Recent Topics
Mixing oil
by DerekPho - 12/15/19 03:03 AM
Grease plus Gear Oil
by PumpPusher - 12/15/19 12:59 AM
Costco/Kirkland 5qt-2pack synthetic $29.99
by wgtoys - 12/14/19 10:31 PM
Mercedes delays EV release
by JeffKeryk - 12/14/19 09:33 PM
Retired. Dreams are of work...
by rekit - 12/14/19 08:19 PM
Silly to charge a brand new battery?
by jayjr1105 - 12/14/19 08:06 PM
Help me pick a tire for our Volvo
by Ddub - 12/14/19 07:10 PM
Porter Cable 12V Batteries
by bcossa2001 - 12/14/19 06:52 PM
LG Red and Bio EP at Amazon
by demarpaint - 12/14/19 06:51 PM
2-stroke oil choices
by dnewton3 - 12/14/19 05:29 PM
Do cats like potato chips?
by atikovi - 12/14/19 03:45 PM
Buying a cheap, beater bicycle
by Oldtom - 12/14/19 03:14 PM
Metabo/Hitachi Impact driver $50
by Deere John - 12/14/19 03:03 PM
Ate up camshaft.pics
by Chris142 - 12/14/19 02:57 PM
Caprice cam swap. :)
by ls1mike - 12/14/19 02:55 PM
Electric boiler seems expensive to run
by ram_man - 12/14/19 01:42 PM
01 Crown Vic Bucking/Stumbling Uphill
by Gasbuggy - 12/14/19 01:20 PM
Where and how do you sleep?
by 53' Stude - 12/14/19 01:01 PM
Headlight Condensation
by rrretiree7 - 12/14/19 12:59 PM
Newest Members
Maik, Pluckster, DerekPho, mikinko, merrittgene
70129 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
43 registered members (atikovi, 2009Edge, AlienBug, bcossa2001, bbhero, 5 invisible), 831 guests, and 18 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics298,820
Posts5,141,916
Members70,129
Most Online3,589
Nov 2nd, 2019
Donate to BITOG
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 5 1 3 4 5
Re: Better Fuel Economy Suggestion for All Cars [Re: JohnnyJohnson] #5242821 10/17/19 09:48 PM
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 11,789
PimTac Offline
Offline
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 11,789
I remember prices down that low too. Life was good until the Saudi boycott.

There were lots of gas stations then that are not around anymore. Douglas was another one. Mobil, Phillips 66, and a few more.


2017 Mazda CX5
Havoline Pro DS 0w20
Roki OEM filter.
Re: Better Fuel Economy Suggestion for All Cars [Re: Eddie] #5242951 10/18/19 05:32 AM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,419
K
Kestas Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
K
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,419
Originally Posted by Eddie
I think the "one octane" fuel for all new vehicles would be 93 or 94......... There wouldn't be the 30% increase that we pay now for premium over 87 octane that some naysayers suggest. I believe it could be a win-win for all. Ed

The problem with me is I don't believe this. Why isn't premium cheaper now, when 40% of new cars recommend it?

Re: Better Fuel Economy Suggestion for All Cars [Re: Kestas] #5242973 10/18/19 06:01 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,687
JohnnyJohnson Offline
Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,687
Originally Posted by Kestas
The problem with me is I don't believe this. Why isn't premium cheaper now, when 40% of new cars recommend it?

One reason is you seldom see prices go down. Two you have never had higher taxes on gasoline than you do now. Its something like 70 cents a gallon here in Washington between the Federal and State taxes.


2004 Corolla 137480
Out: Havoline Pro DS 10w-30 Purolator PureOne 10-29-19 136457
In: Pennzoil Platinum HM 5W-20 ST 4386
2006 Duramax 76862
Out: T6 5W-40 XG9100 73909
In: Rotella Dino PH9100 11-3-19
Re: Better Fuel Economy Suggestion for All Cars [Re: AEHaas] #5243024 10/18/19 06:52 AM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,557
M
MNgopher Offline
Offline
M
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,557
A high horsepower direct injection turbocharged engine with a history of some fuel dilution in its past and the decision is to not follow the manufacturer recommendation on oil viscosity... and to go thinner to boot. As noted, this engine series did start with an xw20 recommendation. Yet ford reversed that. Interesting thought process...

As far as the premium fuel discussion goes, the only reason the EcoBoost engines can take advantage of higher octane fuels is specifically because they were tuned that way,and as result can use less boost with the higher octane. Even scientific testing picks up on that. (See the NHTSA report on the 3.5l EcoBoost as an example).

What that does not do is improve cost per mile metrics. The cost for premium fuels is greater than the fuel mileage gains achieved.

And while it's easy to say just make it all premium, it won't cost more, it isn't that easy. Refiners have only so much capacity to refine high octane fuel. There are limitations based on feedstocks, refinery equipment, and blending capabilities. The data I could find on short notice indicates less than 10% of fuel sold today is premium. Does anyone think that making the other 90% premium is as simple as the refiners just flipping a switch? It isn't- and the end user would need to pay that cost.

Re: Better Fuel Economy Suggestion for All Cars [Re: AEHaas] #5243029 10/18/19 06:54 AM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,557
M
MNgopher Offline
Offline
M
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,557
Saying taxes is the cause of the price spread seen between premium and regular is laughable. Same gas tax on either grade (unless there is a sales tax percentage also applied).

Re: Better Fuel Economy Suggestion for All Cars [Re: AEHaas] #5243639 10/18/19 06:21 PM
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 53
S
Saabist Offline
Offline
S
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 53
Carbon footprint is not a concern since CO2 is not a pollutant. I don't take it into account in any of my purchasing decisions. When it comes to real pollutants that produce smog, modern gasoline vehicles have been incredibly clean emissions-wise since the advent of fuel injection, 3-way catalytic converters, and computerized engine management systems - all things that have been around for over 20 years. So unless you're looking at something really ancient if everything is working properly it's going to be a clean machine.

I know that my old Saab will adjust to whatever fuel is put in it. Best performance and mileage is with Premium. You can run it on Regular with no issues other than lower performance and a bit more fuel consumption. (I have not checked to see if the difference in mileage pays for the higher cost of Premium gas - the car runs best on it so that's what I use. It's a small part of overall ownership costs.)

Re: Better Fuel Economy Suggestion for All Cars [Re: JohnnyJohnson] #5244080 10/19/19 09:44 AM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,419
K
Kestas Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
K
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,419
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
Originally Posted by Kestas
The problem with me is I don't believe this. Why isn't premium cheaper now, when 40% of new cars recommend it?

One reason is you seldom see prices go down. Two you have never had higher taxes on gasoline than you do now. Its something like 70 cents a gallon here in Washington between the Federal and State taxes.

Complete nonsense. One, prices go up and down. Two, taxes on gas are irrespective of grade.

One thing that is constant is the price disparity between regular and premium has increased over the years on a percentage basis, regardless of the actual price. Premium used to be 10% to 15% more than regular. Now premium is 25% more.

Again, my concern is the fuel cost going from point A to point B, not mpg. If 85 octane gives the cheapest per mile cost, then bring it on.

I know that most people on this site are enthusiasts, but not all of the driving public is into owning and feeding high compression machinery.

Re: Better Fuel Economy Suggestion for All Cars [Re: Saabist] #5244091 10/19/19 10:10 AM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 2,969
M
Mad_Hatter Offline
Offline
M
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 2,969
Originally Posted by Saabist
Carbon footprint is not a concern since CO2 is not a pollutant.

Not according to the EPA and the US Supreme Court, which ruled in favour of the EPA during the Bush administration in 2007 that CO2 met the scientific definition of a "pollutant" and can be regulated.

Last edited by Mad_Hatter; 10/19/19 10:11 AM.
Re: Better Fuel Economy Suggestion for All Cars [Re: Kestas] #5244104 10/19/19 10:22 AM
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 40,766
O
OVERKILL Offline
Offline
O
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 40,766
Originally Posted by Kestas
One thing that is constant is the price disparity between regular and premium has increased over the years


Yes, I can attest to the accuracy of this. In Canada, the difference, in more recent memory (I'm sure it was even closer back in the 80's) was that there was a 5-cent spread between the grades. So if you went to the pump you'd see something similar to this:

- Regular (87) - $0.799
- Plus (89) - $0.849
- Premium (91) - $0.899

If it was a Sunoco, there'd also be "Ultra 94" at $0.949 or so.

Now, there's no rhyme or reason to the spread crzy

At McEwan for example:
- Regular (87) - $1.096
- Plus (89) - $1.216
- Premium (91) - $1.276

Or, at Petro-Canada:
- Regular (87) - $1.106
- Plus (89) - $1.259
- Premium (91) - $1.393


2019 RAM 1500 Sport - Mobil 1 EP 0w-20, FRAM Ultra
2020 Grand Cherokee SRT - Ravenol SSL 0w-40, FRAM Ultra
Re: Better Fuel Economy Suggestion for All Cars [Re: AEHaas] #5245117 10/20/19 02:21 PM
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 14,214
C
CT8 Offline
Offline
C
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 14,214
Dr Haas you mentioned performance .

Re: Better Fuel Economy Suggestion for All Cars [Re: CT8] #5245246 10/20/19 05:08 PM
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 7,224
B
bbhero Online Content
Online Content
B
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 7,224
Yep...

Amazing how it is not regulated by the world champion flying around in his private jet talking about all this stuff... Which use more fuel in one cross country trip back and forth than the average American uses in a calendar year... And has a 10,000 sq ft home... That he obviously does not need that big... . And has two homes... Plus this individual has profited greatly... Selling this belief... Now that he and his buddies say methane is terrible too... This individual has a lot of money tied up to a company called Better than Meat...So... This individual can make more money on both sides of this supposedly "huge" problem... Follow the money is what they say... And it is true here too. Also... See if the individual actually lives out what they supposedly believe... If there is a huge difference between the two...


Nissan Altima 3.5 Coupe
Napa full synthetic 5w30 Wix 57356 Oil filter
"Treat your family like your friends and treat your friends like your family."
Re: Better Fuel Economy Suggestion for All Cars [Re: Saabist] #5245588 10/21/19 05:05 AM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,488
A
Amkeer Offline
Offline
A
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,488
Originally Posted by Saabist
Carbon footprint is not a concern since CO2 is not a pollutant. I don't take it into account in any of my purchasing decisions. When it comes to real pollutants that produce smog, modern gasoline vehicles have been incredibly clean emissions-wise...

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

Need to read a little more about CO2.


2014 Toyota Tacoma D Cab 4.0 M1 5-30 96000
2008 Toyota Tundra D Cab 5.7 M1 5-20 95000 miles
2003 Toyota Tacoma Ex Cab 2.7 M1 5-30 211000 miles
2014.5 Toyota Camry SE 2.5 70,000
Re: Better Fuel Economy Suggestion for All Cars [Re: Mad_Hatter] #5245636 10/21/19 06:09 AM
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,338
B
BMWTurboDzl Offline
Offline
B
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,338
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by Saabist
Carbon footprint is not a concern since CO2 is not a pollutant.

Not according to the EPA and the US Supreme Court, which ruled in favour of the EPA during the Bush administration in 2007 that CO2 met the scientific definition of a "pollutant" and can be regulated.


Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)

It was the State of Massachusetts which argued that CO2 was a pollutant. The EPA (Under the Bush Administration.) argued it was not and lost in a 5-4 decision. It wasn't until the next Administration that the EPA began to regulate CO2. IJS


“It took untold generations to get you where you are. A little gratitude might be in order. If you’re going to insist on bending the world to your way, you better have your reasons.”

435i
Re: Better Fuel Economy Suggestion for All Cars [Re: BMWTurboDzl] #5248551 10/23/19 11:18 PM
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 43
A
ad_infinitum Offline
Offline
A
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by Saabist
Carbon footprint is not a concern since CO2 is not a pollutant.

Not according to the EPA and the US Supreme Court, which ruled in favour of the EPA during the Bush administration in 2007 that CO2 met the scientific definition of a "pollutant" and can be regulated.


Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)

It was the State of Massachusetts which argued that CO2 was a pollutant. The EPA (Under the Bush Administration.) argued it was not and lost in a 5-4 decision. It wasn't until the next Administration that the EPA began to regulate CO2. IJS


Just to clarify the legal point made here, as that is what I am interested in, not whether CO2 is a pollutant- only the EPA specified that CO2 is a pollutant, not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can not make a finding of fact on such issues. The Supreme Court in this capacity is not a fact-finding court, it only has appellate jurisdiction - meaning they review the law, not the facts.

In Mass. v. EPA, the Supreme Court was reviewing the EPA authority to not make a regulation under the Clean Air Act for CO2. The Bush EPA said that they did not have authority under the statute to regulate CO2, and therefore they did not regulate. However, it was shown, through evidence introduced in the district court (which is the fact finder) that CO2 was an air pollutant. Therefore, because CO2 was a pollutant, and the EPA chose to not regulate it - without explanation - which was a violation on the Clean Air Act, the Court held that when the “EPA rejected the rulemaking petition based on impermissible considerations. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” §7607(d)(9). On remand, EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.”


Re: Better Fuel Economy Suggestion for All Cars [Re: AEHaas] #5249655 10/25/19 08:17 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,561
T
TiredTrucker Offline
Offline
T
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,561
In keeping with the title of this thread, the best suggestion is having the driver figure out how to properly drive the vehicle. In many fleet studies over the years, it is found that the driver accounts for 33% of any positive or negative affect on fuel economy. Yet, car owners are always looking for some sort of "magic pill" to give them better fuel economy when it resides within themselves.


Freedom is not about having the choice to do what you want, but the choice to do what you ought.
Page 4 of 5 1 3 4 5
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™