Interesting. If that's the case then when a vehicle is put in storage for a season or two it makes sense to fill the tank with higher octane and some fuel stabilizer. If 87 (minimum) is recommended then perhaps a tank of 91 for the winter.
GM wants a standard high octane gas
- Thread starter skyactiv
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: i_hate_autofraud
There comes a point to get higher MPGs and cleaner running engines, higher compression
across the board is needed! Thus hi octane gas! There's only so far we can go with lower comp engines
and low octane gas we all love!
In the 80's a noticed my commute into the big city that a blanket of brown smog hung over the
city visible from 30 miles away going up 1,000 ft to 1,500, above that cleaner air!
Last week, just happened to do the same drive, the old time smog blanket was gone! nice!
Looks like emission controls work for real now! LOL
That's probably from converting oil fired heating systems to gas.
There comes a point to get higher MPGs and cleaner running engines, higher compression
across the board is needed! Thus hi octane gas! There's only so far we can go with lower comp engines
and low octane gas we all love!
In the 80's a noticed my commute into the big city that a blanket of brown smog hung over the
city visible from 30 miles away going up 1,000 ft to 1,500, above that cleaner air!
Last week, just happened to do the same drive, the old time smog blanket was gone! nice!
Looks like emission controls work for real now! LOL
That's probably from converting oil fired heating systems to gas.
Unless there's a new trick in play I'm not aware of, knock sensors can retard the timing on a high compression engine to the point that the engine can run without damage from pre-ignition on 85 or 87. There IS a loss in efficiency though.
Just curious but why complicate things. Just make a 95 octane fuel and make that the only fuel available.
Get rid of the lower octanes. I have not seen where any vehicle that requires lower octane to run bad on a higher octane fuel.
Only issue I see is the big oil companies will not make as much money, or cold then if only one fuel was available and a high price was charged for said fuel. It sure would make things simpler at the pump. I see it now all the time, individuals don't have a clue what to put in their vehicle. They just know how to buy a vehicle, turn the key and go.
One person at the gas station had a flex fuel vehicle. I asked if they ever tried it. They asked what was it. I said it was the fuel with the yellow handle. It matches your fuel cap, they didn't have a clue. Even making things that simple are wasted on those that just don't care to understand.
Get rid of the lower octanes. I have not seen where any vehicle that requires lower octane to run bad on a higher octane fuel.
Only issue I see is the big oil companies will not make as much money, or cold then if only one fuel was available and a high price was charged for said fuel. It sure would make things simpler at the pump. I see it now all the time, individuals don't have a clue what to put in their vehicle. They just know how to buy a vehicle, turn the key and go.
One person at the gas station had a flex fuel vehicle. I asked if they ever tried it. They asked what was it. I said it was the fuel with the yellow handle. It matches your fuel cap, they didn't have a clue. Even making things that simple are wasted on those that just don't care to understand.
Is that a BMW photobombing the GM guy? lol
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Unless there's a new trick in play I'm not aware of, knock sensors can retard the timing on a high compression engine to the point that the engine can run without damage from pre-ignition on 85 or 87. There IS a loss in efficiency though.
We don't know what the Skunkworks at GM, VW, Toyota, Hyundai have have up their sleeve. They might have a 13.5:1 turbocharged engine that runs great on 93 octane, but cracks the ring lands regardless of knock sensors.. when cheapskate Bob tries running 87 octane. This might be why GM is calling for a standard higher octane gasoline.
Unless there's a new trick in play I'm not aware of, knock sensors can retard the timing on a high compression engine to the point that the engine can run without damage from pre-ignition on 85 or 87. There IS a loss in efficiency though.
We don't know what the Skunkworks at GM, VW, Toyota, Hyundai have have up their sleeve. They might have a 13.5:1 turbocharged engine that runs great on 93 octane, but cracks the ring lands regardless of knock sensors.. when cheapskate Bob tries running 87 octane. This might be why GM is calling for a standard higher octane gasoline.
There was a time when what GM wanted actually matted.
That was a time when the B2707 program was receiving the best and the brightest engineers Boeing had available and Americans were strolling around on the Moon.
GM today is just another company in the car biz that without the US and Chinese markets in which it has beceme a minority player would cease to exist.
GM needs to up its powertrain development game.
That was a time when the B2707 program was receiving the best and the brightest engineers Boeing had available and Americans were strolling around on the Moon.
GM today is just another company in the car biz that without the US and Chinese markets in which it has beceme a minority player would cease to exist.
GM needs to up its powertrain development game.
Originally Posted By: shanneba
Originally Posted By: fenixguy
Originally Posted By: Alex_V
It's not like engines don't run cleaner and longer on better gas.
Explain how mid-grade or premium is "better" than 87. Better at what in a vehicle that doesn't require it? Seriously asking.
87 octane fuels tend to be less refined and contain more unstable hydrocarbons. As the months pass during storage these unstable components react to form gums, varnishes and lower octane hydrocarbons. As a result the octane can decrease within months for 87 octane fuels, especially when stored under less than ideal conditions. 93 octane fuels are more refined and contain more stable hydrocarbons. These stable hydrocarbons can last 2-3 times longer than 87 octane fuel. Even in proper storage 87 octane gas can start to degrade in 3 months, 93 octane fuel should last closer to 9 months before degradation is noticeable. Keep in mind that 93 octane fuels are still susceptible to octane loss and vapor pressure decreases due to butane evaporation.
Source???
Originally Posted By: fenixguy
Originally Posted By: Alex_V
It's not like engines don't run cleaner and longer on better gas.
Explain how mid-grade or premium is "better" than 87. Better at what in a vehicle that doesn't require it? Seriously asking.
87 octane fuels tend to be less refined and contain more unstable hydrocarbons. As the months pass during storage these unstable components react to form gums, varnishes and lower octane hydrocarbons. As a result the octane can decrease within months for 87 octane fuels, especially when stored under less than ideal conditions. 93 octane fuels are more refined and contain more stable hydrocarbons. These stable hydrocarbons can last 2-3 times longer than 87 octane fuel. Even in proper storage 87 octane gas can start to degrade in 3 months, 93 octane fuel should last closer to 9 months before degradation is noticeable. Keep in mind that 93 octane fuels are still susceptible to octane loss and vapor pressure decreases due to butane evaporation.
Source???
Originally Posted By: blupupher
Originally Posted By: shanneba
Originally Posted By: fenixguy
Originally Posted By: Alex_V
It's not like engines don't run cleaner and longer on better gas.
Explain how mid-grade or premium is "better" than 87. Better at what in a vehicle that doesn't require it? Seriously asking.
87 octane fuels tend to be less refined and contain more unstable hydrocarbons. As the months pass during storage these unstable components react to form gums, varnishes and lower octane hydrocarbons. As a result the octane can decrease within months for 87 octane fuels, especially when stored under less than ideal conditions. 93 octane fuels are more refined and contain more stable hydrocarbons. These stable hydrocarbons can last 2-3 times longer than 87 octane fuel. Even in proper storage 87 octane gas can start to degrade in 3 months, 93 octane fuel should last closer to 9 months before degradation is noticeable. Keep in mind that 93 octane fuels are still susceptible to octane loss and vapor pressure decreases due to butane evaporation.
Source???
Sunoco- Highlight some of the text and use a search engine
On Yahoo searching for the first sentence the "source" is the top result of the search
http://www.sunocoracefuels.com/tech-article/octane-stability-high-octane-vs-low-octane-fuels
Originally Posted By: shanneba
Originally Posted By: fenixguy
Originally Posted By: Alex_V
It's not like engines don't run cleaner and longer on better gas.
Explain how mid-grade or premium is "better" than 87. Better at what in a vehicle that doesn't require it? Seriously asking.
87 octane fuels tend to be less refined and contain more unstable hydrocarbons. As the months pass during storage these unstable components react to form gums, varnishes and lower octane hydrocarbons. As a result the octane can decrease within months for 87 octane fuels, especially when stored under less than ideal conditions. 93 octane fuels are more refined and contain more stable hydrocarbons. These stable hydrocarbons can last 2-3 times longer than 87 octane fuel. Even in proper storage 87 octane gas can start to degrade in 3 months, 93 octane fuel should last closer to 9 months before degradation is noticeable. Keep in mind that 93 octane fuels are still susceptible to octane loss and vapor pressure decreases due to butane evaporation.
Source???
Sunoco- Highlight some of the text and use a search engine
On Yahoo searching for the first sentence the "source" is the top result of the search
http://www.sunocoracefuels.com/tech-article/octane-stability-high-octane-vs-low-octane-fuels
Originally Posted By: shanneba
Even in proper storage 87 octane gas can start to degrade in 3 months
Thanks for that. I only buy 91 or 93 (whatever is available) non-ethanol gas for the OPE. None of my cars have gas in the tank for more than a month at a time so I guess 87 is still the most logical choice for them (and my wallet) since they don't require higher octane.
I would think it would be better for the gas supply chain only having to carry one type of gasoline. And refineries only having to manufacture one type. In the long run, I could see there being substantial savings.
Even in proper storage 87 octane gas can start to degrade in 3 months
Thanks for that. I only buy 91 or 93 (whatever is available) non-ethanol gas for the OPE. None of my cars have gas in the tank for more than a month at a time so I guess 87 is still the most logical choice for them (and my wallet) since they don't require higher octane.
I would think it would be better for the gas supply chain only having to carry one type of gasoline. And refineries only having to manufacture one type. In the long run, I could see there being substantial savings.
I'd be OKAY if everything was 91 ethanol free.
Sure, most of what I have can't take advantage of higher octane gas (apart from some of the local ethanol free 81) , but it isn't harmful.
Sure, most of what I have can't take advantage of higher octane gas (apart from some of the local ethanol free 81) , but it isn't harmful.
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Unless there's a new trick in play I'm not aware of, knock sensors can retard the timing on a high compression engine to the point that the engine can run without damage from pre-ignition on 85 or 87. There IS a loss in efficiency though.
I think the loss is in power not efficiency (as in mpg).
Unless there's a new trick in play I'm not aware of, knock sensors can retard the timing on a high compression engine to the point that the engine can run without damage from pre-ignition on 85 or 87. There IS a loss in efficiency though.
I think the loss is in power not efficiency (as in mpg).
The majority of people will run the least expensive gas they can find, regardless of the octane requirement of their engine. They don't have a clue what octane is, and more so, could care less.
Originally Posted By: fenixguy
Originally Posted By: shanneba
Even in proper storage 87 octane gas can start to degrade in 3 months
Thanks for that. I only buy 91 or 93 (whatever is available) non-ethanol gas for the OPE. None of my cars have gas in the tank for more than a month at a time so I guess 87 is still the most logical choice for them (and my wallet) since they don't require higher octane.
I would think it would be better for the gas supply chain only having to carry one type of gasoline. And refineries only having to manufacture one type. In the long run, I could see there being substantial savings.
That's not really possible though. The whole refining process makes a whole lot of different products and the blending process turns those components into salable products. If the mandate was no ethanol, the average octane rating would go down because ethanol is possibly the best practical (given MTBE isn't really used any more) octane booster available outside of lead.
The only reason why it's possible to sell 93 octane ethanol-free unleaded is because other components of the refining process can be blended (sometimes with ethanol) to make 87 octane unleaded. It's a math exercise getting all these components into stuff that is in demand and can be sold. If there was a single product out there, it might be 89 octane. Even then there are supposed to be variations in the crude oil that mean the output is different. Not all refineries are using light, sweet crude.
Originally Posted By: shanneba
Even in proper storage 87 octane gas can start to degrade in 3 months
Thanks for that. I only buy 91 or 93 (whatever is available) non-ethanol gas for the OPE. None of my cars have gas in the tank for more than a month at a time so I guess 87 is still the most logical choice for them (and my wallet) since they don't require higher octane.
I would think it would be better for the gas supply chain only having to carry one type of gasoline. And refineries only having to manufacture one type. In the long run, I could see there being substantial savings.
That's not really possible though. The whole refining process makes a whole lot of different products and the blending process turns those components into salable products. If the mandate was no ethanol, the average octane rating would go down because ethanol is possibly the best practical (given MTBE isn't really used any more) octane booster available outside of lead.
The only reason why it's possible to sell 93 octane ethanol-free unleaded is because other components of the refining process can be blended (sometimes with ethanol) to make 87 octane unleaded. It's a math exercise getting all these components into stuff that is in demand and can be sold. If there was a single product out there, it might be 89 octane. Even then there are supposed to be variations in the crude oil that mean the output is different. Not all refineries are using light, sweet crude.
87 octane isn't going anywhere, any more than non-TT gas has gone by the wayside due to more and more manufacturers requiring TT gasoline. If people will buy it, people will sell it.
I've seen countless people pumping 87 discount gas into luxury and/or high performance vehicles, which I know spec high-test TT fuel.
People on here care about oil and gas variants. But, most folks wait for the gas light or change oil light to come on, then fill it up with discount gas and bulk oil from the service station. Continuing on about their day without a second thought to it.
I've seen countless people pumping 87 discount gas into luxury and/or high performance vehicles, which I know spec high-test TT fuel.
People on here care about oil and gas variants. But, most folks wait for the gas light or change oil light to come on, then fill it up with discount gas and bulk oil from the service station. Continuing on about their day without a second thought to it.
Originally Posted By: ATex7239
I've seen countless people pumping 87 discount gas into luxury and/or high performance vehicles, which I know spec high-test TT fuel.
Exactly. I know of one in particular, myself, who has a luxury car calling for a 91 octane minimum. He insists on the cheapest independent gas he can get, claiming there is absolutely no difference between grades on the pump except for the price. Yet, he buys a brand new Lincoln, which is clearly identical to a Ford, except for the price.
I've seen countless people pumping 87 discount gas into luxury and/or high performance vehicles, which I know spec high-test TT fuel.
Exactly. I know of one in particular, myself, who has a luxury car calling for a 91 octane minimum. He insists on the cheapest independent gas he can get, claiming there is absolutely no difference between grades on the pump except for the price. Yet, he buys a brand new Lincoln, which is clearly identical to a Ford, except for the price.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: ATex7239
I've seen countless people pumping 87 discount gas into luxury and/or high performance vehicles, which I know spec high-test TT fuel.
Exactly. I know of one in particular, myself, who has a luxury car calling for a 91 octane minimum. He insists on the cheapest independent gas he can get, claiming there is absolutely no difference between grades on the pump except for the price. Yet, he buys a brand new Lincoln, which is clearly identical to a Ford, except for the price.
Has a $50k car and gets sideways on $.50 a gallon on gas... I suppose that is one way to do it
Originally Posted By: ATex7239
I've seen countless people pumping 87 discount gas into luxury and/or high performance vehicles, which I know spec high-test TT fuel.
Exactly. I know of one in particular, myself, who has a luxury car calling for a 91 octane minimum. He insists on the cheapest independent gas he can get, claiming there is absolutely no difference between grades on the pump except for the price. Yet, he buys a brand new Lincoln, which is clearly identical to a Ford, except for the price.
Has a $50k car and gets sideways on $.50 a gallon on gas... I suppose that is one way to do it
Yes, it's pretty silly. As for GM, if they want to spec premium, just do it.
Originally Posted By: ATex7239
87 octane isn't going anywhere, any more than non-TT gas has gone by the wayside due to more and more manufacturers requiring TT gasoline. If people will buy it, people will sell it.
I've seen countless people pumping 87 discount gas into luxury and/or high performance vehicles, which I know spec high-test TT fuel.
People on here care about oil and gas variants. But, most folks wait for the gas light or change oil light to come on, then fill it up with discount gas and bulk oil from the service station. Continuing on about their day without a second thought to it.
Modern engine management means nothing bad will really happen. Maybe they don't have much of a butt dyno, but in the end it's not that big a deal especially for someone who doesn't drive a car hard.
In some cases it doesn't make financial sense given price differences between 87 and 91. Obviously it allows for better fuel economy relative to the volume of fuel. I just filled up at a local Costco where premium was $2.999 and regular was $2.799/gallon. If the premium results in 10% better fuel economy, then it actually makes sense to use it solely for fuel economy. However, most people don't have enough information to know if it really does.
87 octane isn't going anywhere, any more than non-TT gas has gone by the wayside due to more and more manufacturers requiring TT gasoline. If people will buy it, people will sell it.
I've seen countless people pumping 87 discount gas into luxury and/or high performance vehicles, which I know spec high-test TT fuel.
People on here care about oil and gas variants. But, most folks wait for the gas light or change oil light to come on, then fill it up with discount gas and bulk oil from the service station. Continuing on about their day without a second thought to it.
Modern engine management means nothing bad will really happen. Maybe they don't have much of a butt dyno, but in the end it's not that big a deal especially for someone who doesn't drive a car hard.
In some cases it doesn't make financial sense given price differences between 87 and 91. Obviously it allows for better fuel economy relative to the volume of fuel. I just filled up at a local Costco where premium was $2.999 and regular was $2.799/gallon. If the premium results in 10% better fuel economy, then it actually makes sense to use it solely for fuel economy. However, most people don't have enough information to know if it really does.
- Status
Similar threads
