GM wants a standard high octane gas

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
11,834
Location
The Midwest
Like it or not, I think the days of 87 and 85 octane gasoline are going to be a thing of the past. Exactly when, who knows? For the gasoline engine to live on, it needs to happen.
The upcoming engines used to achieve the EPA 54.5 MPG mandate by 2025 won't allow new gasoline vehicles to run on 87 octane. There are two work arounds I thought up to keep 87 and 85 octane available:
Nozzle size and dyed gas. Dye the lower octanes and install a device in the newer vehicles that can see detect the dyed low octane fuels. Use a smaller nozzle for the new high octane gasoline. The DEF nozzle size as an example.

Skip to 5:19 and listen to what this GM VP of propulsion systems has to say.
 
I can see some vehicles REQUIRING higher octane fuel, and maybe having different nozzles, but I doubt 87 will go away anytime soon. Way too many vehicles on the road where the owners manual says to run only 87.

It is similar to the whole electric vehicles becoming mandated argument. Will they become more popular? Yes. Will they be forced to replace all current gasoline vehicles on the road? Not feasible.


I'm sure GM wants a lot of things.
 
GM could want a higher standard octane across the board so they don't need to deal with boneheads who put in 87 octane in a 12:1 compression engine with turbocharging. The gas vehicle of the future can't handle 87 octane.
That is why I'm suggesting a smaller nozzle for the upcoming vehicles.
GM and other auto makers might argue that any old engine can run just fine on a higher octane gas. A standard higher octane fuel wouldn't be priced like todays 91/93 octane gasolines.
Could even dye the new high octane fuel, but I'd rather have the lower octane grades dyed as it adds cost.
 
We force this on ourselves as much as anything else. "Need" a v6+/300 hp/
There have been some pretty impressive advances in engines, seemingly more so this decade than the last 20-30 (should we say since 1973ish/CAA?). But most of that is just not necessary other than to meet rational irrationality.
 
Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
I can see some vehicles REQUIRING higher octane fuel, and maybe having different nozzles, but I doubt 87 will go away anytime soon. Way too many vehicles on the road where the owners manual says to run only 87.

It is similar to the whole electric vehicles becoming mandated argument. Will they become more popular? Yes. Will they be forced to replace all current gasoline vehicles on the road? Not feasible.


I'm sure GM wants a lot of things.


It won't because there making to much money off of it.
 
Seems like at least a partly logical change to make.

Coming from someone that has bought less than 50 gallons of regular in the last 5+ years, I'd question if we can't just move the whole octane scale up. It's not like engines don't run cleaner and longer on better gas. Isn't that one of the goals here?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
We force this on ourselves as much as anything else. "Need" a v6+/300 hp/
There have been some pretty impressive advances in engines, seemingly more so this decade than the last 20-30 (should we say since 1973ish/CAA?). But most of that is just not necessary other than to meet rational irrationality.


Ditto. We got around just fine when it was "impressive" for a sports car to have 250HP.


Why doesn't GM just make their cars run on E85, which has an octane rating of 105?
 
I have a 2018 KIA Sorento V-6 and as I recall the compression ratio is 11.5 to 1. It runs just fine on 87 octane. Owners manual says it is OK for usage. I had a 2015 Sorento V-6 and it had the same compression ratio. Used 97 octane with no issues.

Am sure that there are other engines that have around the same compression ratio too that use 87 octane just fine.
 
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
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
We force this on ourselves as much as anything else. "Need" a v6+/300 hp/
There have been some pretty impressive advances in engines, seemingly more so this decade than the last 20-30 (should we say since 1973ish/CAA?). But most of that is just not necessary other than to meet rational irrationality.


Ditto. We got around just fine when it was "impressive" for a sports car to have 250HP.


Why doesn't GM just make their cars run on E85, which has an octane rating of 105?


They would probably have to pay to have stations in the Northeast US start carrying E85 so they could sell those cars here, at the very least...basically nonexistent up here.
 
No dye is needed. Cars can already calculate the octane of the gas in their tanks. You can read the calculated octane rating with a scan tool on some vehicles.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
We force this on ourselves as much as anything else. "Need" a v6+/300 hp/
There have been some pretty impressive advances in engines, seemingly more so this decade than the last 20-30 (should we say since 1973ish/CAA?). But most of that is just not necessary other than to meet rational irrationality.


I think having an east coast view of the world and forcing me to meet their conclusions of what is rational or not would be a delightful way to live. I mean lets take that to other levels too, what else do you deem rational for me? Please enlighten us with your worldly views.
 
One good alternative is to have a 2nd smaller tank that holds methanol or ethanol to inject only during periods of high torque loading when knocking might occur. From "If an appropriate amount of
ethanol from a second tank is directly injected into the cylinder of a spark-ignition
gasoline engine at high load, the resulting prevention of knock allows for both increased
compression ratio and increased turbocharging [Cohn]."
---- https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/MIT-LFEE-08-001-RP.pdf
 
Originally Posted By: c502cid
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
We force this on ourselves as much as anything else. "Need" a v6+/300 hp/
There have been some pretty impressive advances in engines, seemingly more so this decade than the last 20-30 (should we say since 1973ish/CAA?). But most of that is just not necessary other than to meet rational irrationality.


I think having an east coast view of the world and forcing me to meet their conclusions of what is rational or not would be a delightful way to live. I mean lets take that to other levels too, what else do you deem rational for me? Please enlighten us with your worldly views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_irrationality

I find it annoying that I can't buy what I "need" in most vehicle classes in N.A., but what I need is available in almost every other country around the world...
 
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
One good alternative is to have a 2nd smaller tank that holds methanol or ethanol to inject only during periods of high torque loading when knocking might occur.


You mean like Oldsmobile did back in 1962?
wink.gif


http://www.speedhunters.com/2015/06/oldsmobile-jetfire-turbo/

Virtually all the issues it had could be overcome with modern engine management systems. Heck, you can even buy electronically controlled aftermarket water/methanol injection kits for hot rod projects from several vendors these days:

http://www.snowperformance.net/Gas-water-methanol-injection-kits-s/100.htm
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: c502cid
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
We force this on ourselves as much as anything else. "Need" a v6+/300 hp/
There have been some pretty impressive advances in engines, seemingly more so this decade than the last 20-30 (should we say since 1973ish/CAA?). But most of that is just not necessary other than to meet rational irrationality.


I think having an east coast view of the world and forcing me to meet their conclusions of what is rational or not would be a delightful way to live. I mean lets take that to other levels too, what else do you deem rational for me? Please enlighten us with your worldly views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_irrationality

I find it annoying that I can't buy what I "need" in most vehicle classes in N.A., but what I need is available in almost every other country around the world...





Nissan still selling the Versa base model with power nothing and manual trans makes me a very happy person!

I had even looked at those. The cavernous interior fits my bill a lot!
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
One good alternative is to have a 2nd smaller tank that holds methanol or ethanol to inject only during periods of high torque loading when knocking might occur.
You mean like Oldsmobile did back in 1962?
wink.gif
http://www.speedhunters.com/2015/06/oldsmobile-jetfire-turbo/
Well played.
finished-bw-Stewie-Toy-Gun-color.png
I didn't know you could buy one back in the '60s. Actually I think you might need even less alcohol injection these days with the new engines, since DI would be there to increase charge cooling further.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top