The Mustang Forum for Track & Racing Enthusiasts

Taking your Mustang to an open track/HPDE event for the first time? Do you race competitively? This forum is for you! Log in to remove most ads.

  • Welcome to the Ford Mustang forum built for owners of the Mustang GT350, BOSS 302, GT500, and all other S550, S197, SN95, Fox Body and older Mustangs set up for open track days, road racing, and/or autocross. Join our forum, interact with others, share your build, and help us strengthen this community!

Goodbye 87 Octane

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Grant 302

basic and well known psychic
GM-Ren-Cen-Top-Shot-640x340.jpg
gmauthority.com said:
General Motors, Ford and Fiat-Chrysler Automobiles descended on Capitol Hill to lobby for standardized 95 octane to replace today’s 87 octane. GM’s vice president of global propulsion systems, Dan Nicholson, led the argument for increasing the Research Octane Number (RON) and said consumers and automakers would all benefit, Automotive News reported on Tuesday.

It’s not the first time GM and Nicholson have argued for standard high-octane fuel. Nicholson first floated the idea last year, and last month, the executive pitched benefits to the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) in an address. Nicholson said the time to make the switch is now as automakers experiment with ways to squeeze every ounce of efficiency from the internal-combustion engine.

Moving to 95 RON would eliminate 87 octane as regular, 88-90 for mid-grade and 91-94 for premium. Nicholson’s main argument is that the fuel efficiency benefits outweigh the extra cost per gallon of 95 octane. He said a 3 percent increase in fuel economy would come at a cost of less than 3 percent increase in the cost of gasoline.

“If it is done in the right framework, it could have a lot of value for customers at a low rate if we pick the right octane level. If you go too high, it’ll get expensive. But if you pick the right one, it’ll actually work for customers,” he told the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s environment subcommittee. He said to throw out what consumers think of when looking at prices for premium gasoline today.

Another argument on the cost side is that refineries would shift output to 95 octane and ultimately lower the price with greater supply.

In the end, higher octane fuel would allow automakers to raise engine compression ratios to increase horsepower, torque and efficiency all at once.



Read more: http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/04...bby-for-standardized-95-octane/#ixzz5D2UKWgqY

Great idea. I've long thought CA should ditch the 91 E10 for straight 93 or 94. I'd prefer it done without any ethanol or at most a small increase to say E15 or so.
 

TymeSlayer

Tramps like us, Baby we were born to run...
3,787
2,740
Exp. Type
HPDE
Exp. Level
3-5 Years
Brighton, Colorado
Don't you left coasters fret, you'll be the first all-autonomous state of the union so who needs to worry about the cost of gasoline.

I'm a buyer of this consumable upgrade.
 
If fuel was a standard grade and not multiple grades it should go down in price due to the decrease in production costs. However yes in California your Gov will probably find a reason to tax at a higher rate.
 

Grant 302

basic and well known psychic
If fuel was a standard grade and not multiple grades it should go down in price due to the decrease in production costs. However yes in California your Gov will probably find a reason to tax at a higher rate.

That's not my understanding from what I know about the grading process. It's probably cheaper to keep three grades vs. one.

If everything refined were kept together and marked say 89, there would be an undesirable separation and some users would get 91 and some would end up getting 87. I think that would be bad for everyone.
 
I hope the intention is to move to one octane and formula, 91 I assume. Currently several octanes and formulas are mandated due to different laws from state to state. In New Mexico the high altitude causes gas to evaporate at a lower vapor pressure so the formula for mountain states is different from coastal areas. All of this adds to production cost. Most of these formulas were mandated before fuel injection and computers became the norm for engine management. So I hope this is a good thing.
 

xr7

TMO Addict?
706
821
Exp. Type
Autocross
Exp. Level
10-20 Years
Minnesota
You only need one hose to dump the gas from the trailer, you just connect it to the right valve. You don't carry any extra stuff on a tanker trailer, minimum weight = maximum product. Occasionally they drop the wrong fuel in the wrong tank, it happens just like every other screw up that happens. Its really sucks when you get a tank of water or diesel. Seen it many times. One fuel with a higher octane would be good. Engines could run higher compression or more boost which is more fuel efficient.
 

TMSBOSS

Spending my pension on car parts and track fees.
7,529
5,245
Exp. Type
HPDE
Exp. Level
10-20 Years
Illinois
Higher octane can also lead to more miles per gallon.
I have seen gas mixed with diesel, tanker operator error. One compartment was meant for our tanks, diesel. Unfortunately the operator dropped about 100 gallons of gas into our diesel tanks. That cost his boss the Fuel he dropped as well as the Fuel, we had in our tanks prior, the cost to remove and clean. It happens.
I try to leave the Boss with less than half a tank when I head to a track day. I fill the tank with 100 octane. Am I wasting my money? Not if it makes me a bit more comfortable.
 

TMO Supporting Vendors

Top