Gasonline brand with lowest Ethanol content?

[gherikill]

What brand makes gas with the lowest ethanol content? I am talking about Regular 87 octane gas. The sign at shell says that 87 can contain up to 10% ethanol, and I know Petro Canada has a similar sign. Does anyone know if some of the smaller companies like Eagle, Pioneer etc put ethanol in their gas?

The less ethanol the better fuel economy.

[skategoat]

I always try to avoid ethanol not for the mileage issue but because of ethanol's corrosive properties and potential engine damage. I'm not taking any chances.

Pioneer has been using 10% ethanol for years. Sunoco switched to it a few years ago. As for the other majors, it's a hit and miss situation. Some pumps have the ethanol sign up, others don't. I suspect that even without the 10% ethanol sticker, there's no guarantee. It's the same trucks that go around to all the stations from just a couple of refineries.

It's basically a losing cause. We're getting ethanol rammed down our throats, like it or not.

[ar_ken]

so while we're at it.. what are the BENEFITS for having ethanol in gas? :?:

[astroboi]

Pioneer = Sunoco, which has the highest ethanol content. BTW, try to boycott these stations as per www.boycottgas.ca.

[gherikill]

There is no benefit for the car, just the environment.

I might start buying midgrade because shell says they have only 5% ethanol.

Ethanol has about 15% less mileage than gas so you are losing about 1.5% fuel economy by buying 10% ethanol gas.

[squireglig]

yea, just bad news for your car usually. Cars manufactured today aren't designed to burn ethanol properly. If they revamp vehicles to properly utilize ethanol, i wouldn't have a problem with it.

I think Esso might be ethanol free, it's the only place I cant recall seeing an ethanol content sign.

[wing0]

yea, just bad news for your car usually. Cars manufactured today aren't designed to burn ethanol properly. If they revamp vehicles to properly utilize ethanol, i wouldn't have a problem with it.

I think Esso might be ethanol free, it's the only place I cant recall seeing an ethanol content sign.

From what i remembered, Cdn Tire get their gas from Esso too, but I see the "up to 10% ethanol" sticker at CT...wouldn't that mean Esso has ethanol too now?

[Pete_Coach]

From what i remembered, Cdn Tire get their gas from Esso too, but I see the "up to 10% ethanol" sticker at CT...wouldn't that mean Esso has ethanol too now?
Stations get their gas from the nearest refinery, regardless who owns the refinery. "Special" additives to make it Esso, Shell or whatever are added to the truck.
One of the benefits of Ethanol for gas companies is that the ethanol is actually an octane booster. So they can use an even lower cut fuel, add ethanol and still come up with 87 octane.

[ES_Revenge]

yea, just bad news for your car usually. Cars manufactured today aren't designed to burn ethanol properly. If they revamp vehicles to properly utilize ethanol, i wouldn't have a problem with it.

I'm going to say the opposite there. Most cars of today are actually designed with 10-20% ethanol as allowable, and most owner's manuals will reflect this. Simply because this gasoline is widely available as pump gas, auto manufacturers make sure they do design with such fuel useage in mind simply because if they didn't it would mean a lot more money lost for them in warranty claims, and possible lawsuits. No cars aren't designed to run entirely on ethanol but they are designed to run without taking significant damage with the types of ethanol blend that are widely available as normal pump gasoline for automobiles.

I don't think either Petro-Canada nor Esso use ethanol blends as high as 10% in reality. (Unless they switched recently, that is.) They probably just have that sign as a catchall/disclaimer in case their gasoline ever contains that much. Sunoco is pretty much the main dealer of ethanol-blended gasoline, as others have mentioned.

But again, as you can see if all of these stations have these signs up, it's easy to understand why car manufacturers must indeed design cars to run on low-percentage ethanol blends without any problems.

[BartBandy]

Pioneer = Sunoco, which has the highest ethanol content. BTW, try to boycott these stations as per www.boycottgas.ca.

Having looked at the different oil companies and their practices years ago, the company I avoid is Esso (Exxon). I just can't completely remember all the reasons anymore, except for that whole "Whoops! Sorry Alaska!" problem.

[BartBandy]

Stations get their gas from the nearest refinery, regardless who owns the refinery. "Special" additives to make it Esso, Shell or whatever are added to the truck.
One of the benefits of Ethanol for gas companies is that the ethanol is actually an octane booster. So they can use an even lower cut fuel, add ethanol and still come up with 87 octane.

In many cases, I believe you're right. But in the GTA for example, after the fire at Esso's Nanticoke refinery, Esso, then Petro-Can, then Shell stations started to run dry. I never saw a closed Sunoco station, and the attendant told me they get their gas from Sarnia (I think).

[Spray]

I only use 94 sunoco for my car...it's tuned for it. If i had a non tuned, non turbo car i'd choose a different gas.

[astroboi]

I only use 94 sunoco for my car...it's tuned for it. If i had a non tuned, non turbo car i'd choose a different gas.

Why don't you buy Pioneer 93 instead, same gas...different label.

[Spray]

I've never seen a pioneer in toronto...and how is 93 octane the same as 94 octane?

[astroboi]

It's the same gas, same octane, but they label as 93 octane and sell it cheaper so as not to compete with Sunoco 94.

[Pete_Coach]

Why don't you buy Pioneer 93 instead, same gas...different label.

From the Pioneer website:
"Independents like Pioneer must purchase their product from the major oil companies - those who own and operate refineries - and at the same time compete with them across the street for the retail margin."
In other words, Pioneer buys it's gas from whoever sells it to them the cheapest, be that Sunoco (only from Sarnia) or whatever refinery gives them a deal. You know what they say about accepting the lowest bid?? I think that Sunoco gets it's little extra octane by putting in that Ethanol, because up until not to long ago Sunoco's highest octane was 93.

[ES_Revenge]

I think that Sunoco gets it's little extra octane by putting in that Ethanol, because up until not to long ago Sunoco's highest octane was 93.

Perhaps in your area... But I can tell you with certainty Sunoco Ultra 94 has been around in Toronto/GTA since the late 80s. So unless "not long ago" means 20+ years ago, this isn't true for all areas.

[astroboi]

From the Pioneer website:
"Independents like Pioneer must purchase their product from the major oil companies - those who own and operate refineries - and at the same time compete with them across the street for the retail margin."
In other words, Pioneer buys it's gas from whoever sells it to them the cheapest, be that Sunoco (only from Sarnia) or whatever refinery gives them a deal. You know what they say about accepting the lowest bid?? I think that Sunoco gets it's little extra octane by putting in that Ethanol, because up until not to long ago Sunoco's highest octane was 93.

From the Suncor website:

Suncor Energy Products Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Suncor Energy Inc., an integrated energy company. In addition to a refinery in Sarnia, Suncor Energy Products has a network of more than 300 Sunoco-branded retail and Fleet Fuel cardlock sites and has a 50 per cent joint venture interest in more than 200 Pioneer and UPI retail sites. Suncor Energy Products Inc. manufactures, distributes and markets transportation fuels, heating oils and petrochemicals primarily in Ontario. Sunoco in Canada is separate and unrelated to Sunoco in the United States, which is owned by Sunoco, Inc. of Philadelphia.

[Spray]

the point is theres no pioneers around me anyways. Besides Sunoco is a club sponsor, and a great gas station. They're never out of gas as well :P

I dont think companies are allowed to lie about their octane count are they?

[BartBandy]

Doubt it, though I suppose they could understate it.

[astroboi]

the point is theres no pioneers around me anyways. Besides Sunoco is a club sponsor, and a great gas station. They're never out of gas as well :P

I dont think companies are allowed to lie about their octane count are they?

Over-rating would probably not be allowable, but there's nothing wrong with under-rating. If a station runs out of regular, they sometimes give you premium at the same price and no one complains. Now consider the opposite.

[skategoat]

There is no benefit for the car, just the environment.

I might start buying midgrade because shell says they have only 5% ethanol.

Ethanol has about 15% less mileage than gas so you are losing about 1.5% fuel economy by buying 10% ethanol gas.

There is no benefit to the environment either. Emissions are no different. Cost (monetary and environmental) of manufacturing is negligibly different. The feds support it because it gives the appearance of being environmentally sensitive. The U.S. does it to give the appearance that they can wean themselves off Middle East oil. Do a tiny bit of digging in the issue (10 minutes of googling) and you know the truth.

[D-3vil]

There is no benefit to the environment either. Emissions are no different. Cost (monetary and environmental) of manufacturing is negligibly different. The feds support it because it gives the appearance of being environmentally sensitive. The U.S. does it to give the appearance that they can wean themselves off Middle East oil. Do a tiny bit of digging in the issue (10 minutes of googling) and you know the truth.

10% ethanol means 10% less oil needed to be extracted. Look into the process of processing the tar sands in Alberta (not exactly an environmentally friendly process), and you'll quickly realize that having 10% of your gas come from a renewable source will make a difference.

[SkiD]

There is no benefit to the environment either. Emissions are no different. Cost (monetary and environmental) of manufacturing is negligibly different. The feds support it because it gives the appearance of being environmentally sensitive. The U.S. does it to give the appearance that they can wean themselves off Middle East oil. Do a tiny bit of digging in the issue (10 minutes of googling) and you know the truth.

"Ethanol not good for the environment" - go google MTBE and you might change your mind

Emissions from Ethanol might not be much different than gasoline, but you have to remember that the plants used as feedstock turn CO2 into O2, which in effect lowers emissions.

[pontiac_driver]

i saw at an esso pump, may contain up to 10% ethanol

[skategoat]

10% ethanol means 10% less oil needed to be extracted. Look into the process of processing the tar sands in Alberta (not exactly an environmentally friendly process), and you'll quickly realize that having 10% of your gas come from a renewable source will make a difference.

You guys are so naive. You know how ethanol is produced? To produce "renewable" ethanol, you have to use a huge amount of non-renewable natural gas. Now, let's talk about all the diesel thats used by the truckers who transport the raw materials and finished product. Did you know ethanol cannot be transported by pipeline because a) it mixes with water and there is always water in pipes, b) it's corrosive to the pipe lining?

Oh gee, I forget how do they grow corn. Do they spread the seed and let mother nature take its course? No, they fertilize and spray pesticides like there's no tomorrow. Fertilizer is a petroleum by-product. And farmers burn
a hell of a lot of (subsidized) diesel.

Corn ethanol is a loser. The only ethanol that makes sense comes from cane sugar but we slap tariffs on Brazilian ethanol so it can't compete with our inefficient corn ethanol.

And please don't start talking about cellulose ethanol because it's a pipedream right now. It's about as commercially viable as hydrogen, which is to say - not at all.

Read this before commenting please:

http://www.pages.pomona.edu/~cjt0474...Jan%202007.pdf

I know it's only one side of the argument but since the ethanol lobby is so well funded, you often never hear or read the other side.

[skategoat]

"Ethanol not good for the environment" - go google MTBE and you might change your mind

Emissions from Ethanol might not be much different than gasoline, but you have to remember that the plants used as feedstock turn CO2 into O2, which in effect lowers emissions.

Do you work for the renewable energy lobby? Cause that's their argument to a tee. Do you think they plow parking lots to grow corn? Growing corn for ethanol doesn't add anything to our green space. Because it's already green. It's either existing farmland or woodlots. Even if it's a field of weeds, it's consuming CO2. And it doesn't take fertilizer, pesticides and diesel tractors to grow weeds.

[squireglig]

I'm going to say the opposite there. Most cars of today are actually designed with 10-20% ethanol as allowable, and most owner's manuals will reflect this. Simply because this gasoline is widely available as pump gas, auto manufacturers make sure they do design with such fuel useage in mind simply because if they didn't it would mean a lot more money lost for them in warranty claims, and possible lawsuits. No cars aren't designed to run entirely on ethanol but they are designed to run without taking significant damage with the types of ethanol blend that are widely available as normal pump gasoline for automobiles.

I don't think either Petro-Canada nor Esso use ethanol blends as high as 10% in reality. (Unless they switched recently, that is.) They probably just have that sign as a catchall/disclaimer in case their gasoline ever contains that much. Sunoco is pretty much the main dealer of ethanol-blended gasoline, as others have mentioned.

But again, as you can see if all of these stations have these signs up, it's easy to understand why car manufacturers must indeed design cars to run on low-percentage ethanol blends without any problems.

I agree that they do take some design considerations for new vehicles concerning ethanol, some more than others (i.e. GM's flexfuel system). However, brand new vehicles designed to run on 87 octane fuel still take a a hit to both performance and fuel economy when filling up with ethanol blended fuel.

I can't claim to know how the engines should be designed to run the fuel properly, but I believe it should be the other way around. Using fuel WITHOUT ethanol should yeild a performance and fuel economy loss. This might lead to a push for ethanol blended fuels in areas outside of ontario.

So to sum up, I don't think they are designing vehicles to work well with ethanol, but rather tolerate it.

[IoannI]

I've never seen a pioneer in toronto..

There is a Pioneer on Dupont next to Sobeys.

[SkiD]

There is no benefit to the environment either. Emissions are no different. Cost (monetary and environmental) of manufacturing is negligibly different. The feds support it because it gives the appearance of being environmentally sensitive. The U.S. does it to give the appearance that they can wean themselves off Middle East oil. Do a tiny bit of digging in the issue (10 minutes of googling) and you know the truth.

"Ethanol not good for the environment" - go google MTBE and you might change your mind

Emissions from Ethanol might not be much different than gasoline, but you have to remember that the plants used as feedstock turn CO2 into O2, which in effect lowers emissions.

Do you work for the renewable energy lobby? Cause that's their argument to a tee. Do you think they plow parking lots to grow corn? Growing corn for ethanol doesn't add anything to our green space. Because it's already green. It's either existing farmland or woodlots. Even if it's a field of weeds, it's consuming CO2. And it doesn't take fertilizer, pesticides and diesel tractors to grow weeds.

Skategoat, I am not sure why you "hate" Ethanol but I think you missed the point, Ethanol is being mixed into gasoline for 2 main reasons, octane boost and the US's dependancy on foreign oil (environmental benefits are just a small side benefit).

E5 and E10 are around now because we went from Leaded Gasoline (which of course was bad for the environment) to Unleaded Gasoline. The gas needed an octane boost so chemicals like MTBE were added to do this, eventually it was realized this was a bad mistake to use MTBE (go google it like I suggested above). So then Ethanol was added to gas to boost octane.

Eventually someone realized that if cars ran on E85 or E100, that would drastically cut the amount oil the US would have to import, because Ethanol could be made locally from a lot of different feedstocks. That is why Ethanol is being championed as a savior for the US, not because of the environment.

I'll agree that in Canada, the environmental impact of using Ethanol would be small, but I am sure producing Ethanol creates a lot less pollution/CO2 then mining/refining the tar sands.

In the US, marginal land and unplanted farmland that is not used to grow anything because farm subsidies (farmers are paid not to grow things like corn), will increase the amount of "green space" to absorb CO2. The switch from grain crops to grass and trees for feedstock will probably also increase CO2 absorption as certain plants absorb more CO2 than others. So the environment will see a small benefit from the switch.

[skategoat]

I don't have a hate on for ethanol. I have a disgust for the way ethanol is being rammed down the consumer's throats by government legislation and subsidies without proper consideration and research. It is purely for political gain.

We are burning food to create fuel when it makes no sense to do so - economic or environmental. Yet the Renewable Fuels Association is flogging nonsense about making us less dependent on foreign oil when any idiot knows we are net exporters of oil. I am referring to Canadian TV commercials that aired recently in the GTA.

And the Canadian public is buying this disinformation without questioning it. Ethanol = Good, Oil = Bad without understanding the deeper issues. Reminds me of how the electricity lobby was pushing hydro as a clean, cheap alternative to oil heating in the '70s. Hell, they gave subsidies to homeowners who replaced oil furnaces with electric baseboards. Twenty years later these same people are pushing us to conserve conserve conserve.

Very few people did their homework back then and it's the same situation now. Remember - sheep get slaughtered.