95 RON standardized as new high octane?

[ClassicRob]

A car buddy and I were talking last night about the future of gasoline and that prompted me to visit the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers website and I saw something I’ve never seen before, a pitch to effectively raise the octane rating on our fuel so vehicles could raise compression and gain a 3% efficiency bump. This new fuel would be the standard and eliminate 87, 89, 91 and 93. The pitch goes on to say that if done, emissions cuts would be the equivalent of putting 750,000 Electric cars on the road.

I personally don’t mind this idea but I don’t know all there is. Anyone know anything more about this not expressed in this article?

https://www.afpm.org/sites/default/file ... timony.pdf

[BOOT]

Their reasoning is flawed, it assumes that the greenies based their findings/efforts on facts/logic/science.

1) Their is A LOT of MONEY to be made in the great green change over, mostly off the government as it's been proven most green efforts are hardly GREEN. Many change-overs of all types have been based on profit and usually results in a more complex less efficient system BUT some make A LOT of money!

2) Control: We saw the first example of this with a hurricane when they extended the mileage by letting the batteries go lower(kinda like how cell phones really shut off at 10-15% batt life so certain functions still work). I believe this was done REMOTELY as all e-vehicles are wireless. Several years ago a college student hacked the computer of a non-electric car and drove it via the wireless throttle and steered with the brakes. I wonder how many have had their cars suddenly steer them into an overpass or off a cliff since. Opens the possibility of haxer serial killers(side note why does even hospital stuff have to be wireless) or wireless hits.

Anyways aside from the horrific examples, lets say your driving along and your car stops responding, next stop police HQ, the dealership since you missed your payment or a group of thugs ready to rob you. Maybe you said the wrong thing on social media and now your travel is limited. Then there is the well know inadequate infrastructure, again $$$ off Gov and a reason to limit/control your use/travel.

The possibilities are limited by only the imagination as they say.

There is NO stopping electric vehicles! People will gladly give it all up for convenience, just click the wavier of your rights box. Those in power dream of the money to be made and control to be had.

[Walter R. Malik]

Their reasoning is flawed, it assumes that the greenies based their findings/efforts on facts/logic/science.

1) Their is A LOT of MONEY to be made in the great green change over, mostly off the government as it's been proven most green efforts are hardly GREEN. Many change-overs of all types have been based on profit and usually results in a more complex less efficient system BUT some make A LOT of money!

2) Control: We saw the first example of this with a hurricane when they extended the mileage by letting the batteries go lower(kinda like how cell phones really shut off at 10-15% batt life so certain functions still work). I believe this was done REMOTELY as all e-vehicles are wireless. Several years ago a college student hacked the computer of a non-electric car and drove it via the wireless throttle and steered with the brakes. I wonder how many have had their cars suddenly steer them into an overpass or off a cliff since. Opens the possibility of haxer serial killers(side note why does even hospital stuff have to be wireless) or wireless hits.

Anyways aside from the horrific examples, lets say your driving along and your car stops responding, next stop police HQ, the dealership since you missed your payment or a group of thugs ready to rob you. Maybe you said the wrong thing on social media and now your travel is limited. Then there is the well know inadequate infrastructure, again $$$ off Gov and a reason to limit/control your use/travel.

The possibilities are limited by only the imagination as they say.

There is NO stopping electric vehicles! People will gladly give it all up for convenience, just click the wavier of your rights box. Those in power dream of the money to be made and control to be had.

The big oil industry has a giant footprint upon society, no matter what people may want....

[BOOT]

The big oil industry has a giant footprint upon society, no matter what people may want....

We saw how well that worked out for them this last election, the bigger they are...

[F-BIRD'88]

Likely it involves (further) increasing the Ethanol content of pump gas.. The Ethanol (CORN) lobby is very strong.

Its not very net "green" . nor energy efficient overall.

[ClassicRob]

Their reasoning is flawed, it assumes that the greenies based their findings/efforts on facts/logic/science.

1) Their is A LOT of MONEY to be made in the great green change over, mostly off the government as it's been proven most green efforts are hardly GREEN. Many change-overs of all types have been based on profit and usually results in a more complex less efficient system BUT some make A LOT of money!

2) Control: We saw the first example of this with a hurricane when they extended the mileage by letting the batteries go lower(kinda like how cell phones really shut off at 10-15% batt life so certain functions still work). I believe this was done REMOTELY as all e-vehicles are wireless. Several years ago a college student hacked the computer of a non-electric car and drove it via the wireless throttle and steered with the brakes. I wonder how many have had their cars suddenly steer them into an overpass or off a cliff since. Opens the possibility of haxer serial killers(side note why does even hospital stuff have to be wireless) or wireless hits.

Anyways aside from the horrific examples, lets say your driving along and your car stops responding, next stop police HQ, the dealership since you missed your payment or a group of thugs ready to rob you. Maybe you said the wrong thing on social media and now your travel is limited. Then there is the well know inadequate infrastructure, again $$$ off Gov and a reason to limit/control your use/travel.

The possibilities are limited by only the imagination as they say.

There is NO stopping electric vehicles! People will gladly give it all up for convenience, just click the wavier of your rights box. Those in power dream of the money to be made and control to be had.

My sentiments exactly.

[ClassicRob]

This post however, was supposed to be about the fuel.

I think it states E15 is the ingredient they are going to use. If it keeps me from having to buy electric. So be it.

[BOOT]

This post however, was supposed to be about the fuel.

I think it states E15 is the ingredient they are going to use. If it keeps me from having to buy electric. So be it.

I'm sorry and I understand 90% of my post rarely go in the direction I wish LOL

BUT to ad to the fuel discussion, I build my cars for 87/89 so I'm not really interested in 95. Still I think it's mute, we are on a path to electric or bust!

[Walter R. Malik]

I remember in the 60's in school, everyone there was saying that the USA would be converting to the Metric system ... you bet.

[BOOT]

I remember in the 60's in school, everyone there was saying that the USA would be converting to the Metric system ... you bet.

Once we go electric then why not, maybe that's the plan it's all about the metric system LOL

This is not exactly the same thing

[David Redszus]

The article raises several interesting points.

The transportation industry is under severe pressure to meet higher fuel economy standards.
This would require an increase in compression ratio in order to improve thermal efficiency.

Currently, oil companies are limited as to what they can legally produce as a result of the
Renewable Fuel Standard. It mandates the use of ethanol to raise fuel octane. But since
California has placed a limit of 10% ethanol, and is a very large share of the US fuel market (30%)
other states have followed. The RFS basically mandates how a fuel must be blended.

Although an increase in ethanol (to 15%) would be an effective way to raise octane and
improve fuel economy, the RFS standard prohibits that path.

The proposed new fuel standard would require a 95RON, but would not specify how that
octane level could be obtained. It would eliminate the RFS completely.

Consider the current fuel situation; pump octane is an average of RON and MON values.
The difference in octanes is called fuel sensitivity and is typically about 8 points.
So we have:
87 = 91RON/83MON
89 = 93RON/85MON
93 = 97RON/89MON

The proposed new fuel octane standard would be:
91 = 95RON/87MON
which could be produced by any method and not limited by RFS.

If the multitude of current blends including E15 and E85, could be replaced by the new
95RON fuel standard, the cost of manufacturing a multitude of fuels could be reduced.
The lower production cost would allow the production of the 95RON fuel with little or no
increase in fuel prices.

It must be remembered that the oil companies will blend what ever fuel the auto
companies require. The higher fuel octane would allow the auto companies to reduce
their build costs required to meet CAFE standards.

If the new fuel standard were adopted (not likely considering our lefty Congress),
it could make gasoline powered vehicles even more price competitive with electric cars
and reduce the future sales of EVs.

[F-BIRD'88]

If more) Ethanol is the method of increasing the fuel octane your fuel consumption will INCREASE. That means you have to buy more fuel per mile driven.
That means more fuel volume has to be produced and delivered...
More costs more and burning more creates more exhaust polution volume output of the whole vehicle fleet.
The small increase in practical engine compression ratio efficientcy does not offset these personal nor large national scale economic factors.

[David Redszus]

If more) Ethanol is the method of increasing the fuel octane your fuel consumption will INCREASE. That means you have to buy more fuel per mile driven.
That means more fuel volume has to be produced and delivered...
More costs more and burning more creates more exhaust polution volume output of the whole vehicle fleet.
The small increase in practical engine compression ratio efficientcy does not offset these personal nor large national scale economic factors.

Ethanol produces the same heat energy as gasoline on a BTU per pound of air basis; 1278 BTU/lb air.
But ethanol evaporation cooling properties will increase charge density and increase power.
If the higher octane value of 95RON would allow a SCR increase of one point, performance could be
increased by about 3%.

I doubt the oil companies would be very enthusiastic about this since it will require a very large investment
in modification of refinery technology. They also point out that the forced use of ethanol was a very poor
decision. The expected increased cost is not due to the ethanol, but rather to huge plant investment required.

If 95RON becomes a "standard", what happens to all the lower octane fuel blends?
Will they go away and will lower performance vehicles be forced to use a fuel with higher octane
than needed?

It it possible for the marketplace to determine the type of vehicles, and the types of fuels that serve the
public best, or will we experience increased government interference into areas of their ignorance?

[Truckedup]

The article raises several interesting points.

The transportation industry is under severe pressure to meet higher fuel economy standards.
This would require an increase in compression ratio in order to improve thermal efficiency.

Currently, oil companies are limited as to what they can legally produce as a result of the
Renewable Fuel Standard. It mandates the use of ethanol to raise fuel octane. But since
California has placed a limit of 10% ethanol, and is a very large share of the US fuel market (30%)
other states have followed. The RFS basically mandates how a fuel must be blended.

Although an increase in ethanol (to 15%) would be an effective way to raise octane and
improve fuel economy, the RFS standard prohibits that path.

The proposed new fuel standard would require a 95RON, but would not specify how that
octane level could be obtained. It would eliminate the RFS completely.

Consider the current fuel situation; pump octane is an average of RON and MON values.
The difference in octanes is called fuel sensitivity and is typically about 8 points.
So we have:
87 = 91RON/83MON
89 = 93RON/85MON
93 = 97RON/89MON

The proposed new fuel octane standard would be:
91 = 95RON/87MON
which could be produced by any method and not limited by RFS.

If the multitude of current blends including E15 and E85, could be replaced by the new
95RON fuel standard, the cost of manufacturing a multitude of fuels could be reduced.
The lower production cost would allow the production of the 95RON fuel with little or no
increase in fuel prices.

It must be remembered that the oil companies will blend what ever fuel the auto
companies require. The higher fuel octane would allow the auto companies to reduce
their build costs required to meet CAFE standards.

If the new fuel standard were adopted (not likely considering our lefty Congress),
it could make gasoline powered vehicles even more price competitive with electric cars
and reduce the future sales of EVs.

o
So you're saying the new solo fuel is 91 octane as we rate octane at the pump...? So...all other grades including 93 will be history...?

[F-BIRD'88]

Fuel with ethanol in it INCREASES FUEL CONSUMPTION.
you have to buy MORE OF IT.

Vehicles that operate on 91 octane gas are no more fuel efficient than 87 octane fuel cars,
If the 91 octane has ethanol in it, the fuel consumption per mile is HIGHER. That means you buy more.

"performance" has nothing to do with it.
You burn more stuff per mile you pay more per mile.
The price of pp gas is based on market demand not producer costs
efficientcy, A engine in a personal car that has 1 ratio or 2 cr ratios higher compression is not more fuel efficient
(mpg) And certainly not if it is ethanol blended fuel.
MPG goes way down the more % of ethanol.
You burn more of it. You $$ buy more of it $$.
The increased octane is wasted 98% of the whole time the engine is running.

Its not a WOT race. And fuel with ethanol in it is NOT CHEAPER @the pump. $$

But the CORN farmers love it.