Auto industry lobbies for a 91 octane standard

[skyactiv]

That would be 91 octane here in the U.S.. It's going to happen.
Understand that 95 octane in Europe is 91 octane here due to rating methodology.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20180417...-as-new-regular

 

[JeepWJ19]

Quote:
...said making 95 octane the new regular aligns the U.S. with Europe and is one of the most affordable ways to boost fuel economy and lower greenhouse gas emissions.


I'm all for lowering green house gas emissions but I'm failing to see how this is going to "boost" fuel economy in my '02 Jeep and my '16 2.5 Ford Fusion.

 

[Audios]

Originally Posted By: JeepWJ19
Quote:
...said making 95 octane the new regular aligns the U.S. with Europe and is one of the most affordable ways to boost fuel economy and lower greenhouse gas emissions.


I'm all for lowering green house gas emissions but I'm failing to see how this is going to "boost" fuel economy in my '02 Jeep and my '16 2.5 Ford Fusion.


Right especially when using higher octane than needed is a typically a waste of money. Maybe the boost comes from people using the correct fuel in their cars and not putting regular where premium should be

 

[SandCastle]

Originally Posted By: JeepWJ19
Quote:
...said making 95 octane the new regular aligns the U.S. with Europe and is one of the most affordable ways to boost fuel economy and lower greenhouse gas emissions.


I'm all for lowering green house gas emissions but I'm failing to see how this is going to "boost" fuel economy in my '02 Jeep and my '16 2.5 Ford Fusion.


It won't. But it might enable existing engines to achieve peak advertised power since some of them derate a bit on 87.

According to the proposal, existing grades would be available for a while after the 91 is introduced. So the cost increase woundn't be passed on to older cars right away.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: JeepWJ19
Quote:
...said making 95 octane the new regular aligns the U.S. with Europe and is one of the most affordable ways to boost fuel economy and lower greenhouse gas emissions.


I'm all for lowering green house gas emissions but I'm failing to see how this is going to "boost" fuel economy in my '02 Jeep and my '16 2.5 Ford Fusion.
I'm pretty sure this is mainly aimed at future cars.

 

[kschachn]

The higher the compression ratio the higher the efficiency, right? And high compression ratios benefit from higher octane. I don’t see a conspiracy here.

 

[d00df00d]

The idea here is not that all cars would work better on 91 octane. The idea is that if you raise the minimum octane, engineers can do more to design future engines for better fuel economy. Right now they're limited by the fact that so many people just throw regular gas in there regardless of what the vehicle calls for. They have to design their engines to tolerate lower octane fuel. If they didn't have to worry about that, they could use higher compression ratios, more boost, and tunes that spend less time with rich air-fuel mixtures. That means they can reduce displacement even further for better fuel economy.

Ironically, the best technology for improving ICE efficiency right now -- Mazda's SCCI -- runs better with LOWER octane fuel than we can get right now. Guess the industry would rather just continue downsizing, downspeeding, and boosting like crazy. Who needs broad efficiency bands and good throttle response when you can just optimize like crazy for a tiny range of conditions that almost no one will ever drive in, right?

 

[FCD]

The 95 RON which is the lowest octane gas in most European countries is equivalent to the 91 AKI used in the US so...

 

[Mr Nice]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
The higher the compression ratio the higher the efficiency, right? And high compression ratios benefit from higher octane. I don’t see a conspiracy here.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

 

[fdcg27]

91 octane is already available and manufacturers are free to spec it for any car, as some already do.
No need for regulation or legislation hence no need for lobbying.
The game is that if we can get the government to make this the minimum available octane fuel, then consumers can't blame the makers for their having to use a higher cost fuel, since that's all that'll be available.

 

[SZR48207]

If they really want to improve efficiency then make diesel the standard. The way most Americans drive (stop and go short trips or long commutes) makes diesel the ideal mover.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Originally Posted By: kschachn
The higher the compression ratio the higher the efficiency, right? And high compression ratios benefit from higher octane. I don’t see a conspiracy here.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

Yep. I am running Shell’s 92 in the Mazda and I noticed a distinct difference between it and the dealer gas which I must believe was 87. This high compresssion engine runs much better on the 92.

 

[Kestas]

The conspiracy is the auto manufacturers are trying to meet future CAFE standards. Higher octane allows for building engines that have better fuel efficiency. Except that higher octane is more expensive, as we have seen recently, in many cases it is 25% more expensive than regular. This will result in a higher cost to the average driver for going from point A to point B.

When CAFE was originally created, it was to help the average driver not have to pay through the nose for gasoline. Now it has taken on a life of its own and has created weird aberrations like this mandated octane.

 

[JeepWJ19]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: JeepWJ19
Quote:
...said making 95 octane the new regular aligns the U.S. with Europe and is one of the most affordable ways to boost fuel economy and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

I'm all for lowering green house gas emissions but I'm failing to see how this is going to "boost" fuel economy in my '02 Jeep and my '16 2.5 Ford Fusion.
I'm pretty sure this is mainly aimed at future cars.

Yeah I realize that, just noting those who are gonna get shafted

 

[d00df00d]

We're all gonna get shafted.

We're all gonna benefit, too.

Higher fuel prices on the one hand, more mpg and cleaner air/water/soil on the other hand. Technology marches on...

Also, between economies of scale and reduced global demand for fuel, I'm not sure the price increases are going to be as big as we might think.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: JeepWJ19
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: JeepWJ19
Quote:
...said making 95 octane the new regular aligns the U.S. with Europe and is one of the most affordable ways to boost fuel economy and lower greenhouse gas emissions.


I'm all for lowering green house gas emissions but I'm failing to see how this is going to "boost" fuel economy in my '02 Jeep and my '16 2.5 Ford Fusion.
I'm pretty sure this is mainly aimed at future cars.


Yeah I realize that, just noting those who are gonna get shafted
Blame the government. It's not car makers that made insane rules. We probably could use an upgrade from 87 to be honest.

 

[Imp4]

Originally Posted By: Kestas
The conspiracy is the auto manufacturers are trying to meet future CAFE standards. Higher octane allows for building engines that have better fuel efficiency.

So isn't a conspiracy a secret plan to do something unlawful or harmful? (Thanks Webster's!)

It doesn't seem like they're doing a very good job of keeping this secret.

I guess the effort to improve engine design and efficiency through the use of 91 octane minimum may result in an impact on your wallet but you can't sit here and claim how it would impact (up or down) with any greater certainty than anyone else.

For example, remember how smaller engines were going to result in higher efficiency but lower HP? Oops, we all got it wrong and HP has increased with the newer engine designs.

The truth is we really don't know the result of mandated 91 octane on any of us outside of the fact that it will enable engine design and efficiency to continue to improve.

Looking forward to your response!

 

[billt460]

I'm already running 91 in all of my vehicles. So it doesn't matter to me either way.

 

[Rhymingmechanic]

This got me wondering what the octane grades were around 1970. A lot of cars back then were running 10:1 compression or more with iron block/head engines. When compression ratios dropped in the early '70s, did octane numbers go down with them?

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted By: Rhymingmechanic
This got me wondering what the octane grades were around 1970. A lot of cars back then were running 10:1 compression or more with iron block/head engines. When compression ratios dropped in the early '70s, did octane numbers go down with them?
Yes, but that's backward order. Compression ratios dropped because octane ratings came down when the lead came out, not vice versa. Then many inattentive people were confused by the switch from listing RON numbers to AKI numbers, which are lower than RON by roughly 4 points.