Close

    • Want to improve fuel economy? Automarkers argue fuel quality should improve with a 95 octane standard

      This is a good argument. Lawmakers like to focus on forcing automakers to meet certain emissions and efficiency standards but they do not take into account the quality of the fuel they are working with.


      87 octane does not help automakers meet the goals laid out and that is why Ford, FCA, and General Motors are arguing for a 95 octane standard.

      Their argument makes sense as with higher octane fuel they will be able to deliver at least a 3% efficiency gain. In theory they could provide higher compression motors and tune for leaner mixtures.

      The automaker are seeking just one grade of fuel instead of the standard three grades you usually see. Automotive enthusiasts, especially those with 91 octane forced on them, should be thrilled.

      What about the cost you say? This should be offset by the quantity as instead of distributing three or more octane ranges there would only be a single 95 octane fuel to deliver.

      Quote Originally Posted by GM
      This will have customer value if it is done correctly. Don't think of the premium fuel that is available today. If it is done in the right framework, it could have a lot of value for customers at a low rate if we pick the right octane level. If you go too high, it'll get expensive. But if you pick the right one, it'll actually work for customers. They can get around 3 percent fuel economy improvement for less than 3 percent.
      This is a logical measure that would easily pay the 3% dividends they are seeking. As this makes too much sense and is smarter than forcing automakers to adhere to standards they simply can not reach while remaining competitive, do not expect the proposal to be adopted.

      Source

      This article was originally published in forum thread: Want to improve fuel economy? Automarkers argue fuel quality should improve with a 95 octane standard started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 22 Comments
      1. Eleventeen's Avatar
        Eleventeen -
        Bring. It. On.
      1. Arin@APR's Avatar
        Arin@APR -
        So long as they don’t mess with our 93 octane and make it all 91, I’m down.

        Edit: they keep saying 87 and 95. It’s 87 (R+M)/2 and 95 Ron.

        87 (r+m)/2 = ~91 Ron
        95 Ron = ~91 (r+m)/2
      1. ///MPOSTER's Avatar
        ///MPOSTER -
        Ive been saying this forever. It’s more apparent when filling up at Costco and there are only two grades, 91 & 93. The gap a long time ago was a few cents between the grades but now it’s 25c , 50c or even 75c when they gouge. I think it would be fair to just have one high octane grade that all cars can use.
      1. ms335i's Avatar
        ms335i -
        Cost shouldn't be an issue. My gf owns her own gas station and gas stations mark up on premium is twice as much as regular so if gas stations don't mark up that much, then the prices should be comparable to 93.
      1. CobraMarty's Avatar
        CobraMarty -
        3% increase in mpg, that's BS. On a 33mpg car that improves just +1mpg, 40mpg improves +1.2mpg.
        At a premium cost to consumers of $0.50/gallon, no thanks. You really think that they will lower the cost because they only have 1 grade of fuel, Not a chance.
        This will just put more money into the car makers brothers- the Oil Companies. Of course they want this. Do you really think that they are doing this for you the consumer?

        Just raise the price of current gas to $5.00/gallon. People will drive less, less pollution, less dependency on foreign oil, less wear and tear on the roads, more profit per gallon for the stations and oil companies.
      1. gaspam's Avatar
        gaspam -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Arin@APR Click here to enlarge
        So long as they donít mess with our 93 octane and make it all 91, Iím down.

        Edit: they keep saying 87 and 95. Itís 87 (R+M)/2 and 95 Ron.

        87 (r+m)/2 = ~91 Ron
        95 Ron = ~91 (r+m)/2
        yeah its a little confusing since they are mixing terminology but what they are saying is 87 would no longer be the min grade (the standard), 91 (r+m)/2 (USA terminology)/aka 95 Ron, would then become the minimum grade.... so at the pump we would see 91,93, and 95 instead of the current 87,91,93

        however I think it would end up keeping the 87 oct too since a lot of low compression engines still run on it like my Jeep JKU
      1. LessIsMore's Avatar
        LessIsMore -
        Hmm... as an enthusiast, I want higher octane pump fuel available, of course - but smells like there might be ulterior motives here on the auto/oil lobbying side. I am extremely skeptical that the cost would go down IRL.
        Makes sense about being able to run more efficiently on modern turbo/DI engines with higher octane.
        Hell, half the cars sold today in the US seem to 'recommend' premium for full performance already.
      1. LessIsMore's Avatar
        LessIsMore -
        BTW, most confusing source article ever - really stupid to conflate RON and RM2, think the author doesn't actually understand the difference.
      1. Eleventeen's Avatar
        Eleventeen -
        On a side note, I wish more gas stations offered 100 octane fuel at the pump. I know some Sunocos used to, but I haven’t seen that in years in my area.
      1. Torgus's Avatar
        Torgus -
        i'm down. but I would prefer 98 vs. 95 Click here to enlarge
      1. Remonster's Avatar
        Remonster -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Arin@APR Click here to enlarge
        So long as they donít mess with our 93 octane and make it all 91, Iím down.

        Edit: they keep saying 87 and 95. Itís 87 (R+M)/2 and 95 Ron.

        87 (r+m)/2 = ~91 Ron
        95 Ron = ~91 (r+m)/2
        I was hoping they'd make 95 (r+m)/2 the new standard fuel across the board. A pipe dream, I know. Click here to enlarge
      1. Torgus's Avatar
        Torgus -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Remonster Click here to enlarge
        I was hoping they'd make 95 (r+m)/2 the new standard fuel across the board. A pipe dream, I know. Click here to enlarge
        The extra octane would be nice!
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Arin@APR Click here to enlarge
        So long as they donít mess with our 93 octane and make it all 91, Iím down.

        Edit: they keep saying 87 and 95. Itís 87 (R+M)/2 and 95 Ron.

        87 (r+m)/2 = ~91 Ron
        95 Ron = ~91 (r+m)/2
        If it's just 91 octane I don't get the point. Many states already have 93 available.
      1. subaru335i's Avatar
        subaru335i -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        If it's just 91 octane I don't get the point. Many states already have 93 available.
        I guess the point is to get rid of 87 and just go to 91 minimum. Right now a lot of "economy" cars have to design to 87 octane or people will $#@! about needing "premium fuel".

        87 is piss water and anyone who complains about this is a little $#@!.
      1. axthomson's Avatar
        axthomson -
        I guess not everyone has 89 octane? We have 87, 89, and 93 in CT. There may be some that have 91, and in NY I’ve seen some with 94. But if we are going to improve fuel octane rating to increase economy, why no just go higher to 100 and up?
      1. Arin@APR's Avatar
        Arin@APR -
        Just a though - Most lawn mowers, weed wackers, etc run like garbage on higher octane fuels.... So, do we just throw them all away?
      1. Remonster's Avatar
        Remonster -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Arin@APR Click here to enlarge
        Just a though - Most lawn mowers, weed wackers, etc run like garbage on higher octane fuels.... So, do we just throw them all away?
        Maybe APR could provide 91 octane tunes for our gardening equipment...
      1. subaru335i's Avatar
        subaru335i -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Arin@APR Click here to enlarge
        Just a though - Most lawn mowers, weed wackers, etc run like garbage on higher octane fuels.... So, do we just throw them all away?
        Why would they run poorly on higher octane fuel? They definitely don't like ethanol in there but a lot of stations around me have a non oxy pump for these types of devices.
      1. gaspam's Avatar
        gaspam -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by subaru335i Click here to enlarge
        Why would they run poorly on higher octane fuel? They definitely don't like ethanol in there but a lot of stations around me have a non oxy pump for these types of devices.
        because most of the lawn equipment (except riding mowers with OHV) have super low compression ratios of like 6:1 .... higher oct fuels dont ignite as well at that low of a compression ratio.... you get a lot of hiccups, backfires (which are fun on the weedwacker lol)

        also starting a low compression engine on higher octane fuel is much harder (especially without an electric starter) higher the octane, the more heat or spark is needed to light the fuel. The lower octane will fire up easier.... keep in mind, your hand and a string is the starting mechanism on lawn equip
      1. subaru335i's Avatar
        subaru335i -
        So the solution is to deck the head on your weedwhacker and bump up the compression! Easy peasy.
        I did it on my old outboard motor and worked great.