will have the "same" energy potential (BTU/lb of air) within a margin of error. Pump gas changes from batch to batch. One batch, the premium may be +1.5% higher BTU. The next, regular may have +1.2% higher. They're the "same" for practical purposes.
Source and justification that regular and premium have same btu content? I see lots of unsupported statements of this but it would have to be coincidental that btus lined up.
 
Source and justification that regular and premium have same btu content? I see lots of unsupported statements of this but it would have to be coincidental that btus lined up.


 
You mean they don't call it "Ethyl" anymore?


I know....it was a tetraethyl lead thing. I think even regular had lead in it. But grandpa called premium ethyl for years after lead went out....
 
My poor coworker has been listening to somebody who's really not educated on this subject matter. I found out last week she runs 93 octane in all of her lawn equipment because somebody told her it contains more power than 87. I sent her links to a few things to read explaining how and when 93 octane benefits you and when it's just a waste of money. At the end of the day she's not spending that much money buying enough 93 to run in her lawn mower and other equipment, but it was just the fact that somebody so badly misinformed her that had me fired up on principal.
 
I ran Shell V-Power 91 in all my seasonal equipment until it was no longer ethanol free. I may keep running it in my bike though, I haven't yet decided on that one.
 
High octane = fuel resists high temperatures in combustion space, better than lower octane.
The inverse is Cetane.
 
You mean they don't call it "Ethyl" anymore?


I know....it was a tetraethyl lead thing. I think even regular had lead in it. But grandpa called premium ethyl for years after lead went out....

Ethyl was a trademark of the Ethyl Corporation, which was a joint venture of General Motors and Standard oil of New Jersey (aka Esso, then Exxon).

s-l1600.jpg


I guess it's like some brands of premium fuel. Chevron has branded their premium as "Supreme" (along with their motor oil) and I've witnessed some people referring to getting "Supreme" outside of Chevron stations.
 
Source and justification that regular and premium have same btu content? I see lots of unsupported statements of this but it would have to be coincidental that btus lined up.

I don't know if it lines up perfectly, but for the most part there's nothing where different octane ratings inherently have more or less energy content. Now one way to boost octane rating is to use an oxygenate, and that will inherently bring the energy content per unit volume down. However, it's my underatanding that the majority of unleaded fuel sold today is meant to be blended with the max 10% fuel ethanol. So that's essentially a wash.

There's going to be a fairly substantial range in energy content simply on the basis of normal production variation from any number of factors including the particular crude oil source available. However, I'd think it's something that's kind of hard to test given that fuel is a commodity thats sent in pipelines, and where commodity fuels from different refineries are commingled all the time.
 
I'll pay the extra . Not going to put too much of a dent in the wallet . Also been using it close to 15 years for the small engines and old habits are hard to break .

I’ll pay a little extra to get efree 87 for a mower but not almost double the price of the cheap stuff for premium

IMG_5342.jpeg
 
I did something a few days ago that I thought some of you might find interesting, and I'll post the results if anyone is interested in it.

Basically, I had the GC-MS at work down for maintenance, and since I otherwise had a lull in samples to run for it, I put a column in suitable for hydrocarbon analysis. I could probably find something better(actually I think I had something a little better) but I had an old Hewlett Packard HP-1 column already set-up and ready to fit. For reference, this is a .20mm ID column, 12m long, .14µm film. I have a similar 20m column that would probably be better, but it was untested and given my time constraints I didn't want to risk running it down.

I took two samples of gasoline, both collected on separate dates from separate stations. One was 93 octane from the Casey's up the road from me, the other 87 octane from Sam's Club. In both cases, I dispensed several gallons into my car before filling the containers to ensure I was not getting any left-overs from the hose.

Ideally I would have collected samples on the same day at the same station, but this is what I had to work with.

I can give full separation parameters if anyone is interested, but basically I injected neat gasoline at a 50:1 split ratio. This probably "loses" some trace compounds, but I didn't really have a suitable low-boiling solvent like CS2 on hand, and this let me look at basically everything there. I was able to distinctly see the ethanol peak, which has actually been quite difficult in the past when I've tried to analyze gasoline.

Among other things, across several runs for both samples, I looked at the extracted ion chromatogram(EIC) for m/z 45, a prominent ethanol fragment(and with little background spectral interference). Without further work, it would be difficult for me to quantitate the amount of ethanol, but the peak area was consistent(RSD~5%) across both samples over several runs. This tells me that both samples had similar amounts of ethanol, probably close to the stated maximum of 10%.

I analyzed both gasoline samples by feeding them into AMDIS, a software package that is able to separate mass spectra of co-eluting compounds and provide identification. I set the threshold for identification at an 80% quality match.

I found hydrocarbons as small as propane, along with a surprising amount of butane and isobutane in both samples. I had been under the impression that summer blends contained little butate. On the whole, though, I found similar hydrocarbon blends between both and overall they were more alike than different.

I'd like to repeat this with better chromatographic resolution, and I suspect that the real differences between the two are in compounds at relatively low concentrations, ones that disappear into the background and/or are at the limit of detection for a full scan method, especially on this relatively old mass spectrometer.

I realize this isn't anything groundbreaking, but thought folks might be interested in what I'd found just in playing for my own curiosity.
 
Why would high octane leave more carbon deposits? There can’t be more carbon there. Where is scientific evidence..testing or research results showing this. There are engines that run high octane fuel their entire life without any woes from carbon deposits.
This has to be urban, no moterhead legend
The owners manual for my 2002 jeep says not to run premium for that reason If I can find the book I will show it.
 
Question regarding automotive gasoline. Does premium gasoline have more energy per unit volume, than regular gasoline?
IMPORTANT: This is not an octane or anti-knock question.

Stated otherwise, in laboratory conditions with a single cylinder test motor of nominal compression; if the same amount of premium gasoline and regular gasoline is burned, which would produce more work? HP or Joules, etc.

A link to any articles of energy content of different gasoline grades or tests or fuels would be sincerely appreciated!
The entire premise of the question is the problem. Octane isn't causational regarding energy, since the chemicals added to increase octane can be higher or lower BTU.

It's not a valid test case.
 
Back
Top