Higher octane gas

I don't know what the first three are, and common words that started out as acronyms don't count.

 

The US government is mandating that the country use less oil. This has been at least since Nixon. The invisible hand doesn't work well here.

We have some policies like cafe (started by ford) which have worked and are working, but are less effective because of other policies.

We have some policis that failed the partnership for a next generation vehicle and freedom car.

CARB still highly supports freedom cars old goals and pushes hydrogen, something that already has cost over $6B most in taxpayer money, with big chunks from ford and gm.

Over the next couple of decades the US federal and state governments will probably spend at least $3B more on hydrogen. For much less money they could work on working with manufacturers to provide more efficient engines, with fuel systems that could run with more methanol (open fuel standard) and provide a higher octane blend. Those would reduce oil consumption more than this hydrogen plan.

The government simply won't do it because it makes sense, and we don't have a big lobby like hydrogen or ethanol behind it.

 

It's a mixed-bag of special-interests in Washington, as it is nearly everywhere. Using less oil has energy-security benefits, but using more oil serves the Big-oil interests. It depends who holds more sway over the politicians.

 

Those are the acronyms in this that again are better understood just written than when they are spelled out.

RON and MON are different measures for octane, and the higher the octane the higher the compression can be before detonation. All things being equal (ATBE) higher octane makes it easier to design a more efficient engine. Unfortunately, and I don't really know, but according to the article, MIT researchers found that MON is a bad outdated measure that worked with carburetors, but doesn't make sense with fuel injection. Today, again according to the article RON is really what matter for octane for fuel injected cars, and that is the american fleet today. Gas pumps are labeled to the average of the two numbers and blenders will often blend to the cheapest blend which is non-ideal. In Europe they only use RON. Simple regulatory change could provide better labeling, and perhaps raising the minimum would help. Oil companies don't care, but will produce to the least expensive regulated blend. The regulators haven't yet caught up to the fact that new cars use fuel injection, and that there is a lot of cheap methanol from natural gas, which is a inexpensive way to boost octane.

HCCI is a technology for gasoline engines that promises to make them more efficient, but is still in the lab. Their are technical and cost hurdles before it makes it into production vehicles.

 

Where 5200 RPM must be "~4,000". Thank goodness I have facts and not just mumbo jumbo.

 

Just mandating that regular by slightly higher in octane will help. In many countries(Japan, Europe) it is already so. The auto makers would likely embrace doing so because it will lower or eliminate their costs for converting engines designed for the higher octane to our lower one. The big hurdle is the public that will go out of its way to save a penny per gallon.

Perhaps, if a new gas tax comes to be, we should have it lower on the higher octanes.

 

OK!

 

We've been watching a slew of scandanavian police procedural series. Danes and Swedes say OK too. Funny, never thought about the expression.

OK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

...not sure your guess is correct...it is basically a pro-ethanol argument to go for higher octane by adding more ethanol, and then design cars for better MPG with ethanol fuels. Currently we add ethanol but it is questionable merit just reduces our MPG and travel range. I guess with ethanol today we have to make more stops for coffee and cigs.

 

Ethanol raises octane, but this was not within the scope of my comment. I was talking about the difference between Regular and Premium where all other factors are equal. Besides this, ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline, so it doesn't follow that adding more alcohol translates to better mileage. In the documentary Pump Fiction, it's suggested that fuel economy is poorer with Premium fuel than Regular.

 

I don't believe anyone has successfully proved that Premium gasoline gives better mileage.

 

If the "Big 5" auto makers determine that this is the best (cheapest) way to meet the standards, Government intervention won't be needed.
Money talks louder than words, especially in a profit motivated capitalistic system.
A point probably could be made though that the Government often does the WRONG things and thus inhibits the implementation of the "right" thing.

 

The automakers are pushing for extra credits in cafe. They have traditionally liked to fail and tell congress that it is too hard. Then congress gives them money (see history of ethanol subsidy, partnership for a next generation car, freedom car, etc).

There are some simple common sense regulations the government could try instead of throwing money to the automakers and agricultural conglomerates.

So here is a easy wrong thing to fix, we are mandating about 10% ethanol (although it will soon go over 10%) and have regular at a minimum of (ron + mon) / 2 = 87 in some states and 85 (with a minimum ron of 90) in others. Then EPA and CARB have hundreds of other rules about how much of something can go into gasoline and this varies by city.

Wouldn't it be less onerous to label the octane just with ron, one test instead of math, since ron is the key number for fuel injected engines? Then when doing that pick an appropriate number for a minimum? While it makes sense that octane can be lower in high places as there is less dense air, it makes no sense to change on state lines. How about allowing blenders to use more methanol and less ethanol and some blends with no alcohol at all? These are changes that might make regulations simpler and more effective.

So first why not use ron instead of (ron+mon)/2 and set that an an appropriate level? Simple rules require less bureaucracy to enforce. Blenders will naturally use more methanol if you allow them to do it, because it costs less today. In 2008 ethanol cost less than methanol, why does the government force one and regulate against the other? That does not seem free market at all.

 

You have some good ideas but some bad information too.
I can't see that just changing the numbering plan would really accomplish anything useful; the gas would essentially be the same in the end.

Along the same lines, it would help prices a little bit if they would carve the required different blends from the present dozen or so down to maybe two.

And methanol is MUCH more corrosive than ethanol and would require a major re-design of fuel system components, not to mention distribution facilities. What would the methanol be made from? I honestly don't remember at the moment.

 

It does in the Sonic with 1.4 turbo. It's an engine designed for European gas, and relies on the knock sensors to burn US regular. It just doesn't improve fuel economy enough to cover the 40 to 50 cent price difference here.

The gasoline used for the EPA test is already 93 octane. The manufacturers can get a better rating by making higher compression engines, but it won't pan out in the real world because premium fueled cars are a tougher sell for being seen as a negative. If labeled regular, people will use regular which will return worse fuel economy, and they'll complain.

I agree if it obviously cheaper for the driver they would, but most people don't look past the price on the station sign. So they'll use regular even if it ends up costing them more per mile.

 

So did the US, unofficially, until Washington officially mandated that the (M+R)/2 average be posted on pumps. That change thoroughly confused a lot of people, and they (and by now their descendants) are still confused. The excuse was that the average number allegedly reflected real-world tendency to knock (in carbureted '70s engines) better than either test method alone. Most people had never even heard of the "M" (for "motor") method before then.

 

Which is all the more reason to .... change it to RON and simply call that octane .... plus it will look bigger.