I would go with 93 octane and 10% ethanol. The engines are built to handle up to 15-20% ethanol anyway. Ethanol itself has higher octane than gasoline and has some cleaning properties too. The downside to ethanol is it has less energy per gallon that gasoline (measured in BTUs) but at a concentration of only 10% you really wouldn't notice a difference.A gas station I frequent gives me a choice...for the same price, I can buy 90 octane pure gas or 93 octane with 10% ethanol. Which would you use and why?
...and in the Whiskey Bottles!i would stay with the 90 octane. keep the corn in the field.
Don't go out of the way getting ethanol free gas, at best I have seen 1MPG difference. Most on here do agree though that 89-93 octane fuel the car runs smoother & gets significantly better MPG than 87 octane. For me its a 3-4mpg difference average.So, after checking out the website Ethanol-free gas stations in the U.S. and Canada most of the zero ethanol stations listed in the vicinity I frequent in South Carolina are pure 87 unbranded or BP. I'm thinking I'd likely be better off with 89-91 for an Eco 1.4 turbo. Thoughts?
I'm thinking the ONLY reason this would be true is because of government involvement. I'm not sure the last time you traveled through "corn country" in Iowa, or Nebraska, (Just so you can see thousands and thousands of unfarmed acres) but thanks to good 'ol Uncle Sam's subsidies for corn growers, for quite a long time, there was more money in NOT raising crops than there was in actually farming! There's plenty of corn piled up on the ground all over those areas, so I don't buy the whole "using corn for ethanol makes everything that uses corn more expensive" BS scapegoat. Ethanol has been in production for a LONG time now, but all of a sudden, it's the production of ethanol that's making everything expensive? I don't think so!!It not only takes more energy to make ethanol than it produces, but using corn for ethanol makes everything else we eat more expensive...