Which Gasoline Octane Level is Best?

A friend recently sent me a link to a Marketplace episode which purported to show that there was an oil company conspiracy afoot to get us to use the highest priced, highest octane or "premium" gas in our ordinary vehicles rather than the lowest priced, lowest octane gas which is all we ever need in our cars. Let me preface the following by stating that I am poor and cheap, so I would truly love to see a good argument for only using the lowest octane gas.   If I ever find that argument, I will never again buy the mid grade (middle octane level). Unfortunately, I haven't found that argument yet.

First of all, the Marketplace show starts, and runs throughout, by raising a false dichotomy between regular (lowest octane) gas and premium (highest octane gas).  This is known as the "straw man" or "false dragon" fallacy.  They have found a case of some idiot (I have no doubt there are millions of such idiots), who asks a gas-jockey what gas to use in her normal car and he dishonestly tries to sell her the most expensive grade (I have no doubt there are many thousands of such gas-jockeys).  The rest of the show then purports to try to prove that you shouldn't waste your money buying the highest octane gas for the average car.  I have been driving and buying gas for decades and I have not personally come across any argument or sales pitch by the oil companies, or anyone else, which has ever suggested we should be using the highest octane level in any but the costliest, high end vehicles.  Thus, the entire Marketplace show, in perfect line with their generalized "Let's expose another Great Conspiracy weekly." format, fails to have any real value except for those who will believe any sales pitch, from any unqualified source, and who always assume that more expensive means better, a loosely defined group that I have always described as foolish.  The question they should have asked, and tried to find answers to, is not: "Do I need the highest available octane level in my gas?" but rather: "Which of the three available octane levels causes my car to run at optimum performance?"

Secondly, for the sake of argument, let's take their efforts at face value.  The only thing these video-bloggers have proved is that they understand (or care) very little about the scientific method and that evidence-based critical thinking is not a significant part of their arguments.  They find an "expert" who is willing to claim that lower octane levels are better.  This is a very unscientific appeal to authority.  What has he based his opinion on?  He never mentions any studies; he simply says "Trust me, I'm an expert."  Do all such experts have the same opinion?  Does ANY other expert have the same opinion?  Marketplace never says.  Knowing Marketplace, I suspect they omitted talking about that because it might ruin their show.  They set up an "experiment" (please note that I did not say a "scientific experiment") in which they use a car, with no given specifications (uncontrolled), to yield a result of precisely 1 data point for regular gas and 1 data point for premium gas.  This test, even if it were valid, would yield nothing more than a single anecdotal testimonial, something that is great for convincing a gullible public, but is essentially meaningless as scientific evidence.  Once again, however, let's proceed as if it were an acceptable scientific test.  The result of their test was a savings in gas when the HIGHER octane level was used, meaning that the car ran more efficiently and suffered less engine stress in overcoming friction to drive the car the test distance, USING THE HIGHER OCTANE LEVEL.  Their conclusion was, to paraphrase: "Never mind the evidence, just take my word for it in spite of the evidence."  Sound much like the climate-change denialists?  As I stated above, this was not a scientific test and was essentially meaningless as a basis upon which to draw a conclusion, but what would they have said if the result had been reversed with 4.8 l/km for the lowest octane gas and 5.0 l/km for the highest octane gas.  Would they have said, "Never mind the evidence." then?  I don't think so.  If they agree that the result is meaningless no matter what the result is, then why have the test as part of the show.  The only possible answer is that this kind of pseudo-scientific crap works on the average joe who is either too ignorant or just too intellectually lazy to really examine what they are watching.  Result: lots of soap-flakes sold by the advertisers to a burgeoning populace of Great Conspiracy theorists.

Back to reality: I will repeat that I have never personally come across any argument or advertisement which suggests that we should be using the highest octane level in our car.  But neither have I ever seen any proper argument presented for using the very lowest octane level available.  What I have heard from the oil companies and from a large number of so-called "experts" on television, in the Toronto Globe and Mail, and on the internet, is that: a) if you are driving an old beater (i.e. a somewhat worn-out engine, especially an older model with less efficiency wary computer controls "on-the'fly") then use regular gas as a higher octane level will not overcome the inefficiencies present to any noticeable degree; b) if you are using a newer model, high-efficiency vehicle, like a top end sports car, then use the highest octane level because those engines are designed for use with such gas and run most efficiently when using such gas; c)  if you are running a newer model vehicle with the engine still in reasonably good running shape, then use the middle grade gas, or regular gas with an octane additive, as the higher octane level helps the engine to run at optimum efficiency, yielding better gas milage and less wear and tear on the engine.

It is true, as they pointed out in the Marketplace show, that modern cars are equipped with knock sensors (small piezo-electric microphones)  which send a signal to the engine control unit, which in turn retards the ignition timing when premature detonation (causing engine knock) is detected.  According to everything I can find on the internet, retarding the ignition timing reduces the tendency of the fuel-air mixture to detonate, but also reduces power output and fuel efficiency.  It is simply easier on the engine (and easier means greater output and efficiency) when a slightly higher octane reading is used, especially when using higher loads, hotter (e.g. summer) temperatures and at higher elevations (such as in Edmonton).  If I was running my car in Toronto especially during the winter and when hauling a lighter load, there would be a lesser need for boosting the octane rating slightly than if I was running it in Edmonton, especially during the summer or when hauling a greater load.

Everything I can find, including write-ups by independents, suggests I should be using the mid-grade gas until the engine is quite old and worn out.  I will happily buy the cheapest gas if anyone can point out a good, scientifically backed argument for doing so.  Maybe the studies disproving the (vastly) majority view are there on the internet and I simply haven't found them yet.  By all means, please send the links to me if anyone finds them.

Collapse of the Global Warming "Conspiracy"?!?!?

    I suppose it should come as no surprise to me that so many people, including many influential journalists, are coming to such disastrously wrong conclusions about the meaning of recent revelations regarding mistakes made, sloppy data gathering done and even alleged wrong-doings committed by certain UN scientists.  The scientists in question have been prominently vocal in warning about the potentially harmful and expensive ramifications, for nations around the world, of the increasingly rapid climatic warming that is occurring globally.  The reason I should not be surprised is that the vast majority of people, regrettably, have little or no understanding of science or of scientific method.

    Most people, even atheists and agnostics, are people of faith in their way of thinking.  They do not think scientifically.  You do not have to have faith in any particular God, religion or  book to be a 'faith-thinker.'  You simply have to be a person who tends to base your opinions and conclusions on faith in a person or group relaying information to you, and by extension the conclusions that person or group has come to, rather than on review and scientific consideration of the evidence that person or those persons based their conclusions on.  This is not the same as trust.  We all might, justifiably, come to trust a certain source of information based on past performance.  If it can be reliably demonstrated later that this source has made serious mistakes or even lied or falsified data in some way, then we will, justifiably, lose our trust in that source and perhaps cease to listen to them.  The difference here between the scientific-thinker and the faith-thinker is that the faith-thinker will frequently tend to throw out everything that disgraced source has said whereas the scientific thinker will review the evidence to determine what conclusion to come to, not just about the guilt or innocence of the source mentioned, but about what they were claiming that he was tempted to believe.

    Take, for example, Margaret Wente's recent submission in the Globe and mail: (www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-great-global-warming-collapse/article1458206/).  The very title,  "The great global warming collapse." suggests that we can all now relax about global warming as if it has been shown to have all been a great conspiracy, a fraud.  This is only one example.  There are many others of its ilk readily available not only in news articles but in myriad blogs across the net.  The problem with this conclusion is that these people are trying to throw out decades of replicated and verified data gathered by literally thousands of independent scientists from all over the world based on their new found lack of trust in someone they probably had never heard of before.  Some talk as if belief in global warming was based on the work of a handful of scientists or on one or two studies which might be flawed, or even falsified, instead of on thousands of independent studies by thousands of independent scientists over many decades.  As for those who suggest it is all a great scientific conspiracy: how could you possibly organize and run such an enormous conspiracy even if you wanted to?  What would the motivation be to be part of such a conspiracy?  There would be far, far, FAR more money in being on the anti-global warming side with merry buckets of cash and huge honours gratefully proffered by the vastly wealthy and powerful oil and coal companies as well as those corporations that depend on ready and cheap supplies of oil and coal and the petro-State governments (such as Alberta's) if you could only demonstrate scientifically that global warming was not occurring.

   The problem for those who insist that global warming is a fraud and a conspiracy is that the scientific evidence for it is overwhelming and no one has been able to demonstrate that it is not occurring.  In fact, we have reached the point where anyone who examines the evidence for global warming, rather than depending on "he said/she said" arguments, can see that global warming is a fact.  It does not take a scientific degree to be certain of this.  It simply takes scientific thinking coupled with EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE.  The glaciers of the Alps may not be gone by 2035, but they are unquestionable receding at an astonishing rate.  North American and Australian glaciers are similarly retreating at a great rate.  A quick search of the internet will reveal comparative photographs, taken over decades, of numerous glaciers that demonstrate this retreat. The Greenland Ice cap is thinning at a historically unprecedented rate.  Huge ice shelves are breaking up both in the Arctic and Antarctic.  The Arctic Ocean shows more open water every year.  Weather stations around the world evidence increased temperatures.    This can readily be verified even by non-scientists with little or no formal scientific training.  I can assure you that the Inuit all across Canada's north can testify that the Arctic is warming without reference to a single scientific report.

    Even if you feel that the jury should be out still on the question of the amount or degree of anthropogenically caused global warming, there can no longer be any valid, scientific denial that global warming is occurring and this warming will cause huge and expensive problems for people all over the world.  I live in Alberta and, while global warming may bring a benefit or two such as warmer winters, it will also bring increased incidence of tornados and greatly reduced fresh water supplies.  People who live in the Arctic, on many small Pacific islands, in many coastal cities and in areas already marginal because of drought, will face even greater problems.  As for anyone who claims that there is no significant anthropogenic contribution to the observed global warming, I will ask again here, as I did in my posting of December 31, 2009, how can we possibly add billions of tons of carbon-dioxide and methane to the atmosphere year after year and not contribute significantly to global warming?  That is a question perennially avoided by those who argue that warnings by scientists of global warming are due to some sort of conspiracy.

    Not everyone can be a trained scientist.  Not everyone should be.  But everyone should be willing to take a scientific look at the evidence for global warming before making up his or her mind about it.  Trust in particular experts can be comforting and nice, but it is not necessary when looking for truth in a matter so eminently open to materialistic examination as global warming.  Only the willingness to examine the material evidence objectively and logically is necessary. For anyone interested in learning more about how scientists approach the evidence in forming their opinions I would, at a bare minimum, recommend reading the following:

    Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1962. 2nd edition 1970. 3rd edition 1996

    Popper, Karl, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books, New York, NY, 1959

    Suppe, Frederick (Editor), The Structure of Scientific Theories, University of Illinois Press, Chicago, IL, 2nd edition 1977.