I'll stick to the 87-mobiles, they are quick enough for me, and cost less also.
47% of New Vehicles Require Premium Gas?
- Thread starter SubLGT
- Start date
- Status
Interestingly enough, my MKZ is 10.3:1, a C/R that would normally make me grab the mid-grade handle. Still, though, it's pretty emphatic about 87. I've run premium in it, and can't see any difference-and that includes using an OBDII dongle and graphing the engine timing over the course of a drive. It just doesn't seem to take advantage of higher octane.
My 10.75:1 LS was a different story. On regular, you could feel a significant drop in power and responsiveness. It would suffer to the tune of a couple of MPG, and it would retard the timing quite a bit to keep from knocking.
I'm running higher than stock compression in my MG-it's at about 9.5:1(my year was 8.8:1 from the factory). Bumping the C/R was the simplest and cheapest "real" performance upgrade one can imagine-when I needed a valve job, I just opted to drop on a head from a later engine that had smaller combustion chambers(late engines were 8.0:1, but got there with a smaller combustion chamber than the 8.8:1 engines and deeper dish pistons). In any case, I run 32º maximum mechanical advance and a 5º cam advance(10º crank advance) vacuum can. 87 octane needs about 28º maximum mechanical advance to keep from pinging, and running it that retarded has a serious and noticeable impact on low end power(think "bury your foot and the car takes a few seconds to react" impact). I normally run mid-grade, but should probably switch to premium since that will let me bump the maximum mechanical advance up to 35º or so and enjoy the low end torque that brings.
My 10.75:1 LS was a different story. On regular, you could feel a significant drop in power and responsiveness. It would suffer to the tune of a couple of MPG, and it would retard the timing quite a bit to keep from knocking.
I'm running higher than stock compression in my MG-it's at about 9.5:1(my year was 8.8:1 from the factory). Bumping the C/R was the simplest and cheapest "real" performance upgrade one can imagine-when I needed a valve job, I just opted to drop on a head from a later engine that had smaller combustion chambers(late engines were 8.0:1, but got there with a smaller combustion chamber than the 8.8:1 engines and deeper dish pistons). In any case, I run 32º maximum mechanical advance and a 5º cam advance(10º crank advance) vacuum can. 87 octane needs about 28º maximum mechanical advance to keep from pinging, and running it that retarded has a serious and noticeable impact on low end power(think "bury your foot and the car takes a few seconds to react" impact). I normally run mid-grade, but should probably switch to premium since that will let me bump the maximum mechanical advance up to 35º or so and enjoy the low end torque that brings.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: bunnspecial
Interestingly enough, my MKZ is 10.3:1, a C/R that would normally make me grab the mid-grade handle. Still, though, it's pretty emphatic about 87. I've run premium in it, and can't see any difference-and that includes using an OBDII dongle and graphing the engine timing over the course of a drive. It just doesn't seem to take advantage of higher octane.
My 10.75:1 LS was a different story. On regular, you could feel a significant drop in power and responsiveness. It would suffer to the tune of a couple of MPG, and it would retard the timing quite a bit to keep from knocking.
I'm running higher than stock compression in my MG-it's at about 9.5:1(my year was 8.8:1 from the factory). Bumping the C/R was the simplest and cheapest "real" performance upgrade one can imagine-when I needed a valve job, I just opted to drop on a head from a later engine that had smaller combustion chambers(late engines were 8.0:1, but got there with a smaller combustion chamber than the 8.8:1 engines and deeper dish pistons). In any case, I run 32º maximum mechanical advance and a 5º cam advance(10º crank advance) vacuum can. 87 octane needs about 28º maximum mechanical advance to keep from pinging, and running it that retarded has a serious and noticeable impact on low end power(think "bury your foot and the car takes a few seconds to react" impact). I normally run mid-grade, but should probably switch to premium since that will let me bump the maximum mechanical advance up to 35º or so and enjoy the low end torque that brings.
Good observations.
The 5.7L HEMI "recommends" 89, but says 87 is acceptable. It has a 10.5:1 compression ratio.
The 6.4L HEMI calls for 91 or higher, and it has a 10.9:1 compression ratio.
Interestingly enough, my MKZ is 10.3:1, a C/R that would normally make me grab the mid-grade handle. Still, though, it's pretty emphatic about 87. I've run premium in it, and can't see any difference-and that includes using an OBDII dongle and graphing the engine timing over the course of a drive. It just doesn't seem to take advantage of higher octane.
My 10.75:1 LS was a different story. On regular, you could feel a significant drop in power and responsiveness. It would suffer to the tune of a couple of MPG, and it would retard the timing quite a bit to keep from knocking.
I'm running higher than stock compression in my MG-it's at about 9.5:1(my year was 8.8:1 from the factory). Bumping the C/R was the simplest and cheapest "real" performance upgrade one can imagine-when I needed a valve job, I just opted to drop on a head from a later engine that had smaller combustion chambers(late engines were 8.0:1, but got there with a smaller combustion chamber than the 8.8:1 engines and deeper dish pistons). In any case, I run 32º maximum mechanical advance and a 5º cam advance(10º crank advance) vacuum can. 87 octane needs about 28º maximum mechanical advance to keep from pinging, and running it that retarded has a serious and noticeable impact on low end power(think "bury your foot and the car takes a few seconds to react" impact). I normally run mid-grade, but should probably switch to premium since that will let me bump the maximum mechanical advance up to 35º or so and enjoy the low end torque that brings.
Good observations.
The 5.7L HEMI "recommends" 89, but says 87 is acceptable. It has a 10.5:1 compression ratio.
The 6.4L HEMI calls for 91 or higher, and it has a 10.9:1 compression ratio.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Thank you for posting the 47% usage rate for premium. This should quell a lot of arguments I've read in the past, where people attribute the higher cost of premium to the trouble of carrying it for only a few users.
Yup. Not only has consumption of premium fuel gone up, but the price spread between regular and premium has increased significantly in recent years. Pure cash cow, driven by the assumption that if you require premium fuel, it must mean you own a premium car, which must mean you're rich, which must mean you can easily afford it, so shut up and pay the premium.
There is a real cost associated with producing higher octane gasoline. The naphtha reforming reaction is endothermic requiring more heat input (higher furnace firing rates) for higher octane conversion, which translates to higher reactor temperatures leading to higher catalyst deactivation rates leading to higher catalyst regeneration and replacement rates, using a noble metal catalyst, typically platinum with some other metals for stability like rhenium or even tin. H8gher octane operation also reduces the liquid yield due to density of aromatics vs. paraffins of equal carbon number, so lower total gasoline production.
With the fracking revolution coupled with directional drilling, there is a surfeit of low octane natural gasoline / condensate blending material availability now in the USA. Previously, naphtha reformers were being run hard to produce the required hydrogen for ULSD & LSG production, and renewables mandates on ethanol blending with this, significantly lowered the value of what is known as an octane barrel in the USA. That situation has changed for the foreseeable future; the value of an octane barrel is much higher now with many more purpose-built hydrogen plants having been built and availability of low octane gasoline range hydrocarbons in the blending pool.
https://adi-analytics.com/2016/06/20/understanding-octane-value-in-north-america/
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Thank you for posting the 47% usage rate for premium. This should quell a lot of arguments I've read in the past, where people attribute the higher cost of premium to the trouble of carrying it for only a few users.
Yup. Not only has consumption of premium fuel gone up, but the price spread between regular and premium has increased significantly in recent years. Pure cash cow, driven by the assumption that if you require premium fuel, it must mean you own a premium car, which must mean you're rich, which must mean you can easily afford it, so shut up and pay the premium.
There is a real cost associated with producing higher octane gasoline. The naphtha reforming reaction is endothermic requiring more heat input (higher furnace firing rates) for higher octane conversion, which translates to higher reactor temperatures leading to higher catalyst deactivation rates leading to higher catalyst regeneration and replacement rates, using a noble metal catalyst, typically platinum with some other metals for stability like rhenium or even tin. H8gher octane operation also reduces the liquid yield due to density of aromatics vs. paraffins of equal carbon number, so lower total gasoline production.
With the fracking revolution coupled with directional drilling, there is a surfeit of low octane natural gasoline / condensate blending material availability now in the USA. Previously, naphtha reformers were being run hard to produce the required hydrogen for ULSD & LSG production, and renewables mandates on ethanol blending with this, significantly lowered the value of what is known as an octane barrel in the USA. That situation has changed for the foreseeable future; the value of an octane barrel is much higher now with many more purpose-built hydrogen plants having been built and availability of low octane gasoline range hydrocarbons in the blending pool.
https://adi-analytics.com/2016/06/20/understanding-octane-value-in-north-america/
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Originally Posted By: E150GT
I use premium in my Mazda 6 now. Supposedly they were built for 87 in the US but I have noticed that I get significant ping with 87. With 93 it’s almost gone and I have to listen for it. I also use premium in my pickup as I have advanced the timing. It sucks to have to use premium fuel as I feel to am being gouged but it is what it is.
If you are getting ping in a 2016 visit your dealer and have them fix it under warranty.
It’s been twice since 22k Miles. They say nothing wrong. I’m about to be out of warranty soon too.
Originally Posted By: E150GT
I use premium in my Mazda 6 now. Supposedly they were built for 87 in the US but I have noticed that I get significant ping with 87. With 93 it’s almost gone and I have to listen for it. I also use premium in my pickup as I have advanced the timing. It sucks to have to use premium fuel as I feel to am being gouged but it is what it is.
If you are getting ping in a 2016 visit your dealer and have them fix it under warranty.
It’s been twice since 22k Miles. They say nothing wrong. I’m about to be out of warranty soon too.
Originally Posted By: skyactiv
New and upcoming engine designs is why GM and other makers wanna do away with 87 octane all together. It's time we progress.
Automakers are pushing for "regular gas" to be 95RON.
Quote:
...General Motors powertrain chief Dan Nicholson takes automakers’ case for a single, higher-octane gasoline standard to Congress on Friday (April 13, 2018) when he speaks before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee...Nicholson delivers the automakers’ plea to boost the regular-fuel octane level to 95 RON on behalf of the U.S. Council for Automotive Research, a consortium that seeks to strengthen the U.S. auto industry through cooperative research and development...
...Nicholson is among at least eight speakers addressing Congress on the issue, including representatives from the fuel industry who are working with automakers in the push for a single octane rating. In the past, oil refiners have been resistant to octane increases because of added costs....Nicholson says the estimated 3% higher cost of what essentially would be premium fuel will be directly offset by a 3% gain in fuel efficiency...
...Fellow SAE panelist David Filipe, Ford vice president-Powertrain Engineering, agrees the time has come to introduce higher-octane fuel as the U.S. standard. He says the increase in cost for higher-octane fuel is estimated at 5 cents per gallon over current 87 RON unleaded regular...
...Panelist Tomonori Niizato, senior engineer-Honda R&D, says higher octane could enable the Japanese automaker to introduce power-dense and highly efficient engines with compression ratios as high as 15:1....
http://wardsauto.com/engines/automakers-pitch-higher-octane-future
New and upcoming engine designs is why GM and other makers wanna do away with 87 octane all together. It's time we progress.
Automakers are pushing for "regular gas" to be 95RON.
Quote:
...General Motors powertrain chief Dan Nicholson takes automakers’ case for a single, higher-octane gasoline standard to Congress on Friday (April 13, 2018) when he speaks before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee...Nicholson delivers the automakers’ plea to boost the regular-fuel octane level to 95 RON on behalf of the U.S. Council for Automotive Research, a consortium that seeks to strengthen the U.S. auto industry through cooperative research and development...
...Nicholson is among at least eight speakers addressing Congress on the issue, including representatives from the fuel industry who are working with automakers in the push for a single octane rating. In the past, oil refiners have been resistant to octane increases because of added costs....Nicholson says the estimated 3% higher cost of what essentially would be premium fuel will be directly offset by a 3% gain in fuel efficiency...
...Fellow SAE panelist David Filipe, Ford vice president-Powertrain Engineering, agrees the time has come to introduce higher-octane fuel as the U.S. standard. He says the increase in cost for higher-octane fuel is estimated at 5 cents per gallon over current 87 RON unleaded regular...
...Panelist Tomonori Niizato, senior engineer-Honda R&D, says higher octane could enable the Japanese automaker to introduce power-dense and highly efficient engines with compression ratios as high as 15:1....
http://wardsauto.com/engines/automakers-pitch-higher-octane-future
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
With the fracking revolution coupled with directional drilling, there is a surfeit of low octane natural gasoline / condensate blending material availability now in the USA. Previously, naphtha reformers were being run hard to produce the required hydrogen for ULSD & LSG production, and renewables mandates on ethanol blending with this, significantly lowered the value of what is known as an octane barrel in the USA. That situation has changed for the foreseeable future; the value of an octane barrel is much higher now with many more purpose-built hydrogen plants having been built and availability of low octane gasoline range hydrocarbons in the blending pool.
https://adi-analytics.com/2016/06/20/understanding-octane-value-in-north-america/
Hmm. Learn something new everyday. High Natural Gasoline concentrations seems like it could find good use for SPCCI engines, with a presumed higher cetane # than regular gasoline. If SPCCI ever becomes a thing, a new low AKI fuel like condensate could find an opportunity to offer value to the energy system...
With the fracking revolution coupled with directional drilling, there is a surfeit of low octane natural gasoline / condensate blending material availability now in the USA. Previously, naphtha reformers were being run hard to produce the required hydrogen for ULSD & LSG production, and renewables mandates on ethanol blending with this, significantly lowered the value of what is known as an octane barrel in the USA. That situation has changed for the foreseeable future; the value of an octane barrel is much higher now with many more purpose-built hydrogen plants having been built and availability of low octane gasoline range hydrocarbons in the blending pool.
https://adi-analytics.com/2016/06/20/understanding-octane-value-in-north-america/
Hmm. Learn something new everyday. High Natural Gasoline concentrations seems like it could find good use for SPCCI engines, with a presumed higher cetane # than regular gasoline. If SPCCI ever becomes a thing, a new low AKI fuel like condensate could find an opportunity to offer value to the energy system...
As with all things this has to do with money and past mistakes.
Reagan’s ignorant grey market laws have finally put auto makers in a pickle as they are becoming more and more global.
95 Ron happens to be the euro standard fuel required by many cars there, uniting us specs to fit euro standards just makes it cheaper to share components across divisions.
In my mind
1. Automotive platform laws should be banned, these laws stop you from getting a different motor or stick shift in your favorite vehicle
2. Gray market laws should be eliminated on 1 st world countries
3. Crash tests and emission tests should be accepted as compliant from other 1st world countries
Do that and you might actually see decent cars available
Reagan’s ignorant grey market laws have finally put auto makers in a pickle as they are becoming more and more global.
95 Ron happens to be the euro standard fuel required by many cars there, uniting us specs to fit euro standards just makes it cheaper to share components across divisions.
In my mind
1. Automotive platform laws should be banned, these laws stop you from getting a different motor or stick shift in your favorite vehicle
2. Gray market laws should be eliminated on 1 st world countries
3. Crash tests and emission tests should be accepted as compliant from other 1st world countries
Do that and you might actually see decent cars available
.
My last three vehicles took premium (not the old F-150, of course), so I'm "used" to it. I guess, looking back, I've been buying mostly premium for almost 20 years.
Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
To me it is a big deal. It's one thing to have a premium vehicle require more expensive fuel and quite another to have an economy vehicle require the same.
The fuel efficiency bump will not justify the increase in cost.
Correct, IF one is solely concerned with fuel economy.
Some of us bought our cars for the performance they allow us to enjoy (yup, even if many on here so snootily consider them 'merely' "economy" cars), and I want ALL of that!!
I am even considering driving out of my way to get E85 to mix with the 93, in order to get even a little bit more power yet out of the Octane Adjust Ratio algorithm system, despite the overall fuel mileage going down using an E30 mix.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
To me it is a big deal. It's one thing to have a premium vehicle require more expensive fuel and quite another to have an economy vehicle require the same.
The fuel efficiency bump will not justify the increase in cost.
Correct, IF one is solely concerned with fuel economy.
Some of us bought our cars for the performance they allow us to enjoy (yup, even if many on here so snootily consider them 'merely' "economy" cars), and I want ALL of that!!
I am even considering driving out of my way to get E85 to mix with the 93, in order to get even a little bit more power yet out of the Octane Adjust Ratio algorithm system, despite the overall fuel mileage going down using an E30 mix.
If the automakers want to focus on building more efficient engines requiring higher octane fuel, then that's fine with me. Technological innovation often requires some expense along with its advantages.
If fuel expense gets to be a major concern, then auto buyers might decide to put a higher priority on fuel mileage. They could also keep their tires properly inflated, but that would require some actual effort, so I'm not counting on that anytime soon.
If fuel expense gets to be a major concern, then auto buyers might decide to put a higher priority on fuel mileage. They could also keep their tires properly inflated, but that would require some actual effort, so I'm not counting on that anytime soon.
Right now 93 octane is a cash cow. However, eventually, more and more cars will require 93 for better efficiency until the the retailers start dropping 87 octane due to low demand. It will get harder to find 87 until one day it will just be gone.
If innovation is the driving force for higher octane fuel, or rather the argument that we would have all this fuel sipping tech if only the minimum octane rating was higher, then why lobby for a higher minimum octane rating? We already have higher octane fuel readily available to the buying public. Build engines that only require premium fuel and let the market decide if the higher fuel cost at the pump is worth gas mileage increase.
Isn't that the major gripe with the electric vehicles, that they cannot withstand the market test on their own?
Isn't that the major gripe with the electric vehicles, that they cannot withstand the market test on their own?
Originally Posted By: Snagglefoot
Right now 93 octane is a cash cow. However, eventually, more and more cars will require 93 for better efficiency until the the retailers start dropping 87 octane due to low demand. It will get harder to find 87 until one day it will just be gone.
This was said of 89 (R+M)/2 octane unleaded gasoline a few d3cades ago. It was to be on the market a short period as cars designed to run on leaded regular gasoline dropped out of the national fleet. However most retailers continue to offer 89 octane unleaded gasoline, and some engine manufacturers make it their recommended fuel these days.
If 95 RON gasoline becomes standard, then 89 (R+M)/2 gasoline will undoubtably be phased out.
Right now 93 octane is a cash cow. However, eventually, more and more cars will require 93 for better efficiency until the the retailers start dropping 87 octane due to low demand. It will get harder to find 87 until one day it will just be gone.
This was said of 89 (R+M)/2 octane unleaded gasoline a few d3cades ago. It was to be on the market a short period as cars designed to run on leaded regular gasoline dropped out of the national fleet. However most retailers continue to offer 89 octane unleaded gasoline, and some engine manufacturers make it their recommended fuel these days.
If 95 RON gasoline becomes standard, then 89 (R+M)/2 gasoline will undoubtably be phased out.
Originally Posted By: Snagglefoot
Right now 93 octane is a cash cow. However, eventually, more and more cars will require 93 for better efficiency until the the retailers start dropping 87 octane due to low demand. It will get harder to find 87 until one day it will just be gone.
IMO, that day is a few decades away when 87 is dropped.
Right now 93 octane is a cash cow. However, eventually, more and more cars will require 93 for better efficiency until the the retailers start dropping 87 octane due to low demand. It will get harder to find 87 until one day it will just be gone.
IMO, that day is a few decades away when 87 is dropped.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018...hanol-mandate/#
Quote:
...The head of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) proposed on Friday [April 2018] that the US should consider moving away from an ethanol-blending standard and phasing in one that sets a minimum octane rating for gasoline...
...That standard could require US gasoline to have a 95-RON octane rating, said Chet Thompson, CEO of the AFPM. He made his comments before the US House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on the Environment...
...Such a rule would be more flexible since it would allow companies to meet the octane target with any blendstock, whether it comes from an oil refinery or an ethanol plant. Ethanol itself is a powerful octane booster...
...Thompson's proposal comes as US refiners struggle to meet the ethanol-blending requirement of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).
The RFS required US gasoline to have ever-increasing amounts of ethanol...
..."For most refiners, RFS compliance costs now dwarf many other expenses, threatening the long-term viability of many," Thompson said...
...Under Thompson's proposal, E15 would be among the several ways that refiners could meet an 95-RON octane standard. “A 95-RON octane performance standard, if done correctly — with a sunset of the RFS, a reasonable phase-in and robust market competition — has the potential to benefit consumers and all stakeholders, compared to the status quo," he said...
...A fuel standard based on octane instead of ethanol could satisfy rising demand for higher octane fuels in the most cost-efficient manner. “US fuel and transportation policy is at a crossroads," Thompson said. "The auto industry faces enormous challenges in meeting increasing fuel efficiency targets, the refining industry is dealing with an expensive, inefficient and unworkable Renewable Fuel Standard, and fuel marketers and the biofuel industry are faced with constant uncertainty and never-ending debates about the RFS, making for a very challenging business environment."...
Quote:
...The head of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) proposed on Friday [April 2018] that the US should consider moving away from an ethanol-blending standard and phasing in one that sets a minimum octane rating for gasoline...
...That standard could require US gasoline to have a 95-RON octane rating, said Chet Thompson, CEO of the AFPM. He made his comments before the US House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on the Environment...
...Such a rule would be more flexible since it would allow companies to meet the octane target with any blendstock, whether it comes from an oil refinery or an ethanol plant. Ethanol itself is a powerful octane booster...
...Thompson's proposal comes as US refiners struggle to meet the ethanol-blending requirement of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).
The RFS required US gasoline to have ever-increasing amounts of ethanol...
..."For most refiners, RFS compliance costs now dwarf many other expenses, threatening the long-term viability of many," Thompson said...
...Under Thompson's proposal, E15 would be among the several ways that refiners could meet an 95-RON octane standard. “A 95-RON octane performance standard, if done correctly — with a sunset of the RFS, a reasonable phase-in and robust market competition — has the potential to benefit consumers and all stakeholders, compared to the status quo," he said...
...A fuel standard based on octane instead of ethanol could satisfy rising demand for higher octane fuels in the most cost-efficient manner. “US fuel and transportation policy is at a crossroads," Thompson said. "The auto industry faces enormous challenges in meeting increasing fuel efficiency targets, the refining industry is dealing with an expensive, inefficient and unworkable Renewable Fuel Standard, and fuel marketers and the biofuel industry are faced with constant uncertainty and never-ending debates about the RFS, making for a very challenging business environment."...
Originally Posted By: skyactiv
New and upcoming engine designs is why GM and other makers wanna do away with 87 octane all together. It's time we progress.
87 octane is cat [censored] as far as im concerned. i dont even use that [censored] in my lawn mowers..
New and upcoming engine designs is why GM and other makers wanna do away with 87 octane all together. It's time we progress.
87 octane is cat [censored] as far as im concerned. i dont even use that [censored] in my lawn mowers..
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
There is a real cost associated with producing higher octane gasoline. The naphtha reforming reaction is endothermic requiring more heat input (higher furnace firing rates) for higher octane conversion, which translates to higher reactor temperatures leading to higher catalyst deactivation rates leading to higher catalyst regeneration and replacement rates, using a noble metal catalyst, typically platinum with some other metals for stability like rhenium or even tin. H8gher octane operation also reduces the liquid yield due to density of aromatics vs. paraffins of equal carbon number, so lower total gasoline production.
With the fracking revolution coupled with directional drilling, there is a surfeit of low octane natural gasoline / condensate blending material availability now in the USA. Previously, naphtha reformers were being run hard to produce the required hydrogen for ULSD & LSG production, and renewables mandates on ethanol blending with this, significantly lowered the value of what is known as an octane barrel in the USA. That situation has changed for the foreseeable future; the value of an octane barrel is much higher now with many more purpose-built hydrogen plants having been built and availability of low octane gasoline range hydrocarbons in the blending pool.
https://adi-analytics.com/2016/06/20/understanding-octane-value-in-north-america/
Sounds like there was a deliberate effort there to come up with extra supply of lower octane fuel. That's great. Why isn't there a similar deliberate effort to do the same for higher octane fuel that now seems to be in much higher demand? My guess is it's for the reasons I stated earlier.
There is a real cost associated with producing higher octane gasoline. The naphtha reforming reaction is endothermic requiring more heat input (higher furnace firing rates) for higher octane conversion, which translates to higher reactor temperatures leading to higher catalyst deactivation rates leading to higher catalyst regeneration and replacement rates, using a noble metal catalyst, typically platinum with some other metals for stability like rhenium or even tin. H8gher octane operation also reduces the liquid yield due to density of aromatics vs. paraffins of equal carbon number, so lower total gasoline production.
With the fracking revolution coupled with directional drilling, there is a surfeit of low octane natural gasoline / condensate blending material availability now in the USA. Previously, naphtha reformers were being run hard to produce the required hydrogen for ULSD & LSG production, and renewables mandates on ethanol blending with this, significantly lowered the value of what is known as an octane barrel in the USA. That situation has changed for the foreseeable future; the value of an octane barrel is much higher now with many more purpose-built hydrogen plants having been built and availability of low octane gasoline range hydrocarbons in the blending pool.
https://adi-analytics.com/2016/06/20/understanding-octane-value-in-north-america/
Sounds like there was a deliberate effort there to come up with extra supply of lower octane fuel. That's great. Why isn't there a similar deliberate effort to do the same for higher octane fuel that now seems to be in much higher demand? My guess is it's for the reasons I stated earlier.
Guesses vs facts.
There was a deliberate effort to increase domestic supply of liquid and gaseous fossil fuels, but unbelievable as it may be for some folks, the drilling rig doesn't control the composition of the organic material that's been stewing for millions of years when it comes out of the hole. This composition is one big part of the reason laws were changed to export crude oil, with documented shipments of Eagle Ford production having been exporyed to India for example, and a pipieline carrying propane from Canada to the USA reversed to carry diluent for heavy Canadian crude supplies instead.
The easiest way to increase the octane blending pool in the USA would be to allow gasoline blending with ethers such as was done in the past and is still done outdide the USA including Europe, but I don't realistically guess tgat's going to happen, hencethe current effects. Market supply & demand in an artificially constrained market by legislation including ethanol / renewable fuels requirements.
But what do I know, I only spent over 2 decades in the industry and blended 1.5 to 2 million gallons of gasoline a day when I was a blendineer, not to mention posting a supporting link. Can't compete with guessing when it comes to closely held beloved paradigms.
There was a deliberate effort to increase domestic supply of liquid and gaseous fossil fuels, but unbelievable as it may be for some folks, the drilling rig doesn't control the composition of the organic material that's been stewing for millions of years when it comes out of the hole. This composition is one big part of the reason laws were changed to export crude oil, with documented shipments of Eagle Ford production having been exporyed to India for example, and a pipieline carrying propane from Canada to the USA reversed to carry diluent for heavy Canadian crude supplies instead.
The easiest way to increase the octane blending pool in the USA would be to allow gasoline blending with ethers such as was done in the past and is still done outdide the USA including Europe, but I don't realistically guess tgat's going to happen, hencethe current effects. Market supply & demand in an artificially constrained market by legislation including ethanol / renewable fuels requirements.
But what do I know, I only spent over 2 decades in the industry and blended 1.5 to 2 million gallons of gasoline a day when I was a blendineer, not to mention posting a supporting link. Can't compete with guessing when it comes to closely held beloved paradigms.
- Status
Similar threads
