[stpauli914]

Looking for opinions on which would be better for my new 2017 WRX. It is NOT a daily driver so a tank of gas lasts me a month or 2 at least.

93 Octane premium fuel with Ethanol

OR

89 Octane Non-Ethanol fuel

Aaron

 

[zax]

Are you kidding?

93 w/ 10% ethanol has much higher AKI.

Your car requires 91 octane IIRC.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[zax]

BTW, there should be no debate. Ethanol is a great anti-knock agent.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[XJman]

Use whatever fuel is required by your manual. Nothing less.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[Steemax]

BTW, there should be no debate. Ethanol is a great anti-knock agent.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

I always wondered why does everyone say "ZOMG!!!111! that fuel has 10% Ethanol, its Uber Crap!!" when essentially it's just that.... ethanol, great for suppressing knock. Are they worried what a measly 10% ethanol will do to their fuel pumps and fuel lines?

Just saying because the more pricey gas stations here boast having less ethanol like it's a good thing... and here I am like :confused1

 

[XJman]

Because media fear and old school "knowledge" ethanol can have its downsides, but the benefits far outweigh them

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[SD_GR]

I always wondered why does everyone say "ZOMG!!!111! that fuel has 10% Ethanol, its Uber Crap!!" when essentially it's just that.... ethanol, great for suppressing knock. Are they worried what a measly 10% ethanol will do to their fuel pumps and fuel lines?

Just saying because the more pricey gas stations here boast having less ethanol like it's a good thing... and here I am like :confused1

It's all marketing BS.

In CA, EtOH % is -- and should be -- regulated, like absolutely everything else that is still burned in automobiles. This means every station statewide meets the correct standards, or they're not selling fuel.

 

[rqjoe]

And it also could be that in some older cars' owner manuals people are used to seeing something like "do not use fuel with more than 10% ethanol" and folks recall seeing such a thing but do not recall the actual number and haven't actually read their newer manuals (like our WRXs) to notice they no longer say such a thing.

 

[stpauli914]

I mainly worried about it sitting in my tank for an extended period causing phase separation or water accumulation in the fuel. I run Non-Eth in my boat for that reason. Sorry for the stupid question, I was just trying to find out what everyone thought. 93 Octane ethanol it is. I thought this forum was about asking questions.

 

[XJman]

It's way less of an issue than people make it out to be. In a boat where you are in water is a different beast.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[EJ257]

I only have the choice between 93E10 and 91E0 now. I run the 93.

Years ago, we had a few options of 93E0, and a few of us locally did some experimentation on MPGs. As a collective, over many different tanks, being driven in typical fashion (we weren't counting tanks with Auto-X events), we would see 1-2 MPG higher out of the ethanol-free.

Back when the experiments were ran (and 93E0 was available), I was driving 15K miles/year. I could postpone my hoonage as to not affect my results. I'm only putting 150-175 miles/month on the car, so I have pretty much made the conscious decision that even if we get 93E0 back again, unless I'm going to be driving the car for a significant time (e.g., the truck is down for repairs for two weeks), I'm staying with 93E10.

There was a comment about small carbureted engines; I always used to use whatever regular pump gas was. I made the switch over to 93E0 (when it was available), and now continue with 91E0. When serviced in the off-season, I'm glad I spend that little extra money throughout the year.

 

[Firefighterjake]

It's way less of an issue than people make it out to be. In a boat where you are in water is a different beast.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Ditto for 2-stroke engines which you may find with chainsaws and snowmobiles . . . and it was more of a concern for folks running older two stroke engines . . . but it's less of a concern now for the most part (although some places like to blame just about every problem on the ethanol). It is however more of a concern when it comes to long-term storage, such as leaving your sled full of gas for the spring, summer and fall (although this issue can be remedied with some stabilizer, such as Phase Out or Star-Tron.)

 

[STI Version6]

Will not run ewwthanol any time soon.
No thanks.

 

[stpauli914]

I run strictly Non-Ethanol in all my lawn equipment. Also my boat which has a 90hp 2 stroke. I was mainly worried because I know the Ethanol fuel breaks down a lot quicker and I will only be driving 100-200 miles per month. I didn't want bad fuel ruining my engine.
Aaron

 

[STI Version6]

Then don't run ethanol.

 

[XJman]

Then don't run ethanol.

Gimme one logical reason why

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[zax]

Gimme one logical reason why

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

+1.

There is merit in the hydrophilic argument against ethanol. I wonder if some form of fuel stabilizer exists for long term storage? I just don't know.

Besides the slight penalty in economy, there should not be any arguments against E10... just a lot of baseless fears.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[STI Version6]

Gimme one logical reason why

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

You do not understand logical.

But the reasons why i personally won't run it? My car was not designed for it. Needing more fuel for the same spark is dumb. I don't want alcohol mixed in with my fuel. Not only drying out seals in my fuel system. But causing substancial long term damage to my engine. You could call it a "dry fuel". And i am not prepared to waste money on my car just to run a Bunk fuel needing more consumption. When that money could go into more practical mods. My car can make the same power. Without any, i repeat "Any" adverse effects to either my engine or fuel system.
I read a lot of excuses for it. Such as "you only need to, it's good but, the extra consumption is. . . , oh, you just change out these parts, you can make more power but need more fuel, it's great unless you let it sit, powerrrrr, tune,etc"
When the fact of the matter is, you can make power beefing up your car on the fuel it currently runs. Why would anyone even consider running a fuel that needs excuses and exceptions made for it?

My car is in it for the long term. Short term "boosts" are not on the agenda. Over engineer everything. Power is a bi-product. The pursuit of power alone goes against my principles. While cutting corners, costing money and wasting effort.
No corn juice for my whip. Period.

 

[XJman]

There hasn't been a vehicle past the mid 90s that didn't have ethanol based fuels in mind. They actually began addressing the issue years and years prior with the "gasahol".

As far as practical, making substantially more power easily and more safely. It's actually going to have fewer adverse affects than gasoline itself.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[zax]

You do not understand logical.

But the reasons why i personally won't run it? My car was not designed for it. Needing more fuel for the same spark is dumb. I don't want alcohol mixed in with my fuel. Not only drying out seals in my fuel system. But causing substancial long term damage to my engine. You could call it a "dry fuel". And i am not prepared to waste money on my car just to run a Bunk fuel needing more consumption. When that money could go into more practical mods. My car can make the same power. Without any, i repeat "Any" adverse effects to either my engine or fuel system.
I read a lot of excuses for it. Such as "you only need to, it's good but, the extra consumption is. . . , oh, you just change out these parts, you can make more power but need more fuel, it's great unless you let it sit, powerrrrr, tune,etc"
When the fact of the matter is, you can make power beefing up your car on the fuel it currently runs. Why would anyone even consider running a fuel that needs excuses and exceptions made for it?

My car is in it for the long term. Short term "boosts" are not on the agenda. Over engineer everything. Power is a bi-product. The pursuit of power alone goes against my principles. While cutting corners, costing money and wasting effort.
No corn juice for my whip. Period.

OK you are really failing to grasp something here... As evidenced in several threads.

You will make more power in the same engine with some mixture of ethanol. This is not up for debate. Any car that runs an ethanol blend can also run a more aggressive fuel curve. This is a property of the significantly lower latent heat of pure ethanol compared to petrol. Engines that are knock limited (like the EJ motor) will especially benefit from this fact since the removal of combustion heat from ethanol vaporization cools the charge that (by some definitions) provides mild chemical intercoolint.

The reason "more fuel is required for the same spark" is merely a function of the chemical composition of ethanol blends. Stoichiometric combustion of gasoline occurs with 14.7 parts oxygen to one hydrocarbon chain. Ethanol is approx 9 parts oxygen to one hydrocarbon chain, with mixtures of gasoline and ethanol as a linear combination of either. Despite having a lower energy density, ethanol fuels are significantly more thermally efficient (boosting efficiency by as much as 1-2℅).

Now, can we stop with this ridiculous ethanol witch hunt you're on? Yes, new lines would probably be a good strategy for you, but also because you own a car that is 20+ years old.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk