Is this GM executive serious ? Or he's a moron ?

[HTSS_TR]

Quote:
Dan Nicholson, General Motors’ vice president of global propulsion systems, said that GM could boost fuel economy in most engines by about 5 percent if U.S. fuel had the same higher octane gasoline as what’s being used in Europe. That comment was made during a conversation with Automotive News technology and engineering reporter Richard Truett, who examined how automakers and the EPA are looking at it.

Regular and premium gasoline grades are four to six octane lower than comparable grades of European gasoline, but the calculations are different and difficult to compare. American gasoline octane is calculated using averages from RON (research octane number) and MON (motor octane number). That’s done differently in Europe; for example in Germany, regular gasoline is usually 95 octane and premium is 100. It’s based on the RON scale in Germany.


http://www.hybridcars.com/boosting-octan...25-for-the-epa/

Everybody in the oil industry knows that RON is much higher than MOM. Our rating may be 1-2 octane lower than European, there is no way fuel economy can improve by 5% with that little increase in octane.

 

[Rand]

That article is retarded and badly written imo.

Quote:
Truett believes that increasing octane would be washed out in fuel prices over time. An example he cites comes from introduction of sulfur to diesel fuel a decade ago. The oil industry cried out that diesel prices would be skyrocketing, but lately its been costing less than regular gasoline around the country.



Oh so they put sulfur in diesel a decade ago?

From the internet... mon is 8-12 lower than RON but not directly comparable as they are different tests.
So how much higher is the octane of europe fuel? certainly not enough to do 5% fuel economy.
The US uses the AKI which is (Ron+mon)/2=aki
so
87=/=91-93 93=/=97-99? ron
Quote:

Another type of octane rating, called Motor Octane Number (MON), is determined at 900 rpm engine speed instead of the 600 rpm for RON.[1] MON testing uses a similar test engine to that used in RON testing, but with a preheated fuel mixture, higher engine speed, and variable ignition timing to further stress the fuel's knock resistance. Depending on the composition of the fuel, the MON of a modern pump gasoline will be about 8 to 12 octane lower than the RON, but there is no direct link between RON and MON. Pump gasoline specifications typically require both a minimum RON and a minimum MON.


Also one of the easiest ways to add octane is to boost ethanol percentage which lowers the energy density.

 

[hatt]

Maybe Europe doesn't add ethanol.

 

[bubbatime]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Maybe Europe doesn't add ethanol.


Perhaps this. No ethanol, higher compression, variable valve timing = 5%

 

[09_GXP]

The RON is typically 4 points higher that the octane number on the pump. Maybe a little higher for more performance style fuels such as 100 octane. So 87 octane at the pump equates to roughly a 91 RON, which is 4 points lower than the 95 in Europe.

When I run 93 octane in my truck, ~97 RON, I will see about a 12-25% increase in fuel economy when towing. I don't have enough data to say what the gain is with any further accuracy due to lack of data points. The gain I've seen when not towing is a much more modest 5-12%. The 5% increase doesn't seem out of the question if a certain level of fuel quality is guaranteed.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Yeah, that article is not well written. Who knows what that guy actually said/meant. Maybe he was suggesting that cars be ran on premium (93) instead of on regular (87). There are some cars out there today that have been designed to run on premium and will deliver better performance and fuel economy on said grade vs if you were to run them on regular. Granted, premium costs more, so there is a resistance to designing cars that run on premium as that increases TCO. Most customers will balk at that.

 

[John_Conrad]

europe probably manufactures better fuel even though they do use ethanol.

it is likely they produce more of those chemicals better suited for octane and have better access to them for their use in fuels.

 

[sciphi]

From a 5-minute Google: https://www.google.com/#q=ron+to+aki+conversion

A very rough estimate is to shave 4-6 points of octane off the RON number to get the ballpark AKI number. So, Germany's 95 octane would be the approximate equivalent of our midgrade 89 octane.

Mazda's Skyactiv 2.0l engine has a 14:1 compression ratio elsewhere in the world, but only 13:1 CR here in the US. It also gives up a little power and torque.

Mazda Skyactiv page: http://www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/skyactiv/skyactiv-g/
Mazda3 specs page (scroll down to "engine and mechanics"): https://www.mazdausa.com/vehicles/mazda3-sedan/specs

Based on my own experiences with a globalized engine retuned for US use, it gets noticeably better fuel economy and offers better performance on higher octane fuel.

I'd say the GM exec is being truthful. Our addiction to 87 octane is holding us back from more efficient vehicles.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

I'm not 100% sure of the comparison of the comparison between US and Euro gasolines, but, going from 87 to 91 on my parents' escape (2.0 EB) nets a 10% improvement easily.

 

[SZR48207]

Push passenger cars to use diesel with manual transmissions and you'll not only get better mileage but people will be safer and more proficient drivers.

What a radical notion...

 

[Jetronic]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Maybe Europe doesn't add ethanol.


E5 is the norm, to be replaced with E10

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: Reddy45
Push passenger cars to use diesel with manual transmissions and you'll not only get better mileage but people will be safer and more proficient drivers.

What a radical notion...


but ... but ... but ..... the emissions of a diesel *gasp*

 

[HTSS_TR]

I tried more than 10-15 tanks 87 octane in my cars required premium I didn't see measurable reducing MPG. When I switch back to premium I didn't record any increase in MPG either. Premium to regular results in decrease high end power, switch back to premium get back high end power.

There isn't any valid test done by a reputable entity to show that increase octane from 87 to 91 would improve MPG by more than 2-3% for both highway and city driving. Some engines does have slightly more power at higher RPM, fuel economy is a wash between lower and higher octane.

Note: California has 91 octane only, no 93 octane is available.

This is what wrong with GM executive's comment, he can't compare 2 different octane ratings.

Dan Nicholson, General Motors’ vice president of global propulsion systems, said that GM could boost fuel economy in most engines by about 5 percent if U.S. fuel had the same higher octane gasoline as what’s being used in Europe.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Originally Posted By: hatt
Maybe Europe doesn't add ethanol.


Perhaps this. No ethanol, higher compression, variable valve timing = 5%


Yes, unfortunately the automakers here have to make the avg MPG targets with E10 in mind. I wonder if the Gov't has taken that into consideration when defining mileage targets.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
I tried more than 10-15 tanks 87 octane in my cars required premium I didn't see measurable reducing MPG. When I switch back to premium I didn't record any increase in MPG either. Premium to regular results in decrease high end power, switch back to premium get back high end power.


Maybe what the GM Exec was getting at was that higher octane fuel would allow them to design higher compression gasoline engines which would be more efficient and be able to get higher MPG due to running a higher octane. That might take higher octane than what's present right now at the pumps.

 

[440Magnum]

I'm a little skeptical about his comparison of European fuel vs. US fuel. As people have stated, the EU rates fuel strictly by RON, whereas the US uses the more pessimistic (some would say 'realistic') R+M/2 method. At best, EU fuel is only slightly higher octane than US fuel... at worst its the same or lower. But I'll grant him the benefit of the doubt in that, being employed by a company that sells in both markets, he has the correct info.

I also see some people extrapolating from observed changes in gas mileage when using higher octane fuel in the same engine.... its a mistake to extrapolate from there to what the GM exec is talking about. If the US fuel supply was magically a guaranteed 5 points higher octane than it is now, well of COURSE the automakers could make big efficiency gains by designing future engines FOR THAT OCTANE LEVEL from the pan gasket up. That's a far cry from just bumping the timing up and leaning out the mixture in an existing engine... but the downside is that such a hypothetical new engine wouldn't be able to go back and survive on low-octane fuel. And raising the required octane means more refinery product that can't be used as fuel, more energy consumed producing octane-enhancing chemicals which are often net-energy-loss (ethanol), higher fuel cost, potentially more refinery waste byproduct... all in all its really hard to say whether this would result in a net "win" for overall energy efficiency or not. My guess is "not."

 

[spackard]

There's a push in this week's news cycle about this.
A couple of German engineers were on Autoline Detroit during the weekend talking
about higher octane fuel, plus variable compression engines (with higher compression
than we have in the US now), would yield 5% increase in efficiency.
http://www.autoline.tv/show/2026?play

 

[bmwpowere36m3]

Considering "regular" grade for most of Europe is 95 RON or 91 PON (in the US)... whether its worth 5% from higher comp engines is a different matter.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
This is what wrong with GM executive's comment, he can't compare 2 different octane ratings.


Of course you an, you just have to know that the scales are different...just like you can compare room temperature set points and energy use in Celsius and Fahrenheit without being a moron...only morons are those using the different scales to declare the bloke a moron.

If the locals fuels are ALL higher octane, the engines can be run at a higher (more efficient) state of tune...
If vehicles MUST be made to run on the lowest common denominator octane wise, then they WILL have lower power and efficiency...

My 4Runner with 3VZE was the most fuel sensitive car that I've owned...10% easily between Oz regular (91-93RON), and Premium (98)...with a 65 litre tank, and 15 MPG (US) on regular, clearly it was an engine designed with premium in mind that was so compromised on regular that it was worse than it should otherwise have been.

Don't discount the premise because it makes you feel like the lowest common denominator.

If Ca limit the higher octane fuels in your area, it (again) shows that your legislators are using emotion rather than fact.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
of COURSE the automakers could make big efficiency gains by designing future engines FOR THAT OCTANE LEVEL from the pan gasket up. That's a far cry from just bumping the timing up and leaning out the mixture in an existing engine... but the downside is that such a hypothetical new engine wouldn't be able to go back and survive on low-octane fuel.


I think that's the point...if you set up an engine for high octane, there will be a combination that simply won't function on plain jane regular without either damage, or having to be detuned to arthritic dog performance.

Plenty of BITOGers take pride in running their Premium recommended cars of regular, so there must be a bunch of others who do it carelessly....I know owning an L67 that there are bunches of people who throw away their performance on our regular.


Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
And raising the required octane means more refinery product that can't be used as fuel, more energy consumed producing octane-enhancing chemicals which are often net-energy-loss (ethanol), higher fuel cost, potentially more refinery waste byproduct... all in all its really hard to say whether this would result in a net "win" for overall energy efficiency or not. My guess is "not."


I'm not sure with modern refining and catalytic processes that the old "cuts" from the distillation column being "useful" or "useless", aka why diesel used to be so cheap are actual factors anymore...Shell's V-Power down here bucks the typical high octane trend of higher octane lower density trough some method of refining that give high RON AND high energy density.