Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Given how much time I'm currently spending in the area, my company gave me leave to acquire a vehicle rather than be renting one so often, which has caused me to notice the odd price tiering for gas here, as the vehicle I chose to purchase requires premium.
Where I live/anywhere else I go (and I travel a lot), it's always the same formula: Regular is X, Plus is X+.10, Premium is X+.20. But Denver, it's X, X+.30-.40, X+.70-.80. Pretty blatant gouging. Why is that? Is there some hidden tax?
I don’t know about that particularly, but I also dislike that 87 octane is considered mid grade, and they sell 85 octane as regular. While our elevation apparently makes 85 octane a workable fuel source, most car manufacturers advise motorists to use at least 87 octane. And many of them are looking to bump that requirement up to premium grade in the future for better all around performance and fuel economy. In many parts of Europe, 93+ octane is the standard consumer grade fuel.
I’ve never noticed that. I don’t really pay attention because I always get regular. I noticed California was a bit weird because not only do you have the tiers but then a lot of gas stations had an extra charge for using a card. This was for LA at least
Prices are set pretty much by supply and demand, maybe more so than nearly any other commodity. I know what you mean about most places having a predictable tier of +10 or so per grade, but Denver has some wonky factors. One of them is the altitude and the presence of 85 octane, and the general reduction of octane rating need for cars here.
Fuel and economy are a simple matter of chemistry. Whether you "like" 85 octane or not, or see it as some kind of scam or cheap-out or deception, has nothing to do with the reality of ~17% less oxygen here. For normally aspirated vehicles, that reduction translates to a corresponding reduction in fuel needs. Go ahead and pay two bucks more a fill-up for 87; you really don't need to. Not unless you're going to get down around sea level with that tank of gas, and good luck to you. (Anyone else realize that the LOWEST point in New Mexico is around 2200 feet?)
As for octane rating related to vehicle requirements... the idea that higher octane is better is complete, urban-myth bushwah. A compression engine needs X octane rating to prevent preignition, and not one oct more. If the engine is rated for 87, putting 89 in it is a waste of money... not to begin with putting significantly higher rating fuel in. And there are almost no modern cars rated for general use at 87 that can't run fine at 85 here.
There are SOME cars that adapt to fuel rating - if filled with 87, they run fine; if filled with 89 or 91, they adapt, advance timing, and do other things to get a little more horsepower and a little better fuel economy. For the most part, you can run on 87 forever and fill up on premium only if you need extra oomph for big loads, hill driving, towing, etc. But if your car does NOT have such adaptive capability, putting premium in is a complete waste of money.
As for octane in Europe, most cars there have smaller, higher-compression, higher-efficiency engines that perform better on higher octane. It has nothing to do with them choosing "better gas."
TL;DR: No modern engine needs fuel with an octane rating higher than the manufacturer's stated level, and in Denver we can fudge that by a point or two. But it's your money; burn it as you like.
Prices are set pretty much by supply and demand, maybe more so than nearly any other commodity. I know what you mean about most places having a predictable tier of +10 or so per grade, but Denver has some wonky factors. One of them is the altitude and the presence of 85 octane, and the general reduction of octane rating need for cars here.
Fuel and economy are a simple matter of chemistry. Whether you "like" 85 octane or not, or see it as some kind of scam or cheap-out or deception, has nothing to do with the reality of ~17% less oxygen here. For normally aspirated vehicles, that reduction translates to a corresponding reduction in fuel needs. Go ahead and pay two bucks more a fill-up for 87; you really don't need to. Not unless you're going to get down around sea level with that tank of gas, and good luck to you. (Anyone else realize that the LOWEST point in New Mexico is around 2200 feet?)
As for octane rating related to vehicle requirements... the idea that higher octane is better is complete, urban-myth bushwah. A compression engine needs X octane rating to prevent preignition, and not one oct more. If the engine is rated for 87, putting 89 in it is a waste of money... not to begin with putting significantly higher rating fuel in. And there are almost no modern cars rated for general use at 87 that can't run fine at 85 here.
There are SOME cars that adapt to fuel rating - if filled with 87, they run fine; if filled with 89 or 91, they adapt, advance timing, and do other things to get a little more horsepower and a little better fuel economy. For the most part, you can run on 87 forever and fill up on premium only if you need extra oomph for big loads, hill driving, towing, etc. But if your car does NOT have such adaptive capability, putting premium in is a complete waste of money.
As for octane in Europe, most cars there have smaller, higher-compression, higher-efficiency engines that perform better on higher octane. It has nothing to do with them choosing "better gas."
TL;DR: No modern engine needs fuel with an octane rating higher than the manufacturer's stated level, and in Denver we can fudge that by a point or two. But it's your money; burn it as you like.
Pretty much every technical resource I've found on this topic is split 50/50 on whether it's actually 'okay' or not for the health and longevity of the engine. Engineers, mechanics, techs all seem to be split on this topic, and I've done a decent amount of digging into it. Additionally, my brother who works for General Motors in the R&D high performance engine testing facility was also hesitant to validate these claims.
As far as the info about cars in Europe, well, that was my point. According to my Big-3 resources in Detroit, there is apparently about to be a shift in building engines that require premium grade fuel for better performance and fuel economy. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said above.
Is 85 Octane Ok To Use At Altitude?
It seems there is not a definitive answer to this as far as modern vehicles go (anything without a carburetor).
The EPA says on their website, “The sale of 85 octane fuel was originally allowed in high-elevation regions—where the barometric pressure is lower—because it was cheaper and because most carbureted engines tolerated it fairly well. This is not true for modern gasoline engines. So, unless you have an older vehicle with a carbureted engine, you should use the manufacturer-recommended fuel for your vehicle, even where 85 octane fuel is available”.
A safe bet would be to check the owners manual for your vehicle or open your fuel flap to check which fuel is recommended.
Per the bolded, that's going to be 87-octane for the vast majority of non-premium/performance vehicles. So, I guess, go with your gut instinct. The extra $2, as you say, is not going to break my bank.
Pretty much every technical resource I've found on this topic is split 50/50 on whether it's actually 'okay' or not for the health and longevity of the engine.
I assume you're talking about the 85/87 octane thing.
It's really, really simple. If the engine doesn't preignite/knock/detonate on XX octane, there is absolutely no reason to use any higher rating.
Octane has absolutely bupkis to do with "fuel quality." It's more like oil viscosity - you use the grade the engine and conditions demand, and otherwise one is not "better" than the other.
Technical stuff: Octane rating refers loosely to the length of the hydrocarbon chains in the fuel. The longer the chains, the more resistant the fuel is to preignition (detonating before the spark, under load, before the piston is in position to use the burn). Light knocking under heavy load is no big deal; heavier (earlier) preignition can eventually damage an engine. If your engine doesn't knock on 85, or only does so for a few moments while you are trying to blast past some semi on the uphill grade to 225, there is absolutely no reason to put 87 or higher in it.
Quote:
As far as the info about cars in Europe, well, that was my point. According to my Big-3 resources in Detroit, there is apparently about to be a shift in building engines that require premium grade fuel for better performance and fuel economy. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said above.
The problem is, as a petro engineer once explained it, that there are only so many octanes in a barrel. From any given amount of crude, you can make XX gallons of 87, or proportionately fewer gallons of 89, 91, 93 etc. That's part of the reason premium is successively more expensive; it's like buying higher-proof booze or more aged cheese. There are more raw ingredients in a gallon of 93 than in a gallon of 87, and someone has to pay for them.
There would be advantages to moving to higher octane fuel across the board, but only as we go to much smaller engines needing higher efficiencies, and reduce our gas usage to accommodate the smaller net production.
Quote:
Per the bolded, that's going to be 87-octane for the vast majority of non-premium/performance vehicles. So, I guess, go with your gut instinct. The extra $2, as you say, is not going to break my bank.
If your car says 87, putting 91 in it is a foolish misunderstanding of what octane rating means (usually expressed as "I only put good gas in my car!") And if your car doesn't knock or ping on 85, there is zero reason to put 87 in it. I know of no significant, science- and testing-based exception, waffling auto engineers with their own agendas notwithstanding.
I assume you're talking about the 85/87 octane thing.
It's really, really simple. If the engine doesn't preignite/knock/detonate on XX octane, there is absolutely no reason to use any higher rating.
Octane has absolutely bupkis to do with "fuel quality." It's more like oil viscosity - you use the grade the engine and conditions demand, and otherwise one is not "better" than the other.
Technical stuff: Octane rating refers loosely to the length of the hydrocarbon chains in the fuel. The longer the chains, the more resistant the fuel is to preignition (detonating before the spark, under load, before the piston is in position to use the burn). Light knocking under heavy load is no big deal; heavier (earlier) preignition can eventually damage an engine. If your engine doesn't knock on 85, there is absolutely no reason to put 87 or higher in it.
The problem is, as a petro engineer once explained it, that there are only so many octanes in a barrel. From any given amount of crude, you can make XX gallons of 87, or proportionately fewer gallons of 89, 91, 93 etc. That's part of the reason premium is successively more expensive; it's like buying higher-proof booze or more aged cheese. There are more raw ingredients in a gallon of 93 than in a gallon of 87, and someone has to pay for them.
There would be advantages to moving to higher octane fuel across the board, but only as we go to much smaller engines needing higher efficiencies, and reduce our gas usage to accommodate the smaller net production.
If your car says 87, putting 91 in it is a foolish misunderstanding of what octane rating means (usually expressed as "I only put good gas in my car!" And if your car doesn't knock or ping on 85, there is zero reason to put 87 in it. I know of no significant, science- and testing-based exception, waffling auto engineers with their own agendas notwithstanding.
It's your car, use whichever fuel you want. I personally stick with the manufacturer recommended fuel. The additional cost vs. 85-octane is punitive to me personally. My only qualm is that we're paying about $.20/gal more than what everyone else around the country is paying for 87-octane.
Median Regular (87-octane) Price across US: $2.75
Colorado's 87-octane Price: 2.98
Delta: +$.23/gal
If you do an apples to apples comparison, Colorado is one of the most expensive states in the continental US for fuel. Top-7, as a matter of fact, not including Hawaii and Alaska for obvious reasons.
Last edited by Sir Quotes A Lot; 04-22-2019 at 02:27 PM..
However, "It's your money/choice/preference, tain't nobody should tell you what to do" is a weak, weak argument. Especially when it's about countering rampant, widespread ignorance/stupidity about a technical issue that directly affects nearly everyone. Spending hundreds to thousands of dollars more on fuel your car doesn't need and can't use to full value is a personal wallet choice, sure.
But making it clear to people that bathing in Perrier does not give you better skin is not out of line.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
