Better Fuel Economy Suggestion for All Cars

[JohnnyJohnson]

Most of the newer non turbo cars are so detuned they can't take full advantage of premium gasoline. But then I remember the time when nothing under 95 Octane was premium and 92 was what they call sub octane gas sold by the discounters like Gull.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson

Most of the newer non turbo cars are so detuned they can't take full advantage of premium gasoline. But then I remember the time when nothing under 95 Octane was premium and 92 was what they call sub octane gas sold by the discounters like Gull.

You are dating yourself there Johnny. ... In Tacoma we had a Hancock station that I used in the 70's. It had those dial-a-matic octane pumps. Even then that part didn't work but you could tell the attendant to fill Er up with ethyl.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted by AEHaas

I purchased the new Black Label Lincoln Navigator. the twin-turbocharged 3.5L engine What say you?

Nice vehicle! FWIW, I feel I should mention that Ecoboost engines are exceptionally reliable engines when they are well maintained. Thin oils, fuel dilution and infrequent oil changes are known 3.5L timing chain killers. Instead, I'd choose a synthetic 10W-30 (for less shear) and change at 5000 mile intervals. As you don't need the low temperature pumpability here in FL. Doing so will prevent a $4000 timing chain replacement at 80K miles.

 

[4WD]

Nice spaceship you bought there ! When we bought our 2015 ecoboost - the dealer said they run a bit better on premium but the engine can adjust to various fuels. We ran mid grade but I never check MPG - was always thinking about how power intense the motor is and the chance of LSPI. Ran 5w30 M1 EP for 5K OCI. Those things have lots of timing chain - so I kept the oil clean.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Originally Posted by PimTac

Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson

Most of the newer non turbo cars are so detuned they can't take full advantage of premium gasoline. But then I remember the time when nothing under 95 Octane was premium and 92 was what they call sub octane gas sold by the discounters like Gull.

You are dating yourself there Johnny. ... In Tacoma we had a Hancock station that I used in the 70's. It had those dial-a-matic octane pumps. Even then that part didn't work but you could tell the attendant to fill Er up with ethyl.

Yes I remember Hancock stations. Yes and I can remember 17.9 a gallon regular and that wasn't a gas war it was every day price.

 

[PimTac]

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.

 

[Kestas]

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?

 

[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.

 

[MNgopher]

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.

 

[MNgopher]

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).

 

[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 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.)

 

[Kestas]

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.

 

[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.

 

[OVERKILL]

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 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

 

[CT8]

Dr Haas you mentioned performance .

 

[bbhero]

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...

 

[Amkeer]

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.

 

[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

 

[ad_infinitum]

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."

 

[TiredTrucker]

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.