Premium Fuel $1.00 (or more) Higher

Where I live, in PA, it's $3.069 for regular, and $3.699 for 93, $3.659 for 91. Most of the time if that spread for 91 and 93 were higher, I'd get 91. The vehicles don't need any higher, and that's usually all they have in Calif.

But at work in NJ, it's $2.779 for regular, and $3.269 for 93. That 49 to 63 cent differential is completely made up. Because going all the way back to Hurricane Katrina, when gasoline first went over $3/gal, it was $3.099/$3.199/$3.299, for 87/89/93. No different than June 1999, almost 6 years prior, when it was $0.999/$1.099/$1.199. Always a 10 cent difference between grades. At $1, and at $3.

Today more vehicles require and recommend premium and so there is less elasticity in the demand.

Going back 30 years, whenever we saw some new gasoline tax introduced, whether state or federal, the entire amount showed up the next day in the price of 87. But only a majority portion was reflected in premium, not the entire amount of the tax, since the demand was very elastic.
 
Where I live, in PA, it's $3.069 for regular, and $3.699 for 93, $3.659 for 91. Most of the time if that spread for 91 and 93 were higher, I'd get 91. The vehicles don't need any higher, and that's usually all they have in Calif.

But at work in NJ, it's $2.779 for regular, and $3.269 for 93. That 49 to 63 cent differential is completely made up. Because going all the way back to Hurricane Katrina, when gasoline first went over $3/gal, it was $3.099/$3.199/$3.299, for 87/89/93. No different than June 1999, almost 6 years prior, when it was $0.999/$1.099/$1.199. Always a 10 cent difference between grades. At $1, and at $3.

Today more vehicles require and recommend premium and so there is less elasticity in the demand.

Going back 30 years, whenever we saw some new gasoline tax introduced, whether state or federal, the entire amount showed up the next day in the price of 87. But only a majority portion was reflected in premium, not the entire amount of the tax, since the demand was very elastic.
I don’t think there’s been an increase in the number of models that require premium.

I think it’s just the opposite - There are fewer models that require premium today, because the engine management/knock mitigation systems have gotten better, so engines are able to run more compression, boost, and ignition advance, even using low octane fuel, than they used to be able to.

And then there’s the fact that requiring premium fuel, especially at today’s crazy prices, is a HUGE negative sales point for most people.

So the OEMs are getting farther and farther away from releasing models that require premium.
 
And then there’s the fact that requiring premium fuel, especially at today’s crazy prices, is a HUGE negative sales point for most people.

So the OEMs are getting farther and farther away from releasing models that require premium.
In some cases, specifically with Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus, their regular brand runs on 87 octane while with the upscale brand, those spec premium fuel. I'm not sure if it's a case of "if they're buying an Acura or Lexus over the regular brand, they can afford it" or it's a way to distinguish the upscale brand as "better". They also tend to tune them slightly different so they get a little more HP. Our Toyota SUV has 362 HP while the Lexus variant has 366 HP. Only 4 more HP.... 🙄 Something like a Honda CR-V vs Acura RDX is more substantial though.
 
Honda and VCM
Apples and oranges.

Honda installs VCM, it gives a bona fide fuel economy improvement (I’ve logged and observed it every time if removed the muzzler), and millions of cars are on the road with it operating and no issues (though it certainly can cause issues). It’s operating 100% of the time if not muzzled.

That’s different from installing a sensor to have the OE computer NOT use it most of the time.
 
I don’t think there’s been an increase in the number of models that require premium.

I think it’s just the opposite - There are fewer models that require premium today, because the engine management/knock mitigation systems have gotten better, so engines are able to run more compression, boost, and ignition advance, even using low octane fuel, than they used to be able to.

And then there’s the fact that requiring premium fuel, especially at today’s crazy prices, is a HUGE negative sales point for most people.

So the OEMs are getting farther and farther away from releasing models that require premium.
I can't say I agree, it's as if we live in opposite universes. Just googling this came up. And it's by no means anywhere near comprehensive. But it illustrates that some small normal cars use premium. Use is a vague term, I know. Any car basically can use 87, but if designed for premium, it simply doesn't put out the #'s in the brochure.

To illistrate what you say, the 2015 GTI on the fuel door said premium required. Realizing this was a marketing gaffe, the 2016, same car, as in identical, had a fuel door that said premium recommended, and 87 can be used. It's semantics.

Based on the type of forum that this is, I'd be surprised if there were lots of advocates of using 87 when the vehicle was designed for 91. People here throw good tires away at 2,191 days, they change their oil and analyze it for fun. Imho folks are going to use the fuel their purchased vehicles were designed for. Leased? All bets are off. That's like doing home improvements on a rental apartment.

jmoymmv

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgor...s-for-2024-the-epa-says-require-premium-fuel/
 
Saw this today:

IMG_1752.webp
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom