Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Friday August 28, 2015
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC Subaru Models > Impreza Forum

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
View Poll Results: Any difference?
Improved fuel economy 4 26.67%
Smoother operation / reduced noise 6 40.00%
Reduced oil consumption 0 0%
No difference 5 33.33%
Will continue treating fuel 5 33.33%
Will not continue treating fuel 5 33.33%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-09-2013, 01:15 PM   #126
Commander Keen
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 319157
Join Date: May 2012
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza 4DR 5MT

Default

Quote:
Kinda like when they "encouraged" hybrids and EV's then came back and taxed people who bought them since they weren't paying the fuel tax and gov lost money. Isn't that kind of like throwing someone in a hole a rope, then cutting it before they claimed all the way up it? I'm just saying......
Exactly. Government at all levels is funded by consumption. The push by government, industry and media to "go green" more often involves buying or replacing something rather than reducing consumption or extending the service life of an existing product.

The government has been pushing for a while now to mandate GPS and telemetry (monitoring and remote control) in cars, with the argument that "fuel tax isn't fair".
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Commander Keen is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Old 10-09-2013, 02:13 PM   #127
jr0bb5
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 315353
Join Date: Apr 2012
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: MA
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza Sp Prem
5MT OBP/DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander Keen View Post
There's a 3% difference in the AFR ratio, but I agree that the overall MPG hit is worse.

If the octane of ethanol is 99, I have to wonder about the octane of the gasoline used in 87E10. Maybe ethanol is popular among fuel suppliers because it allows them to move sub-par gasoline.

Then considering that ethanol can Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kRn4RN9Fl8 of the mixture, it's possible the engine could be exposed to octane below 87. At that point, ignition would retard and MPGs would nosedive.

This tank is about to finish at 40+ MPG. It's nice to fill up so rarely, but it makes gathering data slow.
If I read that right, you are saying that the ethanol content in gas brings the octane level down? If that's the case, should we all be running at least 89e10?

I can't wait to start experimenting with TC. However, I do want to wait til my new engine is broken in and then record about 5-10 tanks worth if MPG data without the TC first. Even if I don't really notice an increase in mpgs with the TC, it'll be comforting to know its helping lubricate and protect things.

Last edited by jr0bb5; 10-09-2013 at 03:45 PM.
jr0bb5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 03:40 PM   #128
Commander Keen
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 319157
Join Date: May 2012
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza 4DR 5MT

Default

The ethanol content brings the overall mixture octane (in theory) up. 87E10 is a mixture of 99 octane ethanol and X octane gasoline, where X is likely below 87.

In cases where the ethanol in 87E10 separates, the remaining gasoline could be prone to detonation.

I also wonder if 87E10 has been tested for octane as it's sold, or if the octanes of the two fuels are put through an averaging formula to get 87.
Commander Keen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 03:43 PM   #129
Algreen
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 268369
Join Date: Dec 2010
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Chicago
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza Premium
Ice Silver

Default

FWIW - I ride a 2 stroke and pour leftover premix into my tank all the time. Never had a problem. Haven't noticed any improvements either.
Algreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 03:46 PM   #130
Eminaga
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 370430
Join Date: Oct 2013
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Waterloo, IA
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza Sport
Marine Blue Perl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander Keen View Post
The ethanol content brings the overall mixture octane (in theory) up. 87E10 is a mixture of 99 octane ethanol and X octane gasoline, where X is likely below 87.

In cases where the ethanol in 87E10 separates, the remaining gasoline could be prone to detonation.

I also wonder if 87E10 has been tested for octane as it's sold, or if the octanes of the two fuels are put through an averaging formula to get 87.
So which one would u recommend I use in my impreza, the 87 with no ethanol or 92 with ethanol? I did 87 with ethanol last fill up and only got 300 miles out of a tank (with spirited driving) so this time I am trying 93 without ethanol but that stuff is 4.50 per galon! The 87 w/o ethanol and 92 w/ethanol are almost same in price around here.
Eminaga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 04:01 PM   #131
Commander Keen
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 319157
Join Date: May 2012
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza 4DR 5MT

Default

Quote:
So which one would u recommend I use in my impreza, the 87 with no ethanol or 92 with ethanol? I did 87 with ethanol last fill up and only got 300 miles out of a tank (with spirited driving) so this time I am trying 93 without ethanol but that stuff is 4.50 per galon! The 87 w/o ethanol and 92 w/ethanol are almost same in price around here.
I recommend 87 without ethanol. It has the highest BTU density of all the fuels you listed. Also, you'll spare your car the long term effects of ethanol.
Commander Keen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 04:18 PM   #132
John451
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 321966
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sydneys South, Australia
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza + XV 14
Black Pearl + White XV

Default

Thanks, just tried adding tc-w3 to the tank of my 9 yr old Fiesta, perhaps was due for an injection cleaner but the improvement in idle, drivability, smoothness and power was noticed in 20 miles, now just have to track mpgs for a couple tanks.
John451 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 04:23 PM   #133
Eminaga
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 370430
Join Date: Oct 2013
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Waterloo, IA
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza Sport
Marine Blue Perl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander Keen View Post
I recommend 87 without ethanol. It has the highest BTU density of all the fuels you listed. Also, you'll spare your car the long term effects of ethanol.
Ok sounds good. One more question so I am assuming 91 w/o ethanol will be better then 87 w/o ethanol?

Thanks!
Eminaga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 04:39 PM   #134
Commander Keen
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 319157
Join Date: May 2012
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza 4DR 5MT

Default

Quote:
Ok sounds good. One more question so I am assuming 91 w/o ethanol will be better then 87 w/o ethanol?

Thanks!
I doubt it will get you more miles per dollar than 87E0. It may not even get you more miles per gallon.
Commander Keen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 04:54 PM   #135
Eminaga
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 370430
Join Date: Oct 2013
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Waterloo, IA
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza Sport
Marine Blue Perl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander Keen View Post
I doubt it will get you more miles per dollar than 87E0. It may not even get you more miles per gallon.
got it thanks for the quick response. I just never used 87 in any of my cars and for some reason i just feel like I am not treating my car rigth if I used it , ocd I guess....
Eminaga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 05:44 PM   #136
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminaga View Post
got it thanks for the quick response. I just never used 87 in any of my cars and for some reason i just feel like I am not treating my car rigth if I used it , ocd I guess....
you are likely doing the opposite, premium fuel doesn't mean higher quality, and in most applications you won't get as much power and could lead to more carbon build up.
flyboy1100 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 06:06 PM   #137
G2Spfld
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:
2013 Imp Sport CVT
SWP

Default

My understanding, correct me if im wrong, the higher octane just burns a little slower. So unless the car is tuned or built and requires a slower burn as to avoid detonation, your usually better using a lower octane fuel. I think these cars are optimized for 87 octane, although usually with the compression ratio they have I'd think they would require a little higher. I tend to run 91 NoE since the only way to get NoE here is with 91 at select stations.
G2Spfld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 06:12 PM   #138
G2Spfld
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:
2013 Imp Sport CVT
SWP

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander Keen View Post
Exactly. Government at all levels is funded by consumption. The push by government, industry and media to "go green" more often involves buying or replacing something rather than reducing consumption or extending the service life of an existing product. The government has been pushing for a while now to mandate GPS and telemetry (monitoring and remote control) in cars, with the argument that "fuel tax isn't fair".
Ya, and the auto ins co loves the idea as well. They can "rate" you according to how and where you drive. It will also be a tool used to help the poor attny's make a living as well, because it'll be brought into the courtroom to help remove or place liability. It'll end up being a subjective element, like stop light cameras. But like everything else, paid for by us.
G2Spfld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 07:08 PM   #139
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G2Spfld View Post
My understanding, correct me if im wrong, the higher octane just burns a little slower. So unless the car is tuned or built and requires a slower burn as to avoid detonation, your usually better using a lower octane fuel. I think these cars are optimized for 87 octane, although usually with the compression ratio they have I'd think they would require a little higher. I tend to run 91 NoE since the only way to get NoE here is with 91 at select stations.
But too slow a burn in a car not requiring it leads to additional carbon build up. Today's computers are relatively advanced where they should be able to increase timing to help prevent it, but it can't completely prevent it.

Try a lower grade with the tcw3 likely you will see no performance loss
flyboy1100 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2013, 08:53 PM   #140
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Finally burned through that crap gas I had, 12.6 gallons and averaged 28.4mpg. Although considering the first 20% off the tank started out with an average below 24mpg thanks to 40 miles @ 17mpg into a 40mph headwind, I don't think I can really complain too much.

Going to try 89e10 w/no tc-w3 for a few tanks, but after tonight's drive home and averaging 29.5 for most of it at 72mph, I can already tell the mpg is down about 6% as I normally average 31.5 at that speed
flyboy1100 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2013, 10:44 AM   #141
Commander Keen
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 319157
Join Date: May 2012
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza 4DR 5MT

Default

Just finished off a tank of 87E0+TC-W3: 432 mi @ 40.2 MPG

Next fill will be 87E10+TC-W3.
Commander Keen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2013, 03:51 PM   #142
jr0bb5
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 315353
Join Date: Apr 2012
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: MA
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza Sp Prem
5MT OBP/DGM

Default

So I just went out and bought a quart of Havoline TC-W3 at my local Advance Auto Parts. Now all I need is something to measure and possibly extract the fluid from the bottle.

I'm currently running 87E10 as E0 is not available to me. I want to get data from at least a few more tanks before trying the TC-W3 seeing as I just had my short block and heads replaced.

BTW, while I was at the store I noticed that Stabil has an ethanol fuel treatment now. Has anyone tried it yet?
jr0bb5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2013, 04:41 PM   #143
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jr0bb5 View Post
So I just went out and bought a quart of Havoline TC-W3 at my local Advance Auto Parts. Now all I need is something to measure and possibly extract the fluid from the bottle.

I'm currently running 87E10 as E0 is not available to me. I want to get data from at least a few more tanks before trying the TC-W3 seeing as I just had my short block and heads replaced.

BTW, while I was at the store I noticed that Stabil has an ethanol fuel treatment now. Has anyone tried it yet?
No but it is blue, as is tcw3....

Stabil bottle works great. I actually am thinking of using an old amsoil oil bottle as it fits well in the filler tube.

The other option my friend found is a 2oz syringe he got at a farm/fleet store. A piece of aquarium tubing fits on the end to give you the extra reach required to get the bottom of the bottle.
flyboy1100 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2013, 04:47 PM   #144
CLL_OBP
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 310435
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Vehicle:
'12 Sp Limited OBP
M1 EP 0w20 73,820 miles

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jr0bb5 View Post
So I just went out and bought a quart of Havolin, while I was at the store I noticed that Stabil has an ethanol fuel treatment now. Has anyone tried it yet?
Don't know anybody that uses it but that stuff is expensive compared to 2CO. Almost $10 for only 8 oz that treats 25 gallons. That's less than 2 tanks.
CLL_OBP is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2013, 04:48 PM   #145
jr0bb5
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 315353
Join Date: Apr 2012
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: MA
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza Sp Prem
5MT OBP/DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyboy1100 View Post
No but it is blue, as is tcw3....
Actually, the Stabil ethanol treatment that I saw today was red.
jr0bb5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2013, 04:53 PM   #146
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jr0bb5 View Post

Actually, the Stabil ethanol treatment that I saw today was red.
Oh, maybe it is the marine stuff I'm thinking of
flyboy1100 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2013, 05:07 PM   #147
CLL_OBP
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 310435
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Vehicle:
'12 Sp Limited OBP
M1 EP 0w20 73,820 miles

Default

Autozone has 1 quart Pennzoil Marine Synthetic Blend TC-W3 for $3.99. I picked some up the other day since I ran out of my gallon of MMO. I'll soon see if it makes any difference, which I don't think it will but does cost less compared to MMO.
CLL_OBP is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2013, 06:18 PM   #148
Rememo
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 340728
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza 5-spd

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander Keen View Post
Just finished off a tank of 87E0+TC-W3: 432 mi @ 40.2 MPG

Next fill will be 87E10+TC-W3.
Man.. I'd really like to see what you're doing to get anywhere close, much less over, 40 MPG.

My best has been 29.6 on a tank that was half highway driving. Fuelly.com lists the 2012 Impreza as averaging 27.9 MPG based on 235 cars driving 2.6 million miles, and the 2013 Impreza as averaging 28 MPG based on 141 cars driving just under 990K miles.

I just don't see an Impreza closing in on 40 MPG even with an additive.

What kind of black magic is this?!
Rememo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2013, 06:40 PM   #149
awenthol
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 355024
Join Date: Apr 2013
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: NE Iowa
Vehicle:
2013 DGM STi Sedan

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyboy1100 View Post
But too slow a burn in a car not requiring it leads to additional carbon build up. Today's computers are relatively advanced where they should be able to increase timing to help prevent it, but it can't completely prevent it.

Try a lower grade with the tcw3 likely you will see no performance loss
Though you are technically right (higher octane could lead to unburned HC), you aren't going to see it with 89/93 octane--those statements are for extremely high octane (100+). However, I need to dig up the article/data, in case I'm not remembering correctly.
awenthol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2013, 06:43 PM   #150
awenthol
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 355024
Join Date: Apr 2013
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: NE Iowa
Vehicle:
2013 DGM STi Sedan

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander Keen View Post
The ethanol content brings the overall mixture octane (in theory) up. 87E10 is a mixture of 99 octane ethanol and X octane gasoline, where X is likely below 87.

In cases where the ethanol in 87E10 separates, the remaining gasoline could be prone to detonation.

I also wonder if 87E10 has been tested for octane as it's sold, or if the octanes of the two fuels are put through an averaging formula to get 87.
Ethanol Separation

My guess is "averaging formula" and I was told ethanol can have varying octanes, depending on the batch
awenthol is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2015 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2015, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.