Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Brand name gasoline. Truth or bunk?
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 31, 2009 at 6:35 am #593425
pigeonmomParticipantI just bought an ’09 Subaru and the sales dude tells me I shouldn’t buy cheap gas anymore.
Is there really a difference or is it just a case
of auto makers in bed with big oil?
December 31, 2009 at 7:42 am #685170
PibalParticipantI agree with your salesman. For years I bought cheap gas and I paid for it at every tuneup. A few years back my mechanic told me to use only Texaco or Chevron. Texaco is harder to find in this area now, so I have used only Chevron for some time. My vehicles (all 2000 and later) all run consistently better, my oil is cleaner, and my plugs are not fouled. I think it’s a prudent recommendation.
December 31, 2009 at 8:49 am #685171
CrystalizedGingerMemberFor the past 9 years, I have worked for agencies that reimburse me for mileage, and it often totaled several hundred dollars a month, so trust me when I say I tried to squeeze as many miles out of each gallon :) When buying the super cheap AM/PM, I not only got significantly less miles per gallon, but had slight hesitation and a “gritty” feel when I accelerated. I pay extra for Shell, but after 9 years, my little car purrs like a kitty on it and still gets 35 mpg. Spring for the extra 5cents a gallon.
December 31, 2009 at 9:01 am #685172
christopherboffoliParticipantpigeonmom: The problem with this persistent myth is that both brand-name gas and no-name gas come from the same refineries. And tanker trucks from multiple brands fill up at the same terminals which are fed by common pipelines. I’m pretty sure the EPA actually requires all gasoline to contain a minimum additive package that adequately minimizes emissions and to keeps injectors clean. The notion that the brand-name guarantees a superior product over generic is pure marketing designed to separate you from more of your money.
December 31, 2009 at 9:18 am #685173
dawsonctParticipantWe’ve sure gone through a number of brand-name changes around here the last twenty years or so. Gulf, Chevron, Texaco, 76, BP, Tesoro, Exxon, Mobil, Phillips 66, the list goes on. Most of that gas has been produced at 4 refineries in this state, near Anacortes and Ferndale, for over fifty years in the case of three of them, almost 40 for the other.
The brand-names have changed, but the refineries haven’t. I’m not convinced there is much difference, go to Costco.
December 31, 2009 at 9:41 am #685174
CrystalizedGingerMemberWhile the EPA does maintain a minimum standard for additives/detergents, each company has thier own ‘extras’ they add for supposed superior quality- “We have extra detergent!” “We have specially encapsulated hydrogen atoms!” LOL!
Well, I don’t know about all that, but I do know what my odometer says everytime I fill up. I have the luxury of years of records detailing where I went (highway vs. city) and how many miles. BUT that’s for my make, model, year of vehicle. It’s also my maintenence diligence, the moons aligning,etc. :P
If ya got the time and inclination, test several tanks of gas of “premium” vs. “generic” under as similar conditions as possible. Gotta get the gas anyway.
December 31, 2009 at 5:07 pm #685175
hopeyParticipantIf your soob is a turbo (like my ’09 Outback XT) you will have significantly reduced engine performance if you don’t use premium gas… significant enough that one would wonder why you went for a turbo in the first place. My husband and I hemmed and hawed over the extra cost of the turbo knowing the premium gas would be an additional “hidden” expense, but we eventually decided it was worth it. :)
December 31, 2009 at 5:23 pm #685176
christopherboffoliParticipanthopey: I think you’ve tapped into perhaps some confusion about the nature of this question. The title of the thread seemed to indicate a question about brand name gas vs generic. However, many modern engines, like your Subaru and my VW, require gasoline with higher octane to run properly. That’s a different subject.
If that was the question, YES, by all means put the premium gas in your car if that’s what the manufacturer requires. Your car will probably still run on the lower octane but it might ping and protest. The modern engines that require 92 are tuned for the high octane and it is true that you may realize decreased performance and gas mileage on 89 octane.
Otherwise, forget brand names and go for the cheapest 92 octane gas you can find.
December 31, 2009 at 5:38 pm #685177
AndreParticipantFrom my experience the additional detergents in premium gas (Shell/Chevron/…) make a difference based on the type of engine your car has; especially if your car requires premium. I was driving an Audi S4 (4.2 V8) for 3 years and Shell/Chevron gave me better milage (10%+) as well as better performance than, for instance, 76. On the other hand for my wife’s Rabbit (2.5 4 cylinder; requires regular only) it doesn’t appear to make much of a difference.
December 31, 2009 at 6:15 pm #685178
LaconiqueMemberYeah, I think “cheap gas” means lower octane, not generic brand gas company. Higher octane is definitely recommended for cleaner engines in general and for any car with a turbo.
December 31, 2009 at 6:32 pm #685179
dawsonctParticipantA lot of additives in gasoline are there simply to help the refiners dispose of them, many of them are horrible carcinogens. We drive a bunch of mini-industrial incinerators, allowing trans-national petrochemical companies to duck their greatest liability.
–
Let’s go electric! (With electricity produced from non-fossil fuel, renewable sources).
December 31, 2009 at 6:32 pm #685207
dawsonctParticipantA lot of additives in gasoline are there simply to help the refiners dispose of them, many of them are horrible carcinogens. We drive a bunch of mini-industrial incinerators, allowing trans-national petrochemical companies to duck their greatest liability.
–
Let’s go electric! (With electricity produced from non-fossil fuel, renewable sources).
December 31, 2009 at 7:05 pm #685180
christopherboffoliParticipantAndre: Not that I’m doubting your judgment, but I just have not seen any actual science that backs up the notion that one brand name gas will give you dramatically better mileage than another. In fact, a number of reputable media outlets have run tests and have debunked the idea as pure marketing. But I’m sure the big oil companies would love to convince you otherwise.
Gas mileage can be influenced by so many other variables (tire pressure, route, traffic, speed and driving style, etc.). And detergents aren’t necessarily enhancing the amount of potential energy in the fuel. All gasoline sold in the US by law has detergents. I cannot understand what any gasoline refiner could possibly put into their gas that would give you an added 10mpg! That’s a significant difference.
And the additional problem with this assertion is that, even when the sign at the station says Chevron, there is no guarantee that the fuel for sale there was refined by Chevron. Because of the way the American refining/pipeline/transfer terminal system is set up, multiple brand-name gas stations get fuel from common sources of refined fuel.
At the end of the day, if someone is driving an Audi S4, fuel efficiency is probably not your primary concern :-)
December 31, 2009 at 7:05 pm #685209
christopherboffoliParticipantAndre: Not that I’m doubting your judgment, but I just have not seen any actual science that backs up the notion that one brand name gas will give you dramatically better mileage than another. In fact, a number of reputable media outlets have run tests and have debunked the idea as pure marketing. But I’m sure the big oil companies would love to convince you otherwise.
Gas mileage can be influenced by so many other variables (tire pressure, route, traffic, speed and driving style, etc.). And detergents aren’t necessarily enhancing the amount of potential energy in the fuel. All gasoline sold in the US by law has detergents. I cannot understand what any gasoline refiner could possibly put into their gas that would give you an added 10mpg! That’s a significant difference.
And the additional problem with this assertion is that, even when the sign at the station says Chevron, there is no guarantee that the fuel for sale there was refined by Chevron. Because of the way the American refining/pipeline/transfer terminal system is set up, multiple brand-name gas stations get fuel from common sources of refined fuel.
At the end of the day, if someone is driving an Audi S4, fuel efficiency is probably not your primary concern :-)
December 31, 2009 at 8:44 pm #685181
bluebirdMemberLinks are really helpful to support your opinion.
.
“In fact, a number of reputable media outlets have run tests and have debunked the idea as pure marketing.”
December 31, 2009 at 8:44 pm #685211
bluebirdMemberLinks are really helpful to support your opinion.
.
“In fact, a number of reputable media outlets have run tests and have debunked the idea as pure marketing.”
December 31, 2009 at 9:43 pm #685182
christopherboffoliParticipantOh no, that’s OK bluebird, you don’t have to take my word for it. The oil companies clearly have your best interest in mind. But you might want to stamp out that cigarette before filling up with that ultra-detergent, expensive brand name gas ;-)
New York Times: http://bit.ly/NYTgas
CBS News (The Early Show): http://bit.ly/CBSearlyshowgas
CBS News: (Evening News with Katie Couric): http://bit.ly/CBSgas
ABC News: (Good Morning America): http://bit.ly/ABCGMAgas
ABC News: (20/20): http://bit.ly/ABCgas
USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2007-06-13-bad-gas-usat_N.htm
Brandchannel: http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=388
December 31, 2009 at 9:43 pm #685213
christopherboffoliParticipantOh no, that’s OK bluebird, you don’t have to take my word for it. The oil companies clearly have your best interest in mind. But you might want to stamp out that cigarette before filling up with that ultra-detergent, expensive brand name gas ;-)
New York Times: http://bit.ly/NYTgas
CBS News (The Early Show): http://bit.ly/CBSearlyshowgas
CBS News: (Evening News with Katie Couric): http://bit.ly/CBSgas
ABC News: (Good Morning America): http://bit.ly/ABCGMAgas
ABC News: (20/20): http://bit.ly/ABCgas
USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2007-06-13-bad-gas-usat_N.htm
Brandchannel: http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=388
December 31, 2009 at 9:54 pm #685183
AndreParticipantJust to clarify, I was talking about a 10%+ improvement in milage, not an added 10mpg — instead of 200 miles I would get 230 miles for a single tank of gas under the same conditions. Not dramatic, but noticeable. I did alternate between these 3 brands (Shell/Chevron/76) for more than a year and I can assure you that for this specific car there was a noticeable difference in milage between Shell/Chevron and 76. I could not tell any difference between Shell and Chevron, but 76 was clearly different in terms of milage and well as the actual performance of the car.
.
That said, the S4 had pathetic gas milage, which is why I got rid of it. Once the electric car makes sense for mainstream transportation I’m fully on board! Who knows, by that time we might even have light rail go over to the Eastside…
December 31, 2009 at 9:54 pm #685215
AndreParticipantJust to clarify, I was talking about a 10%+ improvement in milage, not an added 10mpg — instead of 200 miles I would get 230 miles for a single tank of gas under the same conditions. Not dramatic, but noticeable. I did alternate between these 3 brands (Shell/Chevron/76) for more than a year and I can assure you that for this specific car there was a noticeable difference in milage between Shell/Chevron and 76. I could not tell any difference between Shell and Chevron, but 76 was clearly different in terms of milage and well as the actual performance of the car.
.
That said, the S4 had pathetic gas milage, which is why I got rid of it. Once the electric car makes sense for mainstream transportation I’m fully on board! Who knows, by that time we might even have light rail go over to the Eastside…
December 31, 2009 at 10:01 pm #685184
christopherboffoliParticipantAndre: Ah. My bad. I mis-read your post. Still, a 10% improvement could be explained by other factors, no? If you have the time to click through any of the links above you will see oil company representatives (and industry associations funded by big oil) making a pretty convincing case that their special secret blend of additives is key to better quality fuel. But much of what I have read and seen (including a recent Nova special on PBS, not cited above) would indicate that there is more marketing than scientific truth in their assertions.
Still, I know that you’re a pretty precise guy and that you were probably driving back and forth along the same route in comparable conditions. So if it isn’t the gas itself I’m curious as to what was actually producing the better performance.
How is the Cayman on gas? It must be better than the S4. More powerful but much, much lighter.
December 31, 2009 at 10:01 pm #685218
christopherboffoliParticipantAndre: Ah. My bad. I mis-read your post. Still, a 10% improvement could be explained by other factors, no? If you have the time to click through any of the links above you will see oil company representatives (and industry associations funded by big oil) making a pretty convincing case that their special secret blend of additives is key to better quality fuel. But much of what I have read and seen (including a recent Nova special on PBS, not cited above) would indicate that there is more marketing than scientific truth in their assertions.
Still, I know that you’re a pretty precise guy and that you were probably driving back and forth along the same route in comparable conditions. So if it isn’t the gas itself I’m curious as to what was actually producing the better performance.
How is the Cayman on gas? It must be better than the S4. More powerful but much, much lighter.
December 31, 2009 at 10:25 pm #685185
AndreParticipantChristopher, I clicked through your links and did not see too much, if any, scientific stuff either. However, it seems that there are other factors that come into play; like how the gas is stored at the gas station, overall condition of their equipment as well as how much throughput they have (the more, the better). I did use the same 76 station over and over (ditto for Shell and Chevron). So maybe this contributed to it as well.
.
The Cayman (less weight, smaller engine) is much better on gas than the S4 (24 mpg to 18 mpg for the same conditions), but they are overall quite different cars in many aspects.
December 31, 2009 at 10:25 pm #685220
AndreParticipantChristopher, I clicked through your links and did not see too much, if any, scientific stuff either. However, it seems that there are other factors that come into play; like how the gas is stored at the gas station, overall condition of their equipment as well as how much throughput they have (the more, the better). I did use the same 76 station over and over (ditto for Shell and Chevron). So maybe this contributed to it as well.
.
The Cayman (less weight, smaller engine) is much better on gas than the S4 (24 mpg to 18 mpg for the same conditions), but they are overall quite different cars in many aspects.
December 31, 2009 at 10:28 pm #685186
christopherboffoliParticipantOh bluebird. Where’s your sense of humor? Happy New Year.
Andre: There probably are some detailed studies out there, just nothing that would necessarily be immediately obvious on a Google search. But the NYT article cited an auto test engineer for Consumer Reports, one of the ABC News stories cited a study by the Maryland Fuel testing Laboratory, and the USA Today article cited a survey by an engineer from the Air Improvement Resource.
It would seem that part of the challenge here is that there doesn’t seem to be any economic benefit for an independent party to do expensive research to disprove it. Whereas to the contrary the oil companies have a self-serving interest in distinguishing their brands in what is essentially the same commodity for everyone.
You don’t tend to see any studies out there proving that generic brand corn flakes is essentially the same product as Kellogg’s. Kellogg’s has more to gain by funding studies that can pick and choose results to prove that their corn flakes are better when the greatest difference is probably just the art on the box.
I’d definitely like to see the Mythbusters take this one on.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.