Will 100RON Become the New "Regular Gas" ?

[SubLGT]

In 2016 there were multiple news reports about automakers requesting higher octane fuel for their future engines.
They see it as being essential for improving the efficiency of the internal combustion engine.

ASTM has now released standards for this "test"fuel.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/04/20170426-astm.html

Quote:
The new standard—“Specification for 100 Research Octane Number Test Fuel for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines” (D8067-17)—covers the requirements of a high octane number fuel suitable for spark-ignition engines to be utilized in ground vehicles that will require 100 research octane number (RON) minimum rated fuel.

The fuels described by the specification are intended for developing technologies that lead to reduced vehicle energy consumption, such as higher compression ratio, higher power density, increased turbocharger boost pressure, smaller swept displacement volume, and operation at lower engine speeds.

The fuels covered in this specification may contain oxygenates—such as alcohols and ethers—at up to 50% by volume. This specification covers fuels that may contain both fossil and bio-derived components. Fuels containing methanol are not included in this specification.

D8067-17 describes a high RON fuel for automotive spark-ignition engines that are not currently in the marketplace but that are being developed and thus require a defined standard test fuel. The high RON fuel could become available in the marketplace if/when such engines are introduced in commerce, ASTM noted.


https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2017/n...l-standard.html

Quote:
Innovations in spark-ignition engine technologies that improve performance and fuel economy, such as higher compression ratios, higher power densities, increased turbocharger boost pressures, downsizing, and downspeeding, are more feasible with high-RON fuels.

"This new ASTM standard will help define a template for future vehicle certification fuel, with the ultimate goal of an affordable 100-RON gasoline that can be made at commercial scale to optimize engine performance," said McCormick.


http://www.autonews.com/article/20160823...octane-gasoline

Quote:
Even though senior powertrain executives such as Nicholson say they need higher octane fuel to help them increase engine efficiency, you don’t usually hear automakers themselves lobbying loudly for it, except at industry conferences and dinners with reporters. Premium fuel costs around 53 cents more per gallon than regular in many parts of the country -- a fact that has many motorists grumbling. Automakers don’t want to force higher fuel prices on their customers.

Much of the price difference for premium gasoline is because it’s more costly to refine and because oil companies produce premium fuel at much lower volume than regular. But if the EPA does mandate higher octane gasoline, I think the cost difference between regular and premium will evaporate pretty quickly. And there is a precedent.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

We've already learned on a lot of GDI engines with higher compression and/or turbochargers that higher octane gas will increase fuel economy - and efficiency.

It sounds like a good idea to me!

 

[beanoil]

Quote "The fuels described by the specification are intended for developing technologies that lead to reduced vehicle energy consumption, such as higher compression ratio, higher power density, increased turbocharger boost pressure, smaller swept displacement volume, and operation at lower engine speeds.

The fuels covered in this specification may contain oxygenates—such as alcohols and ethers—at up to 50% by volume. This specification covers fuels that may contain both fossil and bio-derived components. Fuels containing methanol are not included in this specification."

Sounds a lot like current diesel technology....

Pretty easy to increase RON with alcohols and ethers, but those don't bring BTU energy to the mix. A quick look at E85 writes the table of contents for that book.

 

[SonofJoe]

I hope someone in power has the good sense to resist this call for 100 RON petrol from the OEMs.

You can get higher RON in multiple ways but all of them are costly and many of the standard refining processes require both higher energy input and/or more destruction of the basic input to low value refinery gas. What's more the incremental costs ramp up the further up the scale you go. Moving from 99 to 100 RON is usually a lot more expensive than going from 93 to 94 RON.

And who exactly benefits from 100 RON? The ordinary bloke in the street who drives his ordinary car in an ordinary way to work and the shops? Almost certainly not as the engine will be massively far away from the critical knock condition. This is a move that will only really benefit those inconsiderate tossers who thrash their turbocharged Audis like they personally own the road and expect all lesser mortals to get out of their way!

 

[Kestas]

The article I read conveniently ignored the issue of cost per mile with higher octane. They mention better gas mileage and lower CO2 emissions - which makes the government regulators happy - but what about making the consumer happy?

The last I checked, premium cost 25% more than regular. The article I read mentions 10% better fuel economy with higher octane gas. I'd rather burn a little more gas and pay way less per gallon if it comes out cheaper per mile.

With time they also plan on phasing out the lower octanes.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: SubLGT
In 2016 there were multiple news reports about automakers requesting higher octane fuel for their future engines.
They see it as being essential for improving the efficiency of the internal combustion engine.

ASTM has now released standards for this "test"fuel.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/04/20170426-astm.html

Quote:
The new standard—“Specification for 100 Research Octane Number Test Fuel for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines” (D8067-17)—covers the requirements of a high octane number fuel suitable for spark-ignition engines to be utilized in ground vehicles that will require 100 research octane number (RON) minimum rated fuel.

The fuels described by the specification are intended for developing technologies that lead to reduced vehicle energy consumption, such as higher compression ratio, higher power density, increased turbocharger boost pressure, smaller swept displacement volume, and operation at lower engine speeds.

The fuels covered in this specification may contain oxygenates—such as alcohols and ethers—at up to 50% by volume. This specification covers fuels that may contain both fossil and bio-derived components. Fuels containing methanol are not included in this specification.

D8067-17 describes a high RON fuel for automotive spark-ignition engines that are not currently in the marketplace but that are being developed and thus require a defined standard test fuel. The high RON fuel could become available in the marketplace if/when such engines are introduced in commerce, ASTM noted.


https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2017/n...l-standard.html

Quote:
Innovations in spark-ignition engine technologies that improve performance and fuel economy, such as higher compression ratios, higher power densities, increased turbocharger boost pressures, downsizing, and downspeeding, are more feasible with high-RON fuels.

"This new ASTM standard will help define a template for future vehicle certification fuel, with the ultimate goal of an affordable 100-RON gasoline that can be made at commercial scale to optimize engine performance," said McCormick.


http://www.autonews.com/article/20160823...octane-gasoline

Quote:
Even though senior powertrain executives such as Nicholson say they need higher octane fuel to help them increase engine efficiency, you don’t usually hear automakers themselves lobbying loudly for it, except at industry conferences and dinners with reporters. Premium fuel costs around 53 cents more per gallon than regular in many parts of the country -- a fact that has many motorists grumbling. Automakers don’t want to force higher fuel prices on their customers.

Much of the price difference for premium gasoline is because it’s more costly to refine and because oil companies produce premium fuel at much lower volume than regular. But if the EPA does mandate higher octane gasoline, I think the cost difference between regular and premium will evaporate pretty quickly. And there is a precedent.
53 cents, where? It's over three bucks here and regular 87 is about 2.35

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: Kestas
The article I read conveniently ignored the issue of cost per mile with higher octane. They mention better gas mileage and lower CO2 emissions - which makes the government regulators happy - but what about making the consumer happy?

The last I checked, premium cost 25% more than regular. The article I read mentions 10% better fuel economy with higher octane gas. I'd rather burn a little more gas and pay way less per gallon if it comes out cheaper per mile.

With time they also plan on phasing out the lower octanes.
The "regulators" are getting an "attitude adjustment" in DC right now, which they richly deserve.

 

[A_Harman]

I think the whole point of this push for 100 RON fuel is to sneak more ethanol into pump gas. Engine efficiency can be increased with higher percentages of ethanol, but fuel cost will go up, and fuel economy will go down. And 100 RON fuel is also a misleading come-on: the octane number on the pump is an average of RON and MON, with MON being typically 8 points lower. So the 100 RON fuel advertised in the articles becomes 96 octane at the pump. Sounds to me like a recipe to end up sticking the consumer with buying a fuel that is more expensive than the highest octane premium available today, and ending up with worse fuel economy in the bargain. Any takers?

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I think the whole point of this push for 100 RON fuel is to sneak more ethanol into pump gas. Engine efficiency can be increased with higher percentages of ethanol, but fuel cost will go up, and fuel economy will go down. And 100 RON fuel is also a misleading come-on: the octane number on the pump is an average of RON and MON, with MON being typically 8 points lower. So the 100 RON fuel advertised in the articles becomes 96 octane at the pump. Sounds to me like a recipe to end up sticking the consumer with buying a fuel that is more expensive than the highest octane premium available today, and ending up with worse fuel economy in the bargain. Any takers?


OK, I'll bite. Yes fuels with higher EtOH percentages have decreasing heat values, but in general the thermodynamic efficiency goes up with increasing compression ratio, right? So if you are trying to get as much energy out of a gallon of fuel as possible wouldn't you want to raise the compression ratio as high as possible?

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I think the whole point of this push for 100 RON fuel is to sneak more ethanol into pump gas. Engine efficiency can be increased with higher percentages of ethanol, but fuel cost will go up, and fuel economy will go down. And 100 RON fuel is also a misleading come-on: the octane number on the pump is an average of RON and MON, with MON being typically 8 points lower. So the 100 RON fuel advertised in the articles becomes 96 octane at the pump. Sounds to me like a recipe to end up sticking the consumer with buying a fuel that is more expensive than the highest octane premium available today, and ending up with worse fuel economy in the bargain. Any takers?


OK, I'll bite. Yes fuels with higher EtOH percentages have decreasing heat values, but in general the thermodynamic efficiency goes up with increasing compression ratio, right? So if you are trying to get as much energy out of a gallon of fuel as possible wouldn't you want to raise the compression ratio as high as possible?


Then diesel is the solution, if it's high compression ratio you want. Why stop halfway with ethanol blend fuels?
But let's say that the 100 RON fuels allow manufacturers to improve engine thermal efficiency by 10% at all operating points, how does the average consumer make out economically if the fuel costs 25% more per gallon, and he has to buy more gallons of it due to the low BTU content?

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Then diesel is the solution, if it's high compression ratio you want. Why stop halfway with ethanol blend fuels?
But let's say that the 100 RON fuels allow manufacturers to improve engine thermal efficiency by 10% at all operating points, how does the average consumer make out economically if the fuel costs 25% more per gallon, and he has to buy more gallons of it due to the low BTU content?


They don't. I only meant it in terms of thermodynamic efficiency. If you use a fuel that costs more and/or has less BTU per pound then you'll get more out of what's potentially available, but that doesn't mean it is the best course of action overall.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman

Then diesel is the solution, if it's high compression ratio you want. Why stop halfway with ethanol blend fuels?
But let's say that the 100 RON fuels allow manufacturers to improve engine thermal efficiency by 10% at all operating points, how does the average consumer make out economically if the fuel costs 25% more per gallon, and he has to buy more gallons of it due to the low BTU content?


No need to do that. Already engines have been developed that use E85 and get diesel equivalent fuel economy and power. Ricardo (a GM partner) developed a 3.6L EBDI E85 engine that matched the 6.6L Duramax in power and economy. Cummins has had a 2.8L E85 engine already developed and tested that has the performance of a 5.7L Hemi and far better fuel economy. Nice thing is, with these engines, they don't require the SCR / DPF nonsense that diesels do.

And E85 in my area is going for 70-80 cents a gallon cheaper than diesel.

 

[FCD]

In some European countries there is Shell V Power 100RON, thks iw only for very high performance turbo cars.
I'm happy with 98 BP Utimate with no ethanol for my Capri which currently costs around 5$ per gallon, 95 RON is the regular gas octane in most of euorpe, most have 5-10% ethanol even though here in Spain you never see at the pump anything that mentions the ethanol content of the fuel, 95 here it's 4.50$ more or less per gallon.
In 2014 i believe i was paying 6.10$ per gallon for 98 RON, so fuel costs are more important to me.

 

[slybunda]

in the uk here shell do vpower nitro+ which is 99 ron. fuel here in the uk is expensive it works out to be $1.67 per LITRE!!

 

[FCD]

Last year was nice when i could get BP Ultimate 98 ( ethanol free ) for 1.30 ish Euros a litre.

 

[B320i]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
And who exactly benefits from 100 RON? The ordinary bloke in the street who drives his ordinary car in an ordinary way to work and the shops? Almost certainly not as the engine will be massively far away from the critical knock condition. This is a move that will only really benefit those inconsiderate tossers who thrash their turbocharged Audis like they personally own the road and expect all lesser mortals to get out of their way!

Something I harp on to no end around here is the fact of many late-model vehicles, yes, ordinary Kias, Hyundais, Toyotas, Nissans, Hondas (and so on) all make a God-awful racket with nasty pinging sounds, even on the flat.

The slope nearby my place, while not incredibly steep usually induces it in many newer cars. Cars you would expect to be running on 91RON from the factory anyway. I'm sure (ordinary) cars shouldn't be audibly pinging like this, and yet they do.

100RON might be beneficial for my old E36. Even with 98 it does ping a bit, but thats more knock sensors that need attention. Still, the fact that I notice so many cars pinging points to some [censored] additive or contamination in our fuel. Most fuel in Western Australia comes from the single BP Refinery in Kwinana, so it makes it easier to blame the source!