No ethanol in Shell V Power

[ARCOgraphite]

Shell stations sell the worst gas near me in SO. NH.

I agree with V_P Ive gotton more swamp water from Mobil stations around here. Though it seems better lately than it has been.

Blame E10 and it water-sucking, phase-separating disaster just waiting to happen.

 

[MNgopher]

Real title of the thread should be no ethanol in V-power at this particular Shell location.

Reality varies considerably past that.

There are Shell stations here that have E0 91, some have E10 91, and some have both. (Minnesota allows E0 premium fuel sales, with stickers pointing out it is only for collecter cars, boats, off road power equipment, etc... but nobody is enforcing it).

 

[irekm]

We also have Chevron 94 , no ethanol

 

[jurko]

Here in Northern Nevada we have bunch of Maverik gas stations which sells 87 clear gas. Closest one to me it's about 5 min drive. Great gas and millage.
On my 2015 MK7 Golf (Extended Period 2,836 miles) 48.3 MPG.

 

[old1]

Well one (of the few) good things about Nebraska, is that even we are right in the heart of big corn country, we have no problem finding E-0 gas as most every station has it. The only bad thing is that it is 30 cents a gallon more than the E-10. I use E=0 in my POE, and my classics, but my daily driver gets E-10

 

[Nickdfresh]

Looks like some Mobil stations around here have it...

 

[TiredTrucker]

Well, the farm lobby must not be too powerful in the U.S. Only 7 states mandate 10% ethanol in fuel. And the EPA Renewable Fuel Standard only outlines the total gallons of ethanol fuel to be in the fuel network. It cares less if it is E10, E15, E20, E30, E50, or E85. Just the total gallons. There is no mandate in the RFS that E10 be mandated. Same with E15 that has folk's panties in a wad. The RFS just allows the sale of E15 by states that have not already approved of the product, not a mandate for it. All blends must be approved for sale by the EPA and FTC, but no mandate.

https://www.greencarreports.com/new...line-only-seven-states-require-e10-blend

If your state is not one of these that mandate E10, then you might want to find out why you don't have ethanol free regular fuel available easily. Don't blame the farm lobby, international Zionists, the World Communist Union, Freemasons, or whomever. It is your problem within your own state. So deal with it or ignore it. Your call. Don't blame others for your own problems.

 

[John_Conrad]

op and all.

please test the fuel that you use for ethanol and find out if it really is what it says it is.

google search and find out how to do it...

 

[1000MPH]

Unfortunately, no measurable difference when I tested 3 tanks of Maverik clear gas 87 in my 4Runner. This was a few months ago with Winter gas still being sold. I might re-test this summer.

 

[benjy]

in USA there are E0 stations but Shell is not one of them. $$$$ makes the rules in the USA

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by benjy
in USA there are E0 stations but Shell is not one of them. $$$$ makes the rules in the USA

What?? There most certainly are. In fact the closest E0 to me outside the EPA non-attainment area is a Shell station.

Try again, the stuff you make up and post is just amazing.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by TiredTrucker
If your state is not one of these that mandate E10, then you might want to find out why you don't have ethanol free regular fuel available easily. Don't blame the farm lobby, international Zionists, the World Communist Union, Freemasons, or whomever. It is your problem within your own state. So deal with it or ignore it. Your call. Don't blame others for your own problems.

Incorrect. Our state (Wisconsin) has nothing to do with why I cannot purchase E0 here in the five counties of southeastern Wisconsin.

 

[RDY4WAR]

I tested this in my drag car years ago comparing E0 to E10 93 octane in a 347ci SBF making 485 hp. E10 made more power on the dyno (485 hp with E10 vs 481 hp with E0, averaged over 3 pulls) and ran faster at the the track (10.63 @ 125 mph with E10 vs 10.67 @ 124 mph with E0, average over 3 passes). I had separate tunes that optimized for each fuel. E10 took more timing, but wanted to run a hair richer for peak power. (12.5:1 AFR for E10, 12.9:1 AFR for E0) yet the EGTs were the same between them indicating a complete burn was still taking place.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
I tested this in my drag car years ago comparing E0 to E10 93 octane in a 347ci SBF making 485 hp. E10 made more power on the dyno (485 hp with E10 vs 481 hp with E0, averaged over 3 pulls) and ran faster at the the track (10.63 @ 125 mph with E10 vs 10.67 @ 124 mph with E0, average over 3 passes).

That may be true, but in the case of a typical automobile you will get poorer fuel economy with E10. It cannot be avoided.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted by benjy
in USA there are E0 stations but Shell is not one of them. $$$$ makes the rules in the USA


Indeed, there is some quid pro quo that goes on. But one also has to take into account that a station would need an extra storage tank if they sold E0. The volume of sales may not offset the cost to get the appropriate permits, tear things up, and install another tank. A good station chain would have thought this through and installed the proper tanks when they built the station. Unfortunately, most station operators are not that foresighted.

Even the stations near me that have ethanol free fuel readily available, the volume of sales is squarely in the E10 camp. And the folks who plan and build stations know this. If they don't think the volume can justify the cost, they will not put in another tank for E0. Folks are not as disenchanted with ethanol in relation to paying 30-40 cents more a gallon for ethanol free fuel. Now, I did fill my 30 gallon fuel drum today with E0 at $2.83 a gallon for my lawn mower, OPE, and Motorcycle, but my other vehicles all use E85 at $1.72 a gallon. E10 is $2.52.

As an example, my 2017 Equinox 2.4L averages about 22 mpg on E85, for an average cost per mile of around 7.8 cents. On E10, it would have to average 31 mpg just to break even with that. And E0, it would have to average over 35 mpg to break even. That won't happen unless the vehicle is pushed and only going downhill everywhere. I use E0 for my small engine needs, but I would have to be held at gunpoint to force me to fill my vehicles with E0.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted by Chris142
Always 10% here in California.



More like 7% max.

 

[RDY4WAR]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
I tested this in my drag car years ago comparing E0 to E10 93 octane in a 347ci SBF making 485 hp. E10 made more power on the dyno (485 hp with E10 vs 481 hp with E0, averaged over 3 pulls) and ran faster at the the track (10.63 @ 125 mph with E10 vs 10.67 @ 124 mph with E0, average over 3 passes).

That may be true, but in the case of a typical automobile you will get poorer fuel economy with E10. It cannot be avoided.


I tested that out too. Leaned both fuels to the same AFR and did the same 120 mile drive, calculating the MPG when I fill up again at the end. The E0 did net 2.7% better mpg, however it was also 11% more expensive so that's still a net loss. The testing I did on this was actually from me wanting to prove to someone that E0 was superior to E10. Boy was I wrong.

That was back when there were actually E0 pumps left in this area. There were two, but one switched to E10 and the other closed down. The nearest E0 pump to me now is about 45 minutes away and they want $3.89/gal for E0 87, 25% more expensive than E10 93 around here. It's crappy gas too cause it's a separate pump and tank, and about the only people that use it are those filling up lawnmowers or ATVs. The fuel in that tank will be there several months before they refill it so what you get is some watered down junk that doesn't run well.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Yep, to say "No ethanol in Shell V Power" is only for that location and only for that particular station. Elsewhere it may be different.

Yes, quite true. It depends upon jurisdiction. In Canada, most provinces, and I can speak for Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario with at least some confidence, require that gasoline be sold on the basis of a certain percentage of ethanol averaged over a certain amount of volume sold. The way that works out, regular will be, without exception (except perhaps marinas; I haven't been boating for years), be E10. Midgrade will be blended, like the sign says, and 91 octane will almost always be E0. The few places that sell a higher octane number premium in addition to 91 will sell that as an E10, too.

Considering that regular sells the most by far, the minimum mandate is readily met by that. I believe the mandate aggregate percentage is 7.5%, so if everyone switched from premium and regular to midgrade tomorrow, they'd still be fine. If everyone jumped to E0 premium tomorrow, a wrench would be thrown in the works and Saskatchewan stations would have to change their formulations.

 

[Patman]

The Shell stations in my area bumped the price of their V Power by an additional 2 cents a liter, now the spread from 87 to 91 is 24 cents! I can get Esso 93 for only 21 cents more, plus the Shell station that I used to go to no longer has as good pricing overall anymore. They used to drop their price by about 10 cents a liter by the end of the day, but now they only drop it about 3 cents, and some days they don't drop the price at all.

I've used mostly Shell and Costco 91 in my Corvette but in the warmer weather I run Esso 93 or Petro Canada 94 (the manual actually calls for 93, but I know it can safely run 91 in cooler weather without loss of power)

I do like the fact that we can still get ethanol free premium, that's the only gas I would ever run during the winter storage months.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Was on another forum and the topic swung back to the "old days" when regular was around 25 cents a gallon and premium (ethyl) was a a few cents higher. If we fast forward to today and factor in inflation, the wild price spread we see between regular and premium today is about the same percentage. It just seems extreme today, but it was perceived just as extreme back then even though it was only a few cents more for premium.