Hello,

I live in the GTA and have for the past few years used Sunoco (now Petro Canada) Ultra 94 gas in my cars (all state use minimum 91 octane in the owner's manual). This is not a post about should I use a lower octane grade than 91. I am happy following the minimum 91 recommendation. What I am curious about is the ethanol issue.

Ultra 94 brand gas contains ethanol. Shell V-Power gas does not contain ethanol (says no ethanol on the pump and on the shell website). Both fuels meet the minimum 91 octane requirement for my cars. Is there an advantage to using the no ethanol fuel in a 2005 XJ8/VDP? The engine is designed to run fine on 91, so using 94 isn't really giving me more performance. I'm thinking of will the ethanol at 10% clog up my engine in a way the no ethanol fuel will not? So considering switching to Shell V-Power 91. Back 12 years ago there was an analysis done that was published in the newspaper that said Sunoco 94 had less sulpher than other brands of fuel so was cleaner. This is why I went with the Ultra 94 originally. The service department where I take my Cadillac for servive told me years ago turning an injector service wait that if I wanted to keep the injectors clean and reduce the smell of exhaust to only use Ultra 94 brand gas in the car (Northstar V8). However, I'm told by others now that in the past 12 years other brands have lowered their sulpher content so this 'edge' is no longer what it was in 2000. Another report said a non-ethanol fuel increases range per tank by 5%. My main concern isn't increased range but rather the cleanest fuel for my engines.

Any thoughts on Sunoco Ultra 94 vs Shell V-Power 91? Both have stations near me so I can use either easily.

 

Brent. I have been out of the petroleum equipment business for about ten /fifteen years now so my information could be a little out of date.

However it is widely accepted that the gas you purchase in and around the GTA is the dirtiest gas (highest sulphur content) of any available in Canada and it makes very little difference as to what gas you are talking about as they all originate from the same refinery, only the additives makes the difference.

Worth noting that the only time one of my vehicles ever failed the Ontario vehicle emissions test was when I used Sonoco gas. Have never used it a second time. In addition using gas that has no methanol content will benefit both your car and your pocket. Burns better, less corrosive to the fuel system and gives you slightly better gas mileage.

Hope this helps you.

 

Bob is correct however ALLLLLLLLLLLL gas in Canada is now of very low sulphur content as compared to a decade ago. Even the worst of the worst is nothing to be concerned about. No gas in Canada contains methanol.

Regarding ethanol, Jags since the 90s have been built to operate without problem on E10 just like every other brand. Beware the horror stories of E10 destroying engines. Pure fiction. E10 is nothing new. Eastern Canada has been using it for at least 20 years. The only thing new is the sticker on the pumps. You may/may not notice a very slight difference (3%) in consumption if switching back and forth. I don't.

Octane- Jaguar says 91AKI. Anything higher is a pure waste of money. There's no connection between octane and 'quality' or volume and type of other additives.

There's no evidence that one brand of gas is better than any other, despite the marketing hype.

 

Of course that was a typing error on my part I did intend on typing ethanol but my fingers did not do what my brain was telling it to do.

Anyway I totally disagree with you on your assertions that E10 has no adverse effect on the fuel equipment in a vehicle. Sure you are told that the engines are designed to run on the stuff but when the car is left to sit for a few days the ethanol content has the tendency to settle out in the tanks and it is known to be highly corrosive in concentrated forms and is therefore normally stored in Stainless Steel tanks. You should have seen what it did to our equipment. You can sort the rest out for yourself.

As far as whether or not one brand is any better than any other. The only difference is with the additives being added. Shell sold gas under the Beaver brand not so long ago. They never advertised it but it was Shell gas without all the additives, nasty stuff and not so cheap either.

 

Ethanol does not settle out of gasoline unless water is introduced and reaches the saturation (phase separation) point. No water, no separation irrespective of time. What happens in bulk storage containers of pure ethanol at refineries is very different than in a car's gas tank

If you'd like, I can photograph the inside of the tank on my old Corvette- it was installed in June 1997 during a frame off resto and has run on nothing but E10 since then. It's spotless. The old tank was spotless inside too, but rotted from the outside in. Speaking of tired myths, the previous owner believed the one of about Corvettes not rotting from salt cause they're made of fibreglass.

 

I guess what you are saying is that in all my thirty six odd years of working with the Petroleum industry, from the oil fields to pumping stations through the refineries and bulk delivery plants right up to the gas stations. I was even involved in the soil remediation process when gas stations holding tanks were replaced after they had rotted away and after the gas station itself was removed entirely. I all the time I apparently learnt very little.

I got broad shoulders so I can accept that. So I guess it has to come down to we will have agree to disagree.

 

Not in the least Bob- I know you are stating the facts as observed. Comparing aged underground steel storage tanks to new car gas tanks and fuel systems is apples and oranges.

Again- moisture infiltration is the key.

 

Mikey Most of the tanks used nowadays are reinforced fibreglass not steel and as of legislation passed in the late 90's, and enforced since. All under ground tanks were or have been replaced with the newer versions by now. No aged tanks exist any more.

You are not also now trying to suggest that water is totally absent from all gas station storage tanks. Only in your dreams.

I made a lot of commission on all the water finding paste I sold to the gas stations. Just for what it is worth, its use was to gauge the depth of water in each tank. Nowadays the gauges are built into most of the newer tanks.

Anyway I now done with this, believe what you want.

 

On the contrary, I know it's an ongoing concern.

Just trying to keep the apples from getting mixed with the oranges.

 

Not so Bob, you are making a good point. I was chief chemist and process engineer at refineries for two oil majors so, between us, we cover the entire history of gasoline, from the original crude oil to the product at gas stations.

In gasoline with no ethanol, water is soluble to the extent of about 0.5 teaspoonfuls per gallon. Gasoline containing 10% ethanol will dissolve nearly 4 teaspoonfuls of water per gallon. In neither case will this mixture of water and gasoline do any harm to the engine.

However, the danger with ethanol is that although it is partially miscible with gasoline, it is infinitely miscible with water. When there is free water at the bottom of a tank containing E10 gasoline, the ethanol in the gasoline will be preferentially absorbed by the free water. If this ethanol/water mixture is drawn up into the engine, it can do more damage than just plain water.

 

Between the two, mine runs better and gets better fuel mileage on Shell V-Power 91. In a back to back test, LTFT went from abnormal to normal when on Shell V-Power. This last one is repeatable by anyone who has a obd-ii scanner.

On JF, there is always a rash of posts every spring when cars come out of storage complaining about fuel pump failures. These are laid at the feet of ethanol.

One member who does not store his car replaced his fuel pump nearly ten times due to faulty materials in a batch of pumps interacting with ethanol.

Several members have had fuel rail failures, again ethanol. Fuel rails aren't hundreds of dollars like a fuel pump. They are thousands of dollars. And in some cases, no longer available at the Jaguar dealer.

Nissan had to recall thousands of 2007 model year vehicles due to pinholes developing in stainless steel fuel rails ... ethanol.

I have posted in detail about all of the above previously in other threads, including some comprehensive article length posts in the hope that the question can be finally settled.

Mikey dismisses any and all evidence that ethanol is not the best thing since sliced bread as "anecdotal" or some other excuse of the day.

 

Please don't quote me out of context or put words in my mouth yet again. This is very tiresome.

E10 is not equal to or better than straight gas- but it's also not the source of all evil some here would lead people to believe. On the other hand, it is the biggest political scam to hit the car industry in decades.

RobinB is correct regarding the hygroscopic nature of ethanol. Where the story falls apart is there's no real evidence of cars routinely picking up contaminated fuel. Yes, I know it's possible to find events if you search Google long enough- but this does not occur more frequently than when only straight gas was the only fuel available.

It's also possible to find instances (like plums like to repeatedly mention) of an OEM inadvertently using sub-standard components in cars that are found not to be ethanol resistant.

Does this happen frequently? No.
Does it affect all cars? No.

If was anywhere as bad as some try to make out, and given that E10 has been sold in North America for 20-30 years depending on the regions- the internet should have been full of stories of shock and outrage from the day Al Gore first invented it until this present day.

And yet?

 

Ahhh. E10 gasoline. Everyone's favorite whipping post

I'm not the least bit convinced that E10 is as troublesome as many would have have us believe. But, setting that aside for the moment......and jumping ship somewhat....

E10 is nothing new. It's been standard issue in my neck o' the woods for 20 years or more. Heck, even the owners manual for my *1988* Jag specifically mentions E10 and says it's OK to use. That's 26 years ago, folks. The people who make cars, fuel injection systems, fuel hoses, fuel tanks, fuel pumps, engine management systems, etc. have been 100% fully aware of E10 and its characteristics for ages now.

If E10 fuel is causing problems for any remotely modern-ish car then I really have to wonder what all of the above engineers/designers/manufacturers have been doing for the last 20+ years.

Cheers
DD

 

Must admit that I have never had trouble with it in my cars. I used it when I was driving my cars for business requiring them to be filled up twice probably three times a week. The gas was never in them long enough to cause trouble. However as soon as my mileage diminished and my cars started sitting around for days without use, I switched over to using high test gas which does not contain any ethanol.


The manufactures of the motor in my boat did print a warning not to use E10 as did the manufactures of my Kuboto tractor, my snowmobile and my snowblower. With exception to the motor in the boat, they all have small engines in comparison to the cars.


Where I have experienced trouble and real trouble, again implements with small engines, was in both my Chainsaw and my rotor tiller. Both got gummed up with the stuff and had to be rebuilt before they would even attempt to be run. The shop told me never to use E10 in them again or I will see a repeat of the problem. I have used high test in all of them since without a repeat.

 

Small engines left unused for weeks or months have always had problems. That's why the all-hailed Seafoam was invented back in the '30s, long before E10 was in distribution.

Our History - Sea Foam Sales Company

Today's small engines in some instances have not kept up with advances in materials and technology and still use components or systems that are not compatible with ethanol. In the year since we've moved 'to the country' I've bought a tractor, snowblower engine, rotor tiller, weed wacker, chain saw and two boats w/outboard motors.

Given that E10 is the only choice around here, a primary consideration was ensuring that each potential purchase was capable of running on this fuel. In extended conversation with the dealers, it became evident that although most manufacturers had converted to E10 compatible materials throughout, the problem of moisture ingestion from the atmosphere was not and could not be avoided entirely.

Unlike modern cars, small engines have fuel tanks that are vented directly to the atmosphere. As the fuel is consumed, air must be admitted to the tank to replace it. As RobinB pointed out, ethanol is hygroscopic so it's not difficult to imagine that a rarely used tool or toy left in humid conditions could end up with sufficient water in the tank to knock out or clog the carb. Not rocket surgery.

The solution? The manufacturers are not going to soon make lawnmowers as complicated, complex and expensive as cars and incorporate sealed fuel systems. Forget it.

1) Buy E10 compatible stuff only.
2) Drain the fuel at the end of the season
3) If that's not possible, shut the fuel off, run the engine dry and replace the fuel cap with a flexible diaphragm during the storage period

The remaining fuel will be fine since it's no longer exposed to the atmosphere.

Bob- not all brands of high octane fuel are ethanol free. I understand Shell might be, but know for a fact that this is not true for all.

 

Not that I entirely disagree with you but with my Boat. It has fuel injection just like my cars engines and it is a sealed engine not open vented like the smaller engines. The use of E10 is still not recommended by the manufacturer and a specific warning is given by them that the warrantee is void if the boat is stored with this gas left in it. Even though I only use high test. I still drain it at the end of each season.


It all comes down to a matter of personal choice. I will drive a an extra mile to get my gas in order to avoid using what I consider crap in any of my motors. You may think differently, your choice.


Concerning the statement that the web would be full of complaints if E10 was so bad on fuel equipment. I used to have nine series III fuel pumps sitting in my storage shed. These all came off cars I had parted out. I have add that I have never had a problem with any of the pumps on any of my cars. I suggest that is because I don't and never have use E10 in the my cars yet I have given away seven of them to people that have had a problem with theirs.


I should also add that I wish everybody a really happy and prosperous New Year.

 

And a Happy New Year to you!

The problem with your boat, no different than mine, is with the fuel tank and lines and not the motor itself. Virtually everything except modern cars have vented fuel systems.

That's the difference in a nutshell.

 

Now you have me totally confused. Thought you stated earlier that you believed that E10 does not have any detrimental effect on any part of the fuel system. Now if I understand you correctly, you are stating the tanks and lines can be effected.


For what it is worth my boat does not have a freely vented system. I would not get in it if it had. It would be like driving a bomb that could go off at anytime with all those gas vapours that would be accumulating in the cabin. Try again.

 

I see the confusion. There's two separate issues:

1) components made of materials not compatible with ethanol. Our Jags have been manufactured with acceptable materials since at least 1988. Most (but not all) non-automotive tools and toys are now built with acceptable materials. This was my concern with recent purchases, I made sure everything was E10 compliant.

2) configuration of the fuel system that avoids direct ingestion of moisture laden air or release of fuel vapours to the atmosphere. All cars since the '70s have such systems. Very few or possibly NO toys and tools have such systems due to weight, complexity and cost. None of my recent purchases have a closed/sealed system.

Use of E10 with incompatible materials has obvious consequences. Leaving E10 stored in an open fuel system raises the possibility of moisture accumulation and ensuing problems with contamination.

Neither is an issue with Jags so it's a moot point there.

WRT boats- as stated above both my motors and fuel systems were built with E10 compatible materials. Says so in the owners manual. By the same token, neither has a sealed fuel system so moisture accumulation is a concern.

Most boats I'm familiar with have blowers to vent any fuel vapours in the bilge or fuel storage compartment. Exceptions are smaller boats that have external or exposed fuel tanks.

 

I am sure that Jag made their best efforts, but the caution about ethanol in the user manual indicates some reservations. Last year I had an O-ring fail in a pulsation damper on my '05 STR fuel rail. O-rings not sold separately, fuel rails no longer stocked, cabin reeks of gas, real danger of under-the-hood explosion. In the end, had to seal off the dampers with precision-machined metal plugs. Here is an extract from a forum member who had the same problem with his '03 XK...

"The O-rings originally installed by Jaguar, and the replacement rings that the Houston fuel injector service company installed, were both made of DuPont “Viton flouroelastomer GLT” rings - blue in color. GLT grade rings are no longer recommended by DuPont for use with automotive fuels blended with alcohols. O-rings made of a new material called GFLT are more resistant to the degradation caused by the corrosive qualities of alcohol in today’s fuel, according to DuPont".

More DuPont's fault than Jaguar, but ethanol was specifically identified as a problem here, all within the last 10 years or so.