- Jul 22, 2015
- 2,724
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/03/gm-once-again-calls-for-premium-gasoline-to-become-new-standard/
Came across this tonight... I can see why GM would want to do it (it would help them & others reach CAFE numbers, for one thing).
Problem is, while the estimated 3% FE increase helps *them*, it would cost consumers much more than that per gallon / litre.
(and if refineries had to make as much 91 octane available, as they do 87 octane now - 91 would probably shoot up even more in price, since it's more costly to make)
In the article, GM states another reason to switch being that the US fleet is converting to higher FE / non-ICE vehicles (electric, fuel cell, etc.).
Someone needs to remind them that it takes about 20 YEARS on average, to turn over the fleet. Sheesh...
I know many complain about 87 octane, E10 / E15, etc. The US / Canada is pretty much the bastion of 'crap gas' (many other countries get higher octane (and more highly tuned engines as a result) - but they pay a LOT more for it (not all of it due to the refinery overhead.) Would you support GM's proposal?
I wonder how diesel would fare, if the above were to actually come to pass. Diesel is easier / cheaper to make than today's 87 octane, with about a 30% FE improvement on average (although new diesels also require the purchase of DEF in order to run, thanks to the US EPA.) That also assumes that enough diesel engines would be offered to meet expected demand (while they'd be cheaper to acquire than, say, a Tesla, it would require the automakers to make enough of them - and every one that they sold would delay the purchase of a non-ICE vehicle - so they'd be working against their own interests by doing so.)
Came across this tonight... I can see why GM would want to do it (it would help them & others reach CAFE numbers, for one thing).
Problem is, while the estimated 3% FE increase helps *them*, it would cost consumers much more than that per gallon / litre.
(and if refineries had to make as much 91 octane available, as they do 87 octane now - 91 would probably shoot up even more in price, since it's more costly to make)
In the article, GM states another reason to switch being that the US fleet is converting to higher FE / non-ICE vehicles (electric, fuel cell, etc.).
Someone needs to remind them that it takes about 20 YEARS on average, to turn over the fleet. Sheesh...
I know many complain about 87 octane, E10 / E15, etc. The US / Canada is pretty much the bastion of 'crap gas' (many other countries get higher octane (and more highly tuned engines as a result) - but they pay a LOT more for it (not all of it due to the refinery overhead.) Would you support GM's proposal?
I wonder how diesel would fare, if the above were to actually come to pass. Diesel is easier / cheaper to make than today's 87 octane, with about a 30% FE improvement on average (although new diesels also require the purchase of DEF in order to run, thanks to the US EPA.) That also assumes that enough diesel engines would be offered to meet expected demand (while they'd be cheaper to acquire than, say, a Tesla, it would require the automakers to make enough of them - and every one that they sold would delay the purchase of a non-ICE vehicle - so they'd be working against their own interests by doing so.)