No, Huskey is not owned by Shell. Think about it. There are only so many refineries in the country and everywhere that gasoline is marketed, each company does not have a refinery. In order to have an efficient distribution system, base gasoline is traded between refiners and then differentiated with proprietary additive systems for final sale under each company's brand. The differentiating additive systems can have distinctive performance benefits which have to be scientifically verified in order to satisfy the legal requirements for legitimate performance claims.

And you will as a result make less power, as long as you are okay with that.

Ethanol blended gasoline isn't somehow inferior to regular gas. When comparing 91 with ethanol and 91 without then yes its a no brainier(or 87 and 87).Adding ethanol over and above 91 just gives you more resistance to knock.

The ethanol increases the tolerance to detonation, and for our high CR engines that is best.

What ethanol does do which some people don't like is it causes you to take a slight hit in MPG. With ethanol you have to inject some 33% more to equal the same AFR and as a result it uses up the tank faster. The main thing people bitch about is their 87(maybe even 85) octane gets mixed with ethanol in the winter months and that results in the drop in MPG. Ill take your 91 octane and add my 10% ethanol thanks :)

Please note that it isn't a 33% drop in MPG. It is the difference of the 10% ethanol that they add followed by 33% of that. Usually about 3 to 5% different.

That's why I asked to see timing logs on 87, 91 and 94 ;)

I can't see it pulling enough timing on 91 octane to lose 5whp (assuming it's making full power on 94 octane) without hearing some pinging first.

The cars don't have fuel sensors capable of detecting the octane of fuel, so it either needs to keep advancing timing until it sees knock then back off a bit, or go full out and keep pulling timing back until the knocking stops.

In either case, there's simply no way that a car that had it's tank emptied, filled with another grade and thrown onto a dyno for a single run will have had time for the ECU to adjust to the new octane rating at all.

The 87 octane run I believe since I'm sure it would be pinging and having timing pulled back, but the 91 and 94 octane runs have me skeptical still without timing and IAT logs, plus full disclosure on how the runs were performed, how much time the ECU was given to adjust to the new fuel, etc.

I'd love to hear some opinions from some respected tuners too... @Visconti any thoughts?

Taking away timing is instant. Knock detected, timing reduced, there is no learning period for this instance. Gaining that timing back will take some time as it has to not see knock for a while if it has "learned" there is knock.

Timing affects our cars HP huge, a couple degree's will be 5whp easy.

The reason you don't hear the pinging or knocking is our cars ECU is THAT good, Visconti can attest to that. It is much better at controlling knock than tradition WRX or STI ECU.

The only time you would hear audible pinging or knocking is if the control strategy is unable to pull enough timing to get under the knock threshold for that given octane or quality of fuel.

I will log on 94 and 91 and post the results. No way im allowing my car to run on 87 though ;)

Yea please keep us updated on your result on 94 and 91.
I don't think anyone is using 87 on this car. Those who uses less than 91 don't deserve to drive this car.

The problem here is that the car was run on 91, then 87 then 94 according to the article. There's simply no way the ECU had time to adjust from 91 to 94 and increase the timing enough to see gains over 91 if the tests were run as described.

If they ran it for a long enough drive cycle on 94 for the ECU to start probing to see how much timing advance it could get away with, they might get a hp or two. I don't see them gaining anything from 91 to 94 just by draining the tank, putting in the higher octane fuel and putting it right back on the dyno though.

Based on what though? Is there any facts that say a hp or 2 or is this just your feeling?

I mean the article posts actual dyno's a device meant for calculating horsepower. I don't see what's not to believe, its actually alot more scientific than your gut feeling.

Ill do a couple pulls on 94 with logging and then once i run a tank of 91 though i will try it againt and see if there is any difference.

The dealer filled mine with 87. I'm not sure if that is regular practise, but it didn't impress me much.

why in earth did they fill up on 87 if they read the manual thats gonna void the warranty on the engine!
how did u find out they filled 87?

I asked the dealer, lol. Something tells me that it has happened to more people than just myself. I don't think many people would ask. Just a hunch.

lol at least they didnt lie...

From what I can gather from the articles, they ran it back to back, with no time for the ECU to adjust. There's just no way the ECU probed and gained enough timing for 5whp in a single dyno pull.

Run the dyno on 91 first, drain the tank, put in some 94 and take a second pull and see what you get.

I would still like to see it gaining 5whp from 91 to 94 even after the ECU has had enough drive cycles to adjust including timing logs if anyone does this testing.

Anyways, ive been filling up 94 for the past three tanks of gas. My gut feel of 94 vs 91shell, not a huge difference i guess? I'm not feel anymore or less power, but screw 94 bc the milagr i get from it compared to 91 is insanely different. One round trip to missisauga from markham takes 1/4 tank with 94... Shell 91 burns less than a 1/4.
Personally, im sticking to shell, i can pull 500-600km with shell 91, whilw im filling tank after tank with around max 500km per tank with 94. Only reason why i chose 94 lately is bc i got two feul cards for free, those 2.5cent off per L for 200L. I got another 250L, but i don't think i wanna touch this ethanol crap thats ruining my milage... Gas is expensive lately already...

I've seen more or less the same as you in the cold weather, though my mileage difference isn't quite as noticeable. Save that discount card and give the 94 another try in the heat of summer. Mine seems to run just a little better in the heat with the 94 in the tank.