[SoCalBimmerGuy]

I usually just stick with Shell or Chevron. I usually fill my car when it hits a 1/4 tank.

[Berzerker]

Originally Posted by Needsdecaf

Correct, it's all sourced from the same batch. You think that every gas brand has it's own refinery? Or it's own pipelines / storage tanks?

Newsflash: it doesn't.

Basically, each company buys gas from a refiner and then adds their additive package. There are minimum standards for additives set by the government, and then there are add-ons above that. The Top Tier - I don't know about it either specifically a look around their website suggests it's pretty much marketing driven. I see absolutely nothing regarding actual standards, or claims that it's "better".

https://www.toptiergas.com/consumer-faqs/

Moreover you want to buy gas from a station with well maintained equipment (i.e. no leaking tanks with water infiltration) that sells enough gas where it won't get aged (and potentially water contaminated) or have aged tanks that are contributing weird sediment or other nastiness.

Second newsflash: most branded gas stations are not owned by the company on the sign out front. They are generally independent operators with set purchase contracts. Very few corporate owned stores left. Too much environmental liability vs. profit potential.

Originally Posted by CMW33

Octane is what matters. Gasoline is a commodity and the gas you're getting at Shell, Exxon, Chevron, Costco, etc. is all functionally the same. I can't disprove it but I suspect the Top Tier designation is just branding backed by paid studies.

Basis: I work with downstream energy companies

Boiling Top Tier down to "branding backed by paid studies" is pretty tin foil hat stuff.

The major study was conducted by AAA who have an active stake in fuel quality making engines last longer so they don't have to provide services as often. There's no incentive for them to push Top Tier away.

It being backed by automakers as well makes sense too, parts last longer, fewer warranty service provided, more profit.

Now if it were the gas companies doing their own studies...yeah that'd be questionable.

[Needsdecaf]

Originally Posted by Berzerker

Boiling Top Tier down to "branding backed by paid studies" is pretty tin foil hat stuff.

The major study was conducted by AAA who have an active stake in fuel quality making engines last longer so they don't have to provide services as often. There's no incentive for them to push Top Tier away.

It being backed by automakers as well makes sense too, parts last longer, fewer warranty service provided, more profit.

Now if it were the gas companies doing their own studies...yeah that'd be questionable.

Are you in the O&G industry? I’m not but my SO has been for 26 years.."

I never said it was branding backed by paid studies. I said it was marketing. It’s a made up standard that has no official industry backing. No SAE, ISO, etc. I never said it was false. There is a difference.

The distinction lies in truly how much difference does it make? Same argument as putting 93 in your car designed to run on 87. Is 93 “higher quality” gas? Sure is. Is it going to help your car designed to run on 97 better? Maybe. Only if it’s equipped with systems which are programmed to take advantage. So that’s a big maybe

Is top tier gas a high standard? Likely, I’ve not seen any hard data (none of which is shown on their website, a big clue ) showing the difference. And even if it is “better” than non-Top gas, will it be better for your car? Again, a big maybe depending on what non Top-Tier has you’re comparing it to.

But yes, it’s all marketing.

[Berzerker]

Originally Posted by Needsdecaf

Are you in the O&G industry? I’m not but my SO has been for 26 years.."

I never said it was branding backed by paid studies. I said it was marketing. It’s a made up standard that has no official industry backing. No SAE, ISO, etc. I never said it was false. There is a difference.

The distinction lies in truly how much difference does it make? Same argument as putting 93 in your car designed to run on 87. Is 93 “higher quality” gas? Sure is. Is it going to help your car designed to run on 97 better? Maybe. Only if it’s equipped with systems which are programmed to take advantage. So that’s a big maybe

Is top tier gas a high standard? Likely, I’ve not seen any hard data (none of which is shown on their website, a big clue ) showing the difference. And even if it is “better” than non-Top gas, will it be better for your car? Again, a big maybe depending on what non Top-Tier has you’re comparing it to.

But yes, it’s all marketing.

You didn’t say that, the other person did, but I included both your quotes because I was ultimately replying to both of you.

Pretty sure we have more than ample enough data that shows that 93 gas in an 87 engine does absolutely nothing for it over the long term while, again, we have hard data that top tier-certified gas *does* help reduce build up and increase engine longevity over the long run.

So…again, no, it’s not completely marketing. No one is forcing you to use Top Tier gas, be our guest and use whatever you want, but ignoring facts and data is not useful.

[Needsdecaf]

Originally Posted by Berzerker

Pretty sure we have more than ample enough data that shows that 93 gas in an 87 engine does absolutely nothing for it over the long term while, again, we have hard data that top tier-certified gas *does* help reduce build up and increase engine longevity over the long run.

.

Please show me these studies. Because besides their "News 12 here for you" segment with the AAA guy, I see no published studies. And what I want to know is this: is it tested vs. average fuel or simply base fuel meeting minimum standards. Just because you're not purchasing top tier gas doesn't mean you're automatically getting the minimum level required.

Edit, found the study:

https://www.aaa.com/AAA/common/AAR/f...ull-Report.pdf

So it does better at reducing intake valve deposits vs. non top tier. But no better at cylinder head deposits or piston top deposits. But only vs. 3 other samples? I would like to see this test run on more samples to see what type of additive packages they are seeing. And I would like to see some "name brand" gas's additive packages vs. Top Tier.

[Mike02z]

This gas thread has gone the same way as every other gas thread in every other car forum I’ve been part of for the last 20 years has gone. Different car forums same pissing contests 😂

[Berzerker]

Originally Posted by Needsdecaf

Please show me these studies. Because besides their "News 12 here for you" segment with the AAA guy, I see no published studies. And what I want to know is this: is it tested vs. average fuel or simply base fuel meeting minimum standards. Just because you're not purchasing top tier gas doesn't mean you're automatically getting the minimum level required.

Edit, found the study:

https://www.aaa.com/AAA/common/AAR/f...ull-Report.pdf

So it does better at reducing intake valve deposits vs. non top tier. But no better at cylinder head deposits or piston top deposits. But only vs. 3 other samples? I would like to see this test run on more samples to see what type of additive packages they are seeing. And I would like to see some "name brand" gas's additive packages vs. Top Tier.

I'm not sure what info you want. What do you mean "name brand" gas's additive package. Are you referring to Shell V-Power or Chevron Techron? These are all marketing terms for Top Tier. They may use slightly different chemicals or detergents than other brands, but this isn't about comparing Top Tier in general to each other, it's about Top Tier vs non-Top Tier, so I'm not sure what the point of arguing this is.

No one is saying that any name brand is worse or better, but that they're the same, as long as they're Top Tier certified.

[Bch53211]

The last three M cars I’ve leased I’ve used whatever brand gas is cheap or convenient and I’ve switched between regular, mid grade and premium - I’ve never had any trouble or noticed any difference in performance .

[Needsdecaf]

Originally Posted by Berzerker

I'm not sure what info you want. What do you mean "name brand" gas's additive package. Are you referring to Shell V-Power or Chevron Techron? These are all marketing terms for Top Tier. They may use slightly different chemicals or detergents than other brands, but this isn't about comparing Top Tier in general to each other, it's about Top Tier vs non-Top Tier, so I'm not sure what the point of arguing this is.

No one is saying that any name brand is worse or better, but that they're the same, as long as they're Top Tier certified.

[harperium]

The real question is, what's better, 93+Ethanol, or 91-No Ethanol?

I think 91-No Eth gets better MPG, but 93+Eth = slightly more power.

[Likeanowl]

When my car gets low on gas I just slam a bottle of vodka then piss in the gas tank. Runs clean as a whistle.

[FLOSS M]

Shell 93 !

[CMW33]

I would focus on octane level and less so branding, including top tier. At the downstream level, once the gasoline is refined into 87 and 93 octane, it is commingled in the same storage tanks, etc. before it is transported to gas stations (as needsdecaf said). Big refiners like Marathon or Phillips often refine gas for multiple retail brands, so the gas you are getting at Costco, Buck-ee's, etc. is the same as what you may get from Chevron, Shell, etc. Octane level and the content of gasoline is intensely regulated by EPA and other agencies so there isn't a lot of leeway for variation in what is sold at the pump. There are additives/detergents/cleaners that can reduce carbon deposits in valves, but whether and the frequency with which a modern engine like the S58 that is otherwise well-maintained needs such products is debatable at best.

So, yea if you have preferred brands, by all means favor them (full disclosure: I go to a combination of Shell, Exxon, Sunoco, and BP because those are what are near my house), but the main thing is to observe the minimum octane level required for your engine and replace filters, etc. when required. But particular brands and top tier vs. non-top tier isn't something to get hung up on.

[Needsdecaf]

Originally Posted by CMW33

I would focus on octane level and less so branding, including top tier. At the downstream level, once the gasoline is refined into 87 and 93 octane, it is commingled in the same storage tanks, etc. before it is transported to gas stations (as needsdecaf said). Big refiners like Marathon or Phillips often refine gas for multiple retail brands, so the gas you are getting at Costco, Buck-ee's, etc. is the same as what you may get from Chevron, Shell, etc. Octane level and the content of gasoline is intensely regulated by EPA and other agencies so there isn't a lot of leeway for variation in what is sold at the pump. There are additives/detergents/cleaners that can reduce carbon deposits in valves, but whether and the frequency with which a modern engine like the S58 that is otherwise well-maintained needs such products is debatable at best.

What you say above is largely correct, but there is something you said which is not. What the Top Tier designation is saying is that their additive package is BETTER than what's required by EPA. When you say there isn't a lot of leeway, there IS leeway, but only in the "we added more additives / better detergents".

Top Tier is claiming through the study that their additive package is superior to what's required by EPA. The study I linked above shows 3 "randomly chosen" non-Top Tier fuels tested vs. three Top Tier fuels in South Texas. Only in the valve deposit test did the Top Tier fuels do better.

My issue is 3 stations in South Texas isn't a very well chosen sample set IMO. I would like to see further testing from additive packages chosen in different regions and from different refineries. 3 is just too small of a sample size, IMO. I would like to see testing against all non-Top Tier "name brands" and see how it does.

[Berzerker]

Originally Posted by CMW33

I would focus on octane level and less so branding, including top tier. At the downstream level, once the gasoline is refined into 87 and 93 octane, it is commingled in the same storage tanks, etc. before it is transported to gas stations (as needsdecaf said). Big refiners like Marathon or Phillips often refine gas for multiple retail brands, so the gas you are getting at Costco, Buck-ee's, etc. is the same as what you may get from Chevron, Shell, etc. Octane level and the content of gasoline is intensely regulated by EPA and other agencies so there isn't a lot of leeway for variation in what is sold at the pump. There are additives/detergents/cleaners that can reduce carbon deposits in valves, but whether and the frequency with which a modern engine like the S58 that is otherwise well-maintained needs such products is debatable at best.

So, yea if you have preferred brands, by all means favor them (full disclosure: I go to a combination of Shell, Exxon, Sunoco, and BP because those are what are near my house), but the main thing is to observe the minimum octane level required for your engine and replace filters, etc. when required. But particular brands and top tier vs. non-top tier isn't something to get hung up on.

Originally Posted by Needsdecaf

What you say above is largely correct, but there is something you said which is not. What the Top Tier designation is saying is that their additive package is BETTER than what's required by EPA. When you say there isn't a lot of leeway, there IS leeway, but only in the "we added more additives / better detergents".

Top Tier is claiming through the study that their additive package is superior to what's required by EPA. The study I linked above shows 3 "randomly chosen" non-Top Tier fuels tested vs. three Top Tier fuels in South Texas. Only in the valve deposit test did the Top Tier fuels do better.

My issue is 3 stations in South Texas isn't a very well chosen sample set IMO. I would like to see further testing from additive packages chosen in different regions and from different refineries. 3 is just too small of a sample size, IMO. I would like to see testing against all non-Top Tier "name brands" and see how it does.

Again, Top Tier is not just branding, it's a certification that the gasoline meets the requirements agreed to by the supports of the agreement and that they're using the correct additives to achieve the desired enhanced protections the certification is supposed to represent.

I don't think any of us are experts enough in the field of gasoline production and refinement to not have any good reason to believe anything done, especially when we have data behind it to support the theory.

[DanoG80Cx]

When I had my 135i back in 2012/2013 I used to get gas at Walmart and Kroger since both were close to my house and cheaper than the Shell and BP.

My car stalled on me several times at red lights just idling. I took it in to my dealer for service and they found nothing wrong with it. The dealer asked me where I got my gas. I told them and they gave me some print out of top tier gas and asked me to only use that for a while and report back if it stalled again. It never happened again, and I’ve been going out of my way to only pump Shell, BP, Costco and QT since then.

Does it really make a difference? Was it some freak occurrence? I don’t know…but what’s another $0.10-0.30 per gallon at the end of the day?

[Needsdecaf]

Originally Posted by Berzerker

Again, Top Tier is not just branding, it's a certification that the gasoline meets the requirements agreed to by the supports of the agreement and that they're using the correct additives to achieve the desired enhanced protections the certification is supposed to represent.

Yes. But against what? You seem to be missing the point of my argument. I'm not saying that Top Tier specs don't meet a certain standard. Or that that the Top Tier standard isn't better than minimum EPA requirements.

What I'm trying to say is that it is free for any gasoline retailer to chose an additive package that EXCEEDS EPA minimums. And many do. Therefore testing Top Tier against three random fuel retailers and saying "Yes, Top Tier is better than non-Top Tier" isn't enough data to make that correlation. Because for all we know those retailers only met EPA.

Originally Posted by Berzerker

I don't think any of us are experts enough in the field of gasoline production and refinement to not have any good reason to believe anything done, especially when we have data behind it to support the theory.

But my wife is, thanks.

Again, "data to support the theory" ignores the fact that the "data" sample size is small compared to how many additive packages are for sale on the market. It's "branding" because the study is flawed.

[vbb]

Thankfully I live in an area where the "top tier" certified stations are almost as plentiful and accessible as the others, and the price differences are so negligible that I don't even notice, so whether top tier is a marketing gimmick or truly better for my car is not a debate I need to resolve. I just go to one of the 5 different Shell stations along my usual routes and don't worry about the rest.

I would imagine most people are in the same position. Not a lot of G8X owners in rural, one gas station towns.

I'm also quite certain that people will experience other reliability related issues that will crop up LONG before any issue related to gasoline crops up (unless they're using the wrong octane), so this is much ado about nothing.

Fun read though.

[Berzerker]

Originally Posted by Needsdecaf

Yes. But against what? You seem to be missing the point of my argument. I'm not saying that Top Tier specs don't meet a certain standard. Or that that the Top Tier standard isn't better than minimum EPA requirements.

What I'm trying to say is that it is free for any gasoline retailer to chose an additive package that EXCEEDS EPA minimums. And many do. Therefore testing Top Tier against three random fuel retailers and saying "Yes, Top Tier is better than non-Top Tier" isn't enough data to make that correlation. Because for all we know those retailers only met EPA.

Except that's all we have to go on. If you want to go test Top Tier against any other random gas stations that aren't certified but still have Top Tier-quality addons, then go ahead, but I, as a consumer, have nothing to base that on other than that there isn't data from a supported study, and you, as a consumer, have no reasonable assurance that whatever additive that non-Top Tier gas station is using is actually quality additives that do a similar function.

Originally Posted by Needsdecaf

But my wife is, thanks.

That's perfect, then she should be able to give you some industry-supported data to show why the study isn't valid or any other reality is true.

Originally Posted by Needsdecaf

Again, "data to support the theory" ignores the fact that the "data" sample size is small compared to how many additive packages are for sale on the market. It's "branding" because the study is flawed.

The study isn't flawed, you just don't accept the sample size. If you want, you can go run your own study that has a larger, more acceptable-to-you sample size.

[Needsdecaf]

Originally Posted by Berzerker

That's perfect, then she should be able to give you some industry-supported data to show why the study isn't valid or any other reality is true.

.

What's to say we haven't had conversations about this that I can't share specifics to but if you read between the lines, you'll see that I'm not talking out my wazoo? You want to hang your hat on this study, by all means go ahead. Her company is on the Top Tier list so it's not like I'm trying to discredit it for any reason. Solely to tell people to not blindly accept "research" without asking a few questions. Kind of reminds me of the quote from Tommy Boy: "Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time."

Just because it was a study, doesn't mean you should blindly accept it.

Originally Posted by Berzerker

The study isn't flawed, you just don't accept the sample size. If you want, you can go run your own study that has a larger, more acceptable-to-you sample size.

The sample size IS what makes the study flawed. It's simply not robust enough to stand up to scrutiny. Consider:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...research-study

"3. How many people were there in the study (N)?"

and

"5. Who conducted the research, and who is paying for it?"

In this case the "who conducted" is AAA, who I trust. But who is paying for it? Top Tier is. They aren't even shy about it. Says right on their website. They even call their participating companies "sponsors". You PAY to be in this group and to fly the logo. If you don't think that doesn't fit an agenda, well,

So do I think this is complete made up BS? No. Not at all. I recognize that this is something companies do to sell product and I hold no ill will. I've worked for public companies, as does my wife and I don't think "BIG" anything is real. You will find no tin hats in my closet. But do I think it's mostly marketing driven, and do I think you're likely to get similar results without having to look for "Top Tier" branding? Yup.

I'll leave it with a quote from my favorite movie of all time:

"Bob Woodward: Hunt's come in from the cold. Supposedly he's got a lawyer with $25,000 in a brown paper bag.

Deep Throat: Follow the money.

Bob Woodward: What do you mean? Where?

Deep Throat: Oh, I can't tell you that.

Bob Woodward: But you could tell me that.

Deep Throat: No, I have to do this my way. You tell me what you know, and I'll confirm. I'll keep you in the right direction if I can, but that's all. Just... follow the money.

[geko29]

Originally Posted by StaplesNotepad

So looking at the top tier gas list basically everyone is on it.

Except BP now. They didn't change their gas, but they stopped paying the fee, so they got removed from the list.

[geko29]

Originally Posted by Berzerker

The study isn't flawed, you just don't accept the sample size. If you want, you can go run your own study that has a larger, more acceptable-to-you sample size.

The study is a little bit flawed, but more importantly it's totally irrelevant for most modern cars. The first issue is that they specifically chose a 25-year-old engine that has a known design defect that causes it to create a tremendous amount of valve deposits. So if you have this particular Ford 2.3L engine, its definitely gospel.

More broadly however, the only test in which TT fuel outperformed non-TT fuel was in the valve deposit test. But most modern cars (including ours) have direct injection. So the valve deposit test is utterly irrelevant, because no fuel ever passes over the valves. It is literally impossible for fuel choice to have an impact on valve deposits in these engines, except for an edge case of one specific additive class (which is not in the TT specification) which survives the combustion process and could potentially pass by the valves in extremely limited quantity due to EGR.

So that leaves us with the other two tests: Piston and Head deposits. In both of these tests, TT fuel performed marginally worse than non-TT fuel.