With higher octane fuel, manufacturers would have an incentive to raise compression ratios and get the same horsepower out of smaller engines using less gas. The dreaded carbon output would be reduced.
There are non-ethanol stations and the marinas have it at higher prices, No one has ever explained to me the high octane ethanol they sell at a lower price in S. Dakota. Race cars burn ethanol for their high compression engines so it could just be clever advertising. Anyway, here were the pure gas stations. Unfortunately not working now but it has been around for a long time and will probably be back after its monetary dispute with Google is resolved: https://www.pure-gas.org/mapsI'd be happier if ethanol were banned!
Tell that to the angels who were flying Messerschmidts against fairly crude but outperforming Spitfires burning high test Texas enhanced gasoline,Very, very incorrect thinking on the part of the OP. Compression ratio is not the only answer. Even back in '75 I got incredible fuel economy out of a carbureted 1967 Mercury Cougar 289 low compression 3-speed auto - on "regular" fuels. The companion hi-po Cougar 4-speed manual was a premium fuel gas hog - in spades. I owned and drove both to over 125,000 miles each.
E10 is a decent fuel, with its own built-in potent fuel system cleaner. Higher concentrations are strictly to pay off the Corn Lobby.
Taxes have a lot to do with it:There are non-ethanol stations and the marinas have it at higher prices, No one has ever explained to me the high octane ethanol they sell at a lower price in S. Dakota. Race cars burn ethanol for their high compression engines so it could just be clever advertising. Anyway, here were the pure gas stations. Unfortunately not working now but it has been around for a long time and will probably be back after its monetary dispute with Google is resolved: https://www.pure-gas.org/maps
This week?? The article is dated April 25, 2015. The consensus reached at the conference certainly did not get much traction in the nearly 5 years that has passed.DETROIT, 2015 --" In a world of higher octane gasoline -- in which 95 would replace 87 and become the new regular -- automakers could more easily and affordably meet stringent fuel economy standards as well as reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
During a panel discussion this week at the SAE World Congress here, representatives from Ford Motor Co., General Motors, Chevron Energy Technology Co. and an ethanol trade group agreed that raising octane would allow gasoline engines to run more efficiently, boosting fuel economy between 3 and 6 percent and lowering CO2 emissions by around 2 percent.
Automotive News, https://www.autonews.com/article/20150425/OEM06/304279979/higher-octane-fuel-could-add-mpg-sae-panel-says
In today's world, fuel "octane" is not based on a count of molecules or atoms in those molecules. It is a "rating" that tells us the propensity for knock reduction relative to the knock reduction of fuel with an actual "octane" value. The octane rating is boosted by a simple chemical additive that costs less than $0.10 per gallon per "step" (87 to 89, and 89 to 93). Of course most gas stations charge at least $0.30 markup per step.A couple of thoughts on banning regular gas. First, the oil companys would love you if you could do that. Premium gasoline requires more specialized hydocarbons and the cost is higher to the consumer.
Fewer numbers of cylinders means less moving parts which means less friction and likely less weight. All things being equal, an I4 with the same HP and torque curves of a V6 or V8 will use less fuel because of that. The same goes for an engine with a smaller displacement. All other things being equal, it will use less fuel. The problem is, "all other things being equal". Most I4's won't have HP and torque curves like a V6 or V8.Second, just because an engine has fewer cyliinders does not mean that it will get significantly better fuel economy. It gets down to physics. It going to require the same energy to propel as car no matter how many cylinders are used. The driver has more input on the economy by their driving habits.
I think you misunderstood. I don’t think he meant a gallon of additive cost 10 cents. I believe he was saying the amount of additive that you would add to a gallon of gas would cost 10 cents.I don't know if you are trolling or not but cost is significantly more. It is difficult to find water at 10 cents a gallon. Coke is about $10/gallon out of a vending machine.
If that were true, there would be gas wars selling higher octane for less than the spread commonly seen at all stations. It would be a real trick to keep all merchants in line with this conspiracy.I think you misunderstood. I don’t think he meant a gallon of additive cost 10 cents. I believe he was saying the amount of additive that you would add to a gallon of gas would cost 10 cents.