My Good Chevron Fuel Experience

[Red65]

You are definitely In to something. I have noticed variances in performance between fills of a same fuel brand. that I couldn’t assign to environmental factors. I once did a fill at a nasty, rundown Shell statIon that soured me on the brand. It might have been a contaminated tank at the particular station

On the other hand, Im not prepared to accept that all brands of automobile fuel are indistinguishable as to their effect on the health of an engine

I'm not really on-to anything. This is a known fact and like I said, the exact reason why tuners refuse to tune cars running on greater value gas.

The best thing for your car is to find a station that stays clean, and always has people filling up. We are already at a disadvantage running 91/93 exclusively. It's the octane rating least bought by a HUGE margin, so typically it sits for longer in the tank, especially in areas with low traffic.

Sponsored

 

[Bobby57]

Do you understand that gasoline breaks down carbon deposits?

Cars have driven since the early 1900s without valves dropping from carbon deposits, because gasoline keeps the valves clean by stopping carbon from building up with it's detergent/solvent action. If you want to use the word detergent or solvent, it's your choice.

The cars that have issues with "carbon deposits" are direct injected only engines, and that has nothing to do with the injectors (because the gasoline keeps those clean), but rather on the back of the intake vales, because no fuel is keeping those areas clean.

But even direct injection only engines cannot get any benefit from gasoline with so-called "detergent additives", because the gasoline never touches the backs of the intake vales, where the carbon builds up over time.

I have difficulty with your stating, in absolute terms, that the different fuel additives used by different brands have no direct or indirect affect on engine performance. Also, I know that you are incorrect in sayIng that additive packs are not added to the tanker. Having said this, I have an open mind and will look into what you are saying that gasoline is, in and of itself, sufficient for keeping an engine clean So that all cleaning additives are superfluous

 

[Red65]

Having said this, I have an open mind and will look into what you are saying that gasoline is, in and of itself, sufficient for keeping an engine clean So that all cleaning additives are superfluous

Everything else aside, he's not wrong about gas being sufficient in keeping whatever it touches clean. If you were to open up a Ford 289 back in the 70's that's been running on leaded gasoline, you'd see that the intake, head ports, and valves would almost spotless. This is before they started doing any PCV systems and engines just had either open breathers or road draft tubes. Being carbureted meant that most of everything beneath the carb was constantly bathed in gas.

As a side note, there's some truth to the old saying "cleaning the valves / blowing the valves out" when getting on it.

 

[KingKona]

I have difficulty with your stating, in absolute terms, that the different fuel additives used by different brands have no direct or indirect affect on engine performance. Also, I know that you are incorrect in sayIng that additive packs are not added to the tanker. Having said this, I have an open mind and will look into what you are saying that gasoline is, in and of itself, sufficient for keeping an engine clean So that all cleaning additives are superfluous

Shell, Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, all do marketing that talks about "detergents" or "engine cleaning". Things of such nature. This is because most people make their purchase decisions based on emotion.

If you read this (or any other automotive) forum enough, you will notice a staggering amount of posts where people attribute human traits to their inanimate Mustangs. And it's really noticeable here, because the real enthusiasts are here.

Anyways, the point is that Shell, Exxon, Mobil, Chevron all hire and employ hundreds (thousands?) of marketing & advertising people to keep their customers making their purchase decisions based purely in emotion, so advertisements talking about keeping their precious car's engine "clean" is like crack to addicts. They gotta have it, because clean engine.

It's all just marketing. And it's very, very effective. Largely because with slight variations, all the gas sellors say the same thing. The messaging is consistent, so it's believed.

 

[KingKona]

Sorry OP, didn't mean to be a wet blanket.

 

[Red65]

Shell, Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, all do marketing that talks about "detergents" or "engine cleaning". Things of such nature. This is because most people make their purchase decisions based on emotion.

If you read this (or any other automotive) forum enough, you will notice a staggering amount of posts where people attribute human traits to their inanimate Mustangs. And it's really noticeable here, because the real enthusiasts are here.

Anyways, the point is that Shell, Exxon, Mobil, Chevron all hire and employ hundreds (thousands?) of marketing & advertising people to keep their customers making their purchase decisions based purely in emotion, so advertisements talking about keeping their precious car's engine "clean" is like crack to addicts. They gotta have it, because clean engine.

It's all just marketing. And it's very, very effective. Largely because with slight variations, all the gas sellors say the same thing. The messaging is consistent, so it's believed.

There's no cleaner engine than the one you run the absolute piss out of.

Good oil, fresh gas, heavy foot. Sleep well knowing it's clean.

 

[Bobby57]

I'm not really on-to anything. This is a known fact and like I said, the exact reason why tuners refuse to tune cars running on greater value gas.

The best thing for your car is to find a station that stays clean, and always has people filling up. We are already at a disadvantage running 91/93 exclusively. It's the octane rating least bought by a HUGE margin, so typically it sits for longer in the tank, especially in areas with low traffic.

I agree about avoiding poorly managed stations and ones that are not moving their product. This is always been in my thinking.

I’m not convinced that there is no difference in the performance effect of the different additive formulations, and there are no objective analyses on this, so we are all speaking from personal experience and conjecture — it’s all anecdotal, on both sides of the argument

What is “greater value gas”?

 

[Bobby57]

Shell, Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, all do marketing that talks about "detergents" or "engine cleaning". Things of such nature. This is because most people make their purchase decisions based on emotion.

If you read this (or any other automotive) forum enough, you will notice a staggering amount of posts where people attribute human traits to their inanimate Mustangs. And it's really noticeable here, because the real enthusiasts are here.

Anyways, the point is that Shell, Exxon, Mobil, Chevron all hire and employ hundreds (thousands?) of marketing & advertising people to keep their customers making their purchase decisions based purely in emotion, so advertisements talking about keeping their precious car's engine "clean" is like crack to addicts. They gotta have it, because clean engine.

It's all just marketing. And it's very, very effective. Largely because with slight variations, all the gas sellors say the same thing. The messaging is consistent, so it's believed.

I think we’re all familiar with how product merchandising works to convince the public that they must buy a product, and how much of this advertising hype is just that, hype. Having said this, these products have characteristics and , in many cases, these characteristics differ between brands.

Sometimes the anti-advertising fervor comes off like the anti-religion fervor – it, itself, becomes a religion

I just have a hard time accepting these absolutisms, one way or the other

 

[KingKona]

I agree about avoiding poorly managed stations and ones that are not moving their product. This is always been in my thinking.

I’m not convinced that there is no difference in the performance effect of the different additive formulations, and there are no objective analyses on this, so we are all speaking from personal experience and conjecture — it’s all anecdotal, on both sides of the argument

What is “greater value gas”?

Good points;

To talk about conjecture and anecdotal experience as a basis for discussion; a life time of experience is like creating a photo negative of 1st-hand knowledge on a topic. You may not concretely know something, but you know that a hundred things on this topic that are false, you know things that aren't true. That don't apply.

So you're creating a photo negative of substantive 1st-hand knowledge/experience on a topic.

So....to try and make sense.

I used to work and live very near a local gasoline distribution point. Lots of tankers in the area driving to and from, filling up and going on their deliveries. Tankers with all sorts of corporate logos and marketing on them, plus the general no-name/brand tankers, which most are.

All getting the same gas from the same, huge, round tanks with millions of gallons of gas in them.

So.....the gas is all the same. And I've never, in all my decades of life, seen a truck driver crawling on top of their tanker, popping the lid, and dropping in packets of additives. Nor have I seen this at any station the hundreds of times I've seen the tankers filling the in-ground tanks. So if there is actual additives, it has to be done at the refinery/distribution point.

Plus, if there were additive "packets", this would be a well-known thing, not something I'm hearing about for the first time here in this thread.

And, FWIW, if there are actual additives, I would postulate that they're added because the companies advertise that there are additives. So they have to add something, or they run the risk of running afoul of Truth In Advertising laws. What they add may be completely benign, do absolutely nothing, but it is an additive.

 

[KingKona]

I just have a hard time accepting these absolutisms, one way or the other

I think you've expressed that to me about my posts in the past. In other threads. I do tend to use absolutes, so I get that.

That's fine, you'll believe as you choose.

 

[K4fxd]

Any additives are done at the refinery, not at the station.

Costco adds it at the station, the others are mixed at the distribution station.

Driver gets bill of lading saying he needs to load 93 for a shell station. He heads to the pump and loads the add pack for shell 93, then he loads the correct amount of 93 gas. He then heads to the shell station and unloads the fuel.

 

[Bobby57]

Good points;

To talk about conjecture and anecdotal experience as a basis for discussion; a life time of experience is like creating a photo negative of 1st-hand knowledge on a topic. You may not concretely know something, but you know that a hundred things on this topic that are false, you know things that aren't true. That don't apply.

So you're creating a photo negative of substantive 1st-hand knowledge/experience on a topic.

So....to try and make sense.

I used to work and live very near a local gasoline distribution point. Lots of tankers in the area driving to and from, filling up and going on their deliveries. Tankers with all sorts of corporate logos and marketing on them, plus the general no-name/brand tankers, which most are.

All getting the same gas from the same, huge, round tanks with millions of gallons of gas in them.

So.....the gas is all the same. And I've never, in all my decades of life, seen a truck driver crawling on top of their tanker, popping the lid, and dropping in packets of additives. Nor have I seen this at any station the hundreds of times I've seen the tankers filling the in-ground tanks. So if there is actual additives, it has to be done at the refinery/distribution point.

Plus, if there were additive "packets", this would be a well-known thing, not something I'm hearing about for the first time here in this thread.

And, FWIW, if there are actual additives, I would postulate that they're added because the companies advertise that there are additives. So they have to add something, or they run the risk of running afoul of Truth In Advertising laws. What they add may be completely benign, do absolutely nothing, but it is an additive.
[/QUOTE

Here is one hi from a search on this

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/when-where-do-fuel-additives-get-added.228899/

 

[KingKona]

Costco adds it at the station, the others are mixed at the distribution station.

Driver gets bill of lading saying he needs to load 93 for a shell station. He heads to the pump and loads the add pack for shell 93, then he loads the correct amount of 93 gas. He then heads to the shell station and unloads the fuel.

That sounds very reasonable.

 

[Superspirit]

Costco adds it at the station, the others are mixed at the distribution station.

Driver gets bill of lading saying he needs to load 93 for a shell station. He heads to the pump and loads the add pack for shell 93, then he loads the correct amount of 93 gas. He then heads to the shell station and unloads the fuel.

This is exactly what my brother in law who delivers fuel for a living has stated. And he has delivered for several distributors in several states. Just because you haven't personally witnessed it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

So believe what you want and spend where you want it's all a personal choice

 

[MachNroll]

I recently switched from less expensive Valero to higher price-point Chevron. First full fill with Chevron and I swore I noticed more responsive acceleration. It may very well be all in my head. It probably is in my head because (according to my wife) my head has a lot of empty space dedicated to thinking about performance vehicles.... Anyway, for me, when I'm ripping down a country road, fresh air coming in through the open windows, Sport exhaust mode engaged and roaring like an angry beast, and I'm feeling like my Mach 1 simply OWNS said road, I don't care about the gas marketing, fuel technology etc. All I know is that I paid $80.00 for Chevron gas, and I am having a blast with the perceived increased performance. Even if it is all in my head.

Sponsored