The public outrage regarding high gasoline prices may have died down some since the initial push past $3.00 a gallon that consumers saw two seasons ago, but there is no doubt that drivers still grimace and curse the oil companies as they march to the pump to fill up their cars, trucks and SUVs.

While there is still much debate surrounding whether high gasoline prices are good (and here) for American consumers or not, one thing is certain – we’re all interested in better fuel economy.

Be it a financial concern, desire to lessen your environmental impact and carbon footprint, or simply an attempt to “stick it” to the oil companies, we’d all love to pay less at the pump – but not all pumps are created equal! A recent experiment in my own vehicle led to some interesting surprises.

The story begins with my obsessive-compulsive tendency to watch the dashboard display in my Volvo S60. While always interested in better fuel economy, the need to watch my MPG consumption stems more from habit and compulsion than an attempt to boost the average. Nevertheless, regularly driving 7+ hours one-way, 75% highway, at night (no traffic) and loaded down with roughly 250 pounds of extra cargo (I’m a stage performer) has revealed that my Volvo S60 averages 27 to 28 MPG while running on a higher octane fuel (91 to 93). I fuel up at every possible type of filling station and have used every brand of fuel – at 2am in the middle-of-nowhere, you take what you can get. Always, however, my fuel consumption stays solidly within that 27 to 28 MPG range, unless I’m intentionally trying to boost it with a crawl-and-coast methodology (Don’t laugh! Traveling alone three quarters of the time leads to all sorts of strange behavior.)

That’s why I was surprised when I noticed my average creeping past 29 MPG last July on a trip from central Pennsylvania to Stamford, Connecticut! Round-trip in one day, including stop-and-go city driving, I averaged 29.6 MPG – the highest my rating has been for distance driving in this vehicle, and good news for the people paying my travel expenses.

Curious as to why I was seeing an increase, especially given the city driving and travel on the Connecticut section of I-95 – not recommended, ever – the only contributing factor that I could find was the gas that I filled my tank with in central PA – 92 octane from a Sheetz station. (btw – if you’ve never been to a Sheetz, let me just say that they are brilliant stores! Great fuel, Made-To-Order food, even good coffee! And clean, clean, clean!) At the end of the day though, I chalked it all up to luck, good driving and, well, more luck.

In truth, I didn’t give the good mileage in July a second thought beyond that day, until just yesterday when I filled up yet again at a Sheetz in central Pennsylvania and drove two hours through extremely mountainous Pennsylvania Coal Country, only to emerge on the other side with a 30.1 MPG reading!

Not only had I never seen such a high rating in this vehicle before, but it happened in the mountains, the last place I’d expect it to occur!

Once on the highway I kept a very close eye on the display window and it kept improving. Before long my Volvo was at 31 MPG. This was unprecedented, and those who drive vehicles that boast real-time fuel consumption stats know how difficult it is on long trips to boost your rating by even a few tenths of a mile per gallon – yet here I was, averaging 31 MPG.

This average maintained itself without any special driving on my part, and to test the now fairly convincing theory that my fuel economy was due to the Sheetz station, after 4.5 hours of driving and half of a tank consumed, I filled the now empty portion with Exxon-brand, 93 octane fuel.

My fuel economy plummeted, and quickly. The Exxon/Sheetz blend, continuing on for another 2.5 hours, brought my rating down to a high 28 miles per gallon.

While this is far from a controlled, scientific experiment, there is certainly enough evidence to at least suggest that different brands due indeed lead to different fuel economies. It’s likely that I will repeat the “experiment” under more controlled circumstances that include same time-of-day driving, route, traffic conditions, perhaps even utilization of cruise-control, and I will report the results here. The fact that my vehicle has never seen such a high rating, however, does suggest that there can be a significant difference between filling stations, the fuel that they carry and the resultant performance of said fuel.

Assuming my vehicle typically runs at an average of 28 MPG (usually between 27 and 28, in actuality), a 3 MPG increase as I saw with the Sheetz-brand fuel is almost an 11% increase in performance. An 11% increase is certainly not something that I’d want to dismiss – with the current national average of premium fuel at $3.071, that’s a savings for my vehicle of just over $6 per tank of fuel. That may seem like a small sum – but hell, that’s three cups of very good coffee, enough to last me while driving that tank empty! And for someone like me who drives an awful lot, that difference would have saved me about $260 over this past summer alone – enough to help defray the costs of my domain name being stolen, in fact. Combine savings like that with an even more fuel efficient vehicle and you’ll be saving even more money and a whole lot more of the environment.

While the jury – and the fuel providers – are still undecided, I for one will be listening to the voice of my Volvo and will be seeking out better performing fuels.

Coal Region, Connecticut, driving, Exxon, fuel economy, fuel efficiency, gas, gas prices, gas savings, gasoline, I-95, MTO, Pennsylvania, Sheetz, Volvo, Volvo S60