Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: GM Exec Calls For Premium Gas To Be The New Regular

  1. #1

    GM Exec Calls For Premium Gas To Be The New Regular

    During an address to the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, General Motors' vice president of global propulsion systems called for premium gasoline to become the new baseline going forward to enable more efficient engines. This is hardly a new idea, but it comes as a bit of a surprise right now as GM wages a battle on two fronts with announced plans for 20 new zero-emissions vehicles in the next five years while also consulting with the Trump administration on changes to fuel economy standards.
    In his talk, Nicholson reiterated his company’s electrification plans but also suggested that this is the right time to make a move toward making 95 RON gasoline the new minimum standard as it generally is in Europe. Fuel octane ratings are an indicator of the fuel’s resistance to self-ignition or knocking. The are two generally accepted methods of testing this, motor octane (MON) and research octane (MON). The pump octane number (PON) that appears on gas pumps in North America is the average of the two with regular typically being labeled as 87 PON and mid-grade as 91 PON. A fuel with a rating of 95 RON will typically have a PON of 91, the standard for premium fuel.
    Fuel retailers have long marketed the idea that using premium fuel can help improve fuel economy and this is true up to a point. Engines will only see a benefit if they are optimized for this fuel with either a higher compression ratio or more turbocharger boost. This enables a higher expansion ratio in the engine so each cylinder firing extracts more work from the fuel. Unfortunately, putting higher octane fuel in a lower compression engine will probably have little or no impact in most cases.

    According to Nicholson, relatively simple changes including new pistons to enable higher compression and revised calibrations can yield about a 3% improvement in efficiency with no significant added component costs. Aggregated over millions of engines a year, that adds up to some fairly substantial fuel consumption reductions.
    But is is worth it for the consumer?
    The consumer side of this equation is where things get a little muddier. While a 3% savings in fuel use is not insignificant for manufacturers that at least for now need to continue improving their efficiency across their fleets, consumers might not see the full benefit. The upfront cost for a vehicle optimized to run on 95 RON gasoline may be essentially the same as one that runs on regular, and there would be no added infrastructure costs, but the consumer may be paying more every time they go to the pump.

    More at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/samabue.../#580862136e9d
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Basically it is a ripoff , another dollar a gallon for a product five percent higher in octane that improves performance two percent .

  4. #3

    Don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    Basically it is a ripoff , another dollar a gallon for a product five percent higher in octane that improves performance two percent .
    No, that's not true. Well, it probably is true, but only for a tiny minority of vehicles.

    If your vehicle has high compression, It's absolutely necessary for proper operation. If it has turbocharging or supercharging, or a computer programmed to advance the spark far enough, it'll work fine either way. But higher octane is necessary to extract the fullest measure of power from it. Either way, that indicates greater efficiency. If your right foot has more feathers in it than lead, such an engine will go farther on a gallon of fuel. This is no ripoff. You pay more per gallon, but you use fewer gallons. How that balances out, how cost effective it is, depends on the engine. Some engines can generate a significant savings that way.

    If you have the more common class of engines, with no compressed air feeding it, typical eight-point-something to one compression, and an upper limit to how far the computer will advance the spark timing, then high octane fuel is worse than a mere ripoff. You don't just pay more for fuel than you need to. Your engine also cannot burn the stuff completely. Unburned fuel will still be present when the exhaust valve opens, leading to carbon deposits. Half-burned fuel will pass through the catalytic converter, using up the chemicals within at a higher rate than necessary, and leading to premature failure. And it won't get better mileage at all. It will use at least as much premium as regular. You don't just get overcharged using high octane fuel, if your car isn't designed to take advantage of it. You can be doing it slow, incremental harm.

    As for GM calling for premium to be the new regular, that's stupid. Even if every carmaker bumped compression ratios across the board tomorrow, there are about a billion cars already out there which have no use for it. GM, if you want to build only cars with high compression, do it. If you're afraid Buick buyers are too stupid to find the high octane nozzle, and Chevy drivers are too stubborn to believe you when you tell them not to use the cheap stuff, well, you might be right. But that doesn't mean the overwhelming number of people driving cars which have no use for premium need their regular regulated out of existence. That would be a ripoff. Take your bribe money and use it to cut your damned prices.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 03-13-2018 at 10:24 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Ron is wrong...
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Amash is wrong...

  6. #5
    20 new zero-emissions vehicles
    I hate that term.

    There is no such thing.

    They are displaced emission vehicles.

    Just like shipping all our manufacturing overseas, since it's no longer right in the precious little snowflake's back yard, therefore, like a small child, it doesn't exist anymore.

    Just because there is no exhaust does not mean there are no emissions or pollutants.

    You just don't see them.

  7. #6
    Imagine what kind of mileage could be achieved if we took the ever $#@!ing ethanol out of fuel and made real gasoline again.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I hate that term.

    There is no such thing.

    They are displaced emission vehicles.

    Just like shipping all our manufacturing overseas, since it's no longer right in the precious little snowflake's back yard, therefore, like a small child, it doesn't exist anymore.

    Just because there is no exhaust does not mean there are no emissions or pollutants.

    You just don't see them.
    If it isn't natural gas emissions (relatively clean) it's fly ash from coal, or spent, enriched uranium that still won't be safe in ten thousand years, river wildlife made extinct by hydroelectric dams, or songbirds minced up in giant propellers. There is a cost.

    And since that electricity has to be brought to the car through wires with resistance, and carried in that car in batteries which make the car far, far heavier than it needs to be, efficiency is lost.

    But since electric cars make road trips impossible, airlines benefit. Boeing owns the world.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 03-13-2018 at 10:33 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Ron is wrong...
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Amash is wrong...

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Imagine what kind of mileage could be achieved if we took the ever $#@!ing ethanol out of fuel and made real gasoline again.

    That's crazy talk man! What would happen to all those poor corn farmers who couldn't get by without their lavish federal subsidies?
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.


Similar Threads

  1. FBI Exec Calls for Changes in Internet Technology
    By John F Kennedy III in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-30-2012, 04:36 PM
  2. Mitt Romney NBC calls MICHIGAN for GENTLEMAN MITT by cutting into regular programs 30 minutes ago!
    By Aratus in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-28-2012, 09:50 PM
  3. NPR Exec Calls Tea Parties Racist
    By ItsTime in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 03-09-2011, 06:47 PM
  4. PMs: $5+ premium on Silver Eagles?
    By Bern in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-21-2010, 07:16 AM
  5. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-22-2010, 09:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •