KahnBB6

iTrader: (5)

This is supposed to be several years away and while nationwide availability of very high octane gasoline sounds cool it probably will cost a fair bit more than 91-94 octane.

Still... an interesting potential development. The downside is it might be needed for some future cars. The upside is... well... I guess if you drive anything that can make use of very high octane fuel despite its cost per gallon.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-hin...els-95704.html

mmarshall

More compression and power in engines using fuel of that kind of octane would also mean more heat, requiring a beefed-up cooling system. It would also require beefier engine and powertrain construction to withstand the greater torque....the article doesn't seem to take those things into consideration. It would be more than a matter of simply more expensive gas....also more expensive components for the vehicles, jacking up the price.

I agree with the first posted answer to the article (the article-post, not the CL post)...........stop going after bread-and-butter vehicles for emissions, which are already doing a good job. Unregulated emissions from other sources are the main problem.

BoDarville

where are you still seeing 94 octane?

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

havent seen 94 but can get 93 anywhere here

blacksc400

iTrader: (4)

91 is highest we get here... always wanna try 100 in my car.

mmarshall

If it was designed for 91 (and there are no carbon build-ups in the cylinders that can artificially increase the compression-ratio), that's probably all it needs. Higher-than-necessary octane does not necessarily give any better performance, and can, in some instances, adversely affect starting and drivability. Pat Goss, who is Lead Technician for the Motorweek TV program (and owns his own repair shop), has talked about that a number of times in his question-and-answer forums.

Octane, remember, is not a measure of the amount of available power in gasoline, but simply the gasoline's ability, under heat/compression and spark-timing, to resist harmful knocking and pinging. It is the extra compression and spark-advance in the engine that gives you the power, not the octane itself....in that sense, all gasoline has the same BTU thermal-energy-content.

KahnBB6

iTrader: (5)

Quite correct on both points. I agree. I imagine it depends on the engine and vehicle a much higher octane fuel would be intended for. I don't see a "super premium" gasoline blend becoming a baseline for all cars like 87 any time soon. If anything higher than 91-93 becomes a thing it will be for premium engines. However it's already been determined that small engines displacing less than 1.0L actually have increased emissions compared to engines 1.0L and larger. We likely won't see many monster 8.0L engines outside of Bugatti in the future but the trend toward ever smaller small engines has already peaked. Now it's just efficiency they're going after.

I think camless cylinder heads (a la FreeValve's designs) will also be a thing by the time any higher octane fuel becomes available.

I haven't personally seen 94 octane at any pumps that I have visited but I have read of some pumps in the New England states still having 94. I'd like to see it with my own eyes but I never get up that way.

Aside, I think the highest octane pump fuel available in Japan works out to a maximum of 94.

91 is the highest we get in California. They used to have 92 almost twenty years ago. In most of the western states it varies between 91 and 90. 93 availability drops off sharply after you leave west Texas.

I have tried unleaded VP100 race gas at the pump before (at $10/gal!) just for fun. I think I may have bought 3.5 or four gallons just to see how well it would mix. I did notice a slight difference but effectively it's very small when mixing even 3-4 gallons into a tank of 91 octane. I may have reached some figure slightly higher than a 92 blend with a 3/4 full tank of 91. I don't recall the formula used to determine that or the exact gallons of 100 octane fuel that I bought. The rub is that in central and eastern states you still get a better bargain with common 93. If my car's engine had a turbo at that time I am sure there would have been a more noticeable effect, however minor with only a 1.x bump in the octane mix in my fuel tank.

It's expensive and generally not worth it unless you have a vehicle set up to take advantage of it but VP100 being unleaded it will not harm your vehicle in any way even if the ECU can't use all of its detonation resistance.

On the other hand 116 octane C16 (leaded), 100-130 octane AvGas (leaded), methanol or 105 octane E85 all require specialized engines and tuning.

blacksc400

iTrader: (4)

Yes my X6M can take it, and if I use 100 I'm safe to set my racechip to 'D' setting

GS69

https://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1116311_citing-fuel-economy-benefits-automakers-push-for-95-octane-gas

Citing fuel-economy benefits, automakers push for 95 octane gas

Ruben Porras

April 17, 2018Touting lower greenhouse gas emissions and higher fuel economy, Detroit's automakers want the U.S. to boost its octane.GM, Ford, and FCA are working with the U.S. Council for Automotive Research on a plan to switch from the three octane choices at most pumps to just one: 95 octane. Such a move would put the U.S. in line with Europe.

Automotive News reported that Dan Nicholson, GM’s vice president of global propulsion systems, said in testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s environment subcommittee last week that even though premium unleaded currently costs around 50 cents more per gallon than regular at most pumps, moving to 95 octane would cost consumers far less.

MORE: Automakers tout green cars while fighting EPA

Nicholson also said during a panel discussion at SAE International WCX World Congress Experience in Detroit that 95 octane would allow for a 3 percent fuel economy improvement for less than a 3 percent increase in the cost of fuel.

David Filipe, Vice President of Ford’s powertrain engineering, speaking on the same panel as Nicholson, said that Ford believes that the price of 95 octane needs to be affordable to not have a big financial impact on consumers. Filipe said that the cost of of 95 octane should not add more than 5 cents per gallon.

Improving fuel economy has been an expensive and difficult process for automakers.



DON'T MISS: What if the EPA dialed back emissions rules, but only on trucks?

While a three percent boost might seem small, other ways that automakers have boosted fuel economy have involved the development of expensive new technologies including downsized, direct-injected engines, stop-start systems, lighter vehicle bodies and eight, nine and 10 speed transmissions. Putting a new standard of fuel into place would cost far less than what has been spent on these technologies.

Refineries not having to produce various octane levels would help put some of the cost savings of making the 95 octane standard come into play. They would be able to focus on making large amounts of one fuel by using 1 of several ways to boost octane. Options to boost octane include raising the amount of ethanol used in fuel production or lowering the amount of heptane mixed into fuel.

Raising octane helps vehicle engines run more efficiently by allowing engineers to raise an engine’s compression ratio which in turn raises horsepower and torque.

UDel

95 Octane will be more expensive for a pretty minimal gain, doubt it will just be a couple cents more, plus they will likely achieve that by adding more ethanol to gas which is also a negative in many ways.

KahnBB6

iTrader: (5)

Great news for super high compression cars and anything high performance with a turbo but probably not for the majority of vehicle owners who have anything that's made for 87 if the next highest tier (unless 95 octane is it across the board) costs much more at every fill-up.

The availability of it and the fuel economy (for vehicles that can take advantage of it) and emissions benefits would be cool on one hand but the economics of it could be a much bigger dilemma.

Because of how crude oil is refined into different grades of gasoline, currently there is probably no cost-affordable way to keep making 87 while also offering 89-93. A couple of places still have or used to have 94 but this is extremely rare to find.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...m-new-regular/

Sulu

Mazda's SkyActiv-G engine is forced to run a lower compression ratio in North America (13:1 as opposed to 14:1) because we have lower octane gasoline. This robs us of 3% to 5% in torque and fuel efficiency.

Source