Higher-Octane Gas Could Improve Fuel Economy

Nice article.
I think that I have stated this many times. This is the opposite of installing an EGR valve.

Attachment 6958

DETROIT – Vehicle fuel efficiency could be improved significantly if the U.S. would shift to higher-octane gasoline, Detroit Three powertrain chiefs tell attendees at the SAE World Congress here.
The rationale is simple: Higher-octane fuels burn more predictably and allow automakers to design engines with higher compression ratios. Higher compression ratios yield more power per combustion event and more power-dense and efficient engines.
Conversely, low-octane gasoline can detonate unpredictably in the combustion chamber and create engine-damaging “knock.” Programming spark timing to avoid knock and keeping compression ratios lower robs horsepower and efficiency.
U.S. fuel has a research octane number (RON) of about 91, while Europe has a standard of 95 RON or higher. That’s a huge difference to engine experts. If automakers could stop designing engines to avoid low-octane engine knock, engine efficiency could be improved by as much as 5%, Bob Fascetti, vice president-Powertrain Engineering at Ford tells SAE attendees.
“We have to design for regular fuel (91 RON in the U.S.). If we could get 95 RON fuel at the pump like Europe, if we could get higher compression ratios, we could get big benefits,” Fascetti says.
The idea hardly is unprecedented. The U.S. mandated European-style standards for ultra-low sulfur content in diesel fuel in 2007, resulting in dramatically improved diesel engines and emissions.
“Our (octane number) is too low,” Bob Lee, vice president and head of Engine and Electrified Propulsion Engineering at Chrysler, tells reporters on the sidelines after his presentation. Lee’s estimate for fuel-economy gains is slightly lower, but he says, “I’m giving up 2% or 3% (in fuel efficiency) just to go from 95 octane to 91.”
Higher compression ratios are beneficial in many ways, Lee says, such as improving the efficiency of Atkinson-cycle combustion strategies.
Steve Kiefer, vice president-Global Powertrain for General Motors, also says he supports a move to higher-octane gasoline.
The three powertrain chiefs have spoken about moving to higher octane at technical conferences and in Washington, where the Department of Energy is well aware of the benefits, but have not said much publicly until now.
“I can’t say we’ve actually lobbied together, but it’s a common-sense thing. If we had a single-octane fuel that was higher, then we can take advantage of that for the customer, we can implement higher compression ratios and we won’t be knock-limited on the fuel,” Fascetti says. “It’s win-win for the innovators as well as for the customers.”
dwinter@wardsauto.com

http://wardsauto.com/vehicles-techno...e-fuel-economy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caleditor

Nice article.
I think that I have stated this many times. This is the opposite of installing an EGR valve.


DETROIT – Vehicle fuel efficiency could be improved significantly if the U.S. would shift to higher-octane gasoline, Detroit Three powertrain chiefs tell attendees at the SAE World Congress here.
The rationale is simple: Higher-octane fuels burn more predictably and allow automakers to design engines with higher compression ratios. Higher compression ratios yield more power per combustion event and more power-dense and efficient engines.
Conversely, low-octane gasoline can detonate unpredictably in the combustion chamber and create engine-damaging “knock.” Programming spark timing to avoid knock and keeping compression ratios lower robs horsepower and efficiency.
U.S. fuel has a research octane number (RON) of about 91, while Europe has a standard of 95 RON or higher. That’s a huge difference to engine experts. If automakers could stop designing engines to avoid low-octane engine knock, engine efficiency could be improved by as much as 5%, Bob Fascetti, vice president-Powertrain Engineering at Ford tells SAE attendees.
“We have to design for regular fuel (91 RON in the U.S.). If we could get 95 RON fuel at the pump like Europe, if we could get higher compression ratios, we could get big benefits,” Fascetti says.
The idea hardly is unprecedented. The U.S. mandated European-style standards for ultra-low sulfur content in diesel fuel in 2007, resulting in dramatically improved diesel engines and emissions.
“Our (octane number) is too low,” Bob Lee, vice president and head of Engine and Electrified Propulsion Engineering at Chrysler, tells reporters on the sidelines after his presentation. Lee’s estimate for fuel-economy gains is slightly lower, but he says, “I’m giving up 2% or 3% (in fuel efficiency) just to go from 95 octane to 91.”
Higher compression ratios are beneficial in many ways, Lee says, such as improving the efficiency of Atkinson-cycle combustion strategies.
Steve Kiefer, vice president-Global Powertrain for General Motors, also says he supports a move to higher-octane gasoline.
The three powertrain chiefs have spoken about moving to higher octane at technical conferences and in Washington, where the Department of Energy is well aware of the benefits, but have not said much publicly until now.
“I can’t say we’ve actually lobbied together, but it’s a common-sense thing. If we had a single-octane fuel that was higher, then we can take advantage of that for the customer, we can implement higher compression ratios and we won’t be knock-limited on the fuel,” Fascetti says. “It’s win-win for the innovators as well as for the customers.”
dwinter@wardsauto.com

http://wardsauto.com/vehicles-techno...e-fuel-economy

---

I moved to E85 on the 06 Hemi Ram and 2012 5.6 Titan after finding that they were knock limited on pump premium. MBT was higher than 93 octane could support without detonation. Both engines are under 9.8:1.

I found gains of up to 20 ft/lbs in parts of the torque curve and a peak to peak HP/TQ gain of about 6%. Fuel consumption increased roughly 25%, however cost analysis compared to pump premium was within pennies either way. E85 was over $1 cheaper per gallon than 93. I like the extra HP/TQ and cleaner running engine, so I stuck with E85.

On the Titan I was actually able to alter the intake valve timing advance tables to advance the camshaft at a lower rpm, increasing overlap and advancing the ICL, increasing overlap and the dynamic compression ratio at lower RPMs to make even more torque.

i feel that this would require some really specific things to happen successfully, mostly because of the average driver having no clue what the hell is going on underhood. they'll save 3 pennies a gallon for known-junk fuel rather than a top-tier station and they'll usually drive out of the way to do it as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobertISaar

i feel that this would require some really specific things to happen successfully, mostly because of the average driver having no clue what the hell is going on underhood. they'll save 3 pennies a gallon for known-junk fuel rather than a top-tier station and they'll usually drive out of the way to do it as well.

---

We had a customer do just this, kept throwing the CEL light on in a new Murano. They were buying premium fuel, but it was still a poor grade of fuel. The RVP was too high causing the engine to run too richly and thus the code.

weird, i wouldn't think relatively high pressure fuel injection would be that sensitive to RVP.

Quote:

---

The RVP was too high causing the engine to run too richly and thus the code.

---

So too many light end distillates are causing rich operation? That isn't a direct correlation and seems a bit tough to pin down. If valid, investigate faster combustion bringing reaction nearer to completion prior to valve opening and subsequently less unreacted O2 in exhaust stream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caleditor

U.S. fuel has a research octane number (RON) of about 91, while Europe has a standard of 95 RON or higher. That’s a huge difference to engine experts. If automakers could stop designing engines to avoid low-octane engine knock, engine efficiency could be improved by as much as 5%, Bob Fascetti, vice president-Powertrain Engineering at Ford tells SAE attendees.
“We have to design for regular fuel (91 RON in the U.S.). If we could get 95 RON fuel at the pump like Europe, if we could get higher compression ratios, we could get big benefits,” Fascetti says.

---

This statement is false. While European fuel is labeled at the pump with RON numbers US fuel is labeled with octane numbers reflecting the formula RON+MON/2. Here is a link to an article explaining just that.

http://motocrossactionmag.com/mobile...-MO-10984.aspx

Besides that, octane numbers are not a real good measure of fuel quality. Things like the distillation curve and specific gravity have more to do with how a fuel preforms than a simple octane rating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brian617

This statement is false. While European fuel is labeled at the pump with RON numbers US fuel is labeled with octane numbers reflecting the formula RON+MON/2. Here is a link to an article explaining just that.

http://motocrossactionmag.com/mobile...-MO-10984.aspx

Besides that, octane numbers are not a real good measure of fuel quality. Things like the distillation curve and specific gravity have more to do with how a fuel preforms than a simple octane rating.

---

The article came from wardsauto as listed and it is from the SAE congress. Maybe I can get the information from a friend that attended

Quote:

---

Besides that, octane numbers are not a real good measure of fuel quality. Things like the distillation curve and specific gravity have more to do with how a fuel preforms than a simple octane rating.

---

This is why off brand fuels can be all over the map. Meeting octane rating is a very small part of the picture. Mixing diesel and ethanol can produce a fuel with correct octane, but good luck getting it to perform well.

GM's Service Information (SI) has 2016 vehicles listed already in the drop down boxes. We are less than 10 years out with the 54.5 mpg standards. They are going to have to figure this out soon.

You're looking at real world numbers closer to 40mpg. I believe it's doable. My turbo Sunbird has achieved 36 with my wife driving. I also believe we've lost ground. The two Aveos we have use smaller version of the same engine in the Sunbird yet they achieve mid to high 20's on the highway! What??? Our 2001 Malibu was also high 20's. Not impressed when cars of the '90s were high '20s to low '30s with V6 engines and Chevy Sprint / Suzuki Swift was in the '40s.

Look for different NOx controls so autos can move toward higher intake mixture temps. Stop playing HP wars and build cars that get good mileage. Put Vroom-Vroom go fast into a different category and let buyer pay for privilege of going faster and using more fuel. And no more "cash for clunkers" that wipes out used car market!

Here's something to think about. The 99-02 Chevy minibuses in our fleet achieve roughly 9-10 mpg on average with the 5.7l engine. Those buses were also available with the tiny 4.3. The tq/hp ratings of our 5.7 are 330 / 245 and they move the bus along just fine. When I spec out a new bus the only engine I can get is the 6.0 which is generating average fuel economy numbers in the 7-8 mpg range. The 5.3 is rated for 338Tq/315hp, more than the L31, yet GM won't supply that engine in anything larger than a single wheel chassis cab.

Ford likes to do the same with the 6.8L V10 but with enough fighting you can get the smaller engine. Ford has the bus builders convinced that asmaller engine won't survive in a dually chassis with 10,000lb gvw but we've got vans with 200k and the 5.4 is still running just fine. And the fuel economy is 2-3 mpg better. While that may not sound like much, in a fleet using over 20,000 gallons of fuel a month that 2-3 miles per gallon is worth money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1project2many

You're looking at real world numbers closer to 40mpg. I believe it's doable. My turbo Sunbird has achieved 36 with my wife driving. I also believe we've lost ground. The two Aveos we have use smaller version of the same engine in the Sunbird yet they achieve mid to high 20's on the highway! What??? Our 2001 Malibu was also high 20's. Not impressed when cars of the '90s were high '20s to low '30s with V6 engines and Chevy Sprint / Suzuki Swift was in the '40s.

Look for different NOx controls so autos can move toward higher intake mixture temps. Stop playing HP wars and build cars that get good mileage. Put Vroom-Vroom go fast into a different category and let buyer pay for privilege of going faster and using more fuel. And no more "cash for clunkers" that wipes out used car market!

Here's something to think about. The 99-02 Chevy minibuses in our fleet achieve roughly 9-10 mpg on average with the 5.7l engine. Those buses were also available with the tiny 4.3. The tq/hp ratings of our 5.7 are 330 / 245 and they move the bus along just fine. When I spec out a new bus the only engine I can get is the 6.0 which is generating average fuel economy numbers in the 7-8 mpg range. The 5.3 is rated for 338Tq/315hp, more than the L31, yet GM won't supply that engine in anything larger than a single wheel chassis cab.

Ford likes to do the same with the 6.8L V10 but with enough fighting you can get the smaller engine. Ford has the bus builders convinced that asmaller engine won't survive in a dually chassis with 10,000lb gvw but we've got vans with 200k and the 5.4 is still running just fine. And the fuel economy is 2-3 mpg better. While that may not sound like much, in a fleet using over 20,000 gallons of fuel a month that 2-3 miles per gallon is worth money.

---

Hands down the old L31 is a better truck engine than the 5.3 or even 6.0. The reason GM does not offer the 5.3 in a bus is lack of low end torque. But what do they expect with a smaller displacement engine and gigantic ports.

While the actual design is over 10 years old, my Titan does as well as any V8 fullsize truck on the road on gas, especially around town.....The reason, lots of low and midrange torque that keeps you off the throttle in daily driving.

I mention this because my sisters 14' 5.3 was rated something like 22 mpg. and my Titan 18 mpg. We ran the same trip, have almost the same size tank, got almost the same range, and both got 18-19 mpg running 70-75 mph. Pretty sad that GM fuel economy does not even come close to advertised.

No torque, but the anemic 4.3 was available with loose converter in one ton applications. We're in town, stop and go, so not much help no matter what size engine or where torque production is. BSFC is maximum at peak torque so I'll take a loose converter and power vs torque to move along.

I will say that shop truck with 6.0 pulls stuck buses all day long without breaking a sweat. I can get reasonable mileage on the highway if I keep it below 70. But as soon as I hit a couple of lights there goes the economy.

Currently rebuilding 5.7 engine for bus and trying HT383 cam. Nice experiment for an otherwise stock vehicle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1project2many

No torque, but the anemic 4.3 was available with loose converter in one ton applications. We're in town, stop and go, so not much help no matter what size engine or where torque production is. BSFC is maximum at peak torque so I'll take a loose converter and power vs torque to move along.

I will say that shop truck with 6.0 pulls stuck buses all day long without breaking a sweat. I can get reasonable mileage on the highway if I keep it below 70. But as soon as I hit a couple of lights there goes the economy.

Currently rebuilding 5.7 engine for bus and trying HT383 cam. Nice experiment for an otherwise stock vehicle.

---

Just my $.02, I would try a set of 1.6:1 full roller rockers rather than the HT383 cam. The HT383 cam has a bit more overlap than the L31. But it will be interesting to see what happens.

I have the 4.3 converter in my 4L80E in my G1500 with the 5.7.

Not sure where you have seen that BSFC was highest at peak torque??? BSFC is often LOWEST at peak torque and falls off on both ends. Take the project Vortec TPI built for the something old, something new article.

It peaked in BSFC between 3,300 and 5,000 rpm and was relatively flat between .4 and .43 lb/hr/hp, which is a stellar number for an old 5.7

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...ck/page_3.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brian617

This statement is false. While European fuel is labeled at the pump with RON numbers US fuel is labeled with octane numbers reflecting the formula RON+MON/2. Here is a link to an article explaining just that.

http://motocrossactionmag.com/mobile...-MO-10984.aspx

Besides that, octane numbers are not a real good measure of fuel quality. Things like the distillation curve and specific gravity have more to do with how a fuel preforms than a simple octane rating.

---

Agreed, the article makes it sound as if higher octane fuel is available in Europe than in North AMerica, the opposite is true. Sunoco's conventional street blend 94 octane (R+M)/2 is markedly higher in octane than European 95 octane (RON) when compared properly on their ability to resist detonation/pre-ignition.

peace
Hog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hog

Agreed, the article makes it sound as if higher octane fuel is available in Europe than in North AMerica, the opposite is true. Sunoco's conventional street blend 94 octane (R+M)/2 is markedly higher in octane than European 95 octane (RON) when compared properly on their ability to resist detonation/pre-ignition.

peace
Hog

---

The highest octane pump fuel sold in the USA is either Propane or CNG. I was at the fuel station I get E85 from, filling my Titan at $2.85 a gallon for 104 octane E85. While filling the tank I looked over and the CNG pump was $2.25 GGE. Sometimes I wish I were running natural gas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast355

The highest octane pump fuel sold in the USA is either Propane or CNG. I was at the fuel station I get E85 from, filling my Titan at $2.85 a gallon for 104 octane E85. While filling the tank I looked over and the CNG pump was $2.25 GGE. Sometimes I wish I were running natural gas.

---

I have been known to install CNG kits and work on them from time to time. I am even a certified inspector. I love my CNG.
Local filling station is $1.58 GGE and it is 130 octane. The CNG does displace some of the volume of air entering the cylinders, but it is also about 17 to 1 AFR.

Take a look at the 2015 Impala CNG. the company the is building this car does it right, nit some patched together junk like the 2013 C2500 were.

Anyway back to the subject. The major automotive establishments want HIGH OCTANE. I think they have plans for high compression to make the engines more efficient.

Way back when I was doing my training at the tech college I think the optimum ratio was taught to us was around 15 to 1 compression ratio. Of course in a lab or on a dyno. I think the best RPM was around 2000. Now this is all very old information and information evolves, so I would guess that it is all out dated.

I sure would like to see 13+ to 1 compression ratio with good fuel and direct injection. I think it would help elevate the particulate issue with the direct injection engines. It looks like they are going to have to add particulate filters to gas engines

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caleditor

I have been known to install CNG kits and work on them from time to time. I am even a certified inspector. I love my CNG.
Local filling station is $1.58 GGE and it is 130 octane. The CNG does displace some of the volume of air entering the cylinders, but it is also about 17 to 1 AFR.

Take a look at the 2015 Impala CNG. the company the is building this car does it right, nit some patched together junk like the 2013 C2500 were.

Anyway back to the subject. The major automotive establishments want HIGH OCTANE. I think they have plans for high compression to make the engines more efficient.

Way back when I was doing my training at the tech college I think the optimum ratio was taught to us was around 15 to 1 compression ratio. Of course in a lab or on a dyno. I think the best RPM was around 2000. Now this is all very old information and information evolves, so I would guess that it is all out dated.

I sure would like to see 13+ to 1 compression ratio with good fuel and direct injection. I think it would help elevate the particulate issue with the direct injection engines. It looks like they are going to have to add particulate filters to gas engines

---

Hopefully adding particulate filters to a gasoline engine would not murder the efficiency of it.

mazda has 13:1 direct injection with gasoline now..... and getting some pretty impressive MPG numbers in the mazda6, which isn't a small car. i want to say with 87 octane as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobertISaar

mazda has 13:1 direct injection with gasoline now..... and getting some pretty impressive MPG numbers in the mazda6, which isn't a small car. i want to say with 87 octane as well.

---

The complete design is well worth looking at. I love how they dropped the NOX in that engine.

i love mazda for the weird concept designs that they just chuck into production vehicles, most other car companies try new stuff and never get out of the concept car stage... wankels.. miller cycle.. crazy direct injection setups..

Quote:

---

Not sure where you have seen that BSFC was highest at peak torque??? BSFC is often LOWEST at peak torque and falls off on both ends.

---

Yep... gettin old. BSFC is lowest at peak torque.

Articles? Readin? Hasn't been time for that fun stuff in a long while.

I would think that E85 with 13:1 statc c/r would do well. Although supposedly when using true R+M/2 ratings, E85 comes down to 94-96 octane. Some of GM'sGM's stock calibrations were upping power by 15 sae Cert hp and 20-30 lb/ft on E85 over gas.

Is that 100 octane Sunoco you can get at the pumps out West rated at R+M/2?

Somewhat off of the topic, but we have 4 ELR's in. If anyone is looking at getting an ELR we have 4 of them. I missed out on a required hands on class for the batteries, so I am not certified to work on them. We have one guy that does all of the work including the PDI's and we have the shop foreman that is also certified. We have 2 in the shop currently, 1 is plugged in and the other is in the tech's bay. I walked by on the 1 getting the charge. It is only $82k

This is about last years SAE congress keynote speaker Bob Putz

Enjoyed Bob Lutz Keynote at the 2013 SAE World Congress. Here are my notes on some key points he touched and thought I’d share them with you.http://www.cseg.us/wp-content/upload...ss-300x205.jpg
He was asked to speak on what he would do if he were the king of the automotive industry for a week. He quickly changed that to “Emperor of the US” as just Auto industry wouldn’t be sufficient, and a King would have to deal with Congress.
On CAFE standards:
The CAFE and CO2 regulation is a backward way of going about the problem. “Reducing fuel consumption by forcing automakers to sell smaller vehicles is like fighting obesity by forcing clothing manufacturer to sell only small sizes.” He advocated a gradual national gas tax (~25 cents a year), the money from which could be used to fix roads and bridges. In a decade,this tax will take gasoline prices up to $8/gallon which is in line with the rest of the world. This will drive the consumer behavior towards more fuel efficient cars, and let the market forces work. This shouldn’t be a political impossibility in the US, because Europe has made it work with conservative and liberal parties. Out of $8 / gallon in Europe, half of it is gas tax.
On Diesels
He said diesels did not make economic sense in America because of Diesel’s comparative price with gasoline. US diesel regulation is a lot stricter. He guesses that there is a $2000 premium in base engine costs and about $1500-$2000 premium on achieving emissions. All this for a 20% better fuel economy with a fuel that costs about 20% more than gasoline. “Diesel has a certain cachet in the United States as the intelligent way to save fuel, but it’s mostly psychological.”
On Public Transport
He said the auto industry supported public transport. High speed trains competes with Airline industry not the auto industry. Using Switzerland as an example, he said it has been shown that mass transit does not affect car ownership, though it may reduce the miles you put on the car. And public transport will improve the quality of driving as fewer people would be sitting in traffic.
On Fuel cells
Lutz remained very skeptical on fuel cell technology for automobiles and if there would ever be a suitable infrastructure forautomotive passenger fuel cell vehicles to be broadly adopted. He believed the future would be electric cars, perhaps Lithium Air batteries with 10 times the energy density. Li Air cannot be recharged today but that might change in a decade. A decade ago, Li-Ions were not suitable for cars.
On meeting CAFE standards
In Lutz’s opinion, meeting CAFE standards will cost us $5000 more per vehicle. US EPA debates these numbers but he believes it to be a good estimate. Numerous technologies will have to be adopted to meet the standards including materials (e.g., carbon fiber), advanced transmission and hybridization of the vehicle (might only need a small 7-10 mile range like the plug-in Prius). He foresees all types of vehicles adopting “partial electrification” to get a better MPG on the sticker including full size pick-up, SUVs and Corvettes.
In the long run, when a battery can provide a 300 mile range every morning when you unplug, people would wonder whether they really need a gasoline engine ever, and that would be the tipping point.

http://www.cseg.us/tech-blog/page/2/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hog

I would think that E85 with 13:1 statc c/r would do well. Although supposedly when using true R+M/2 ratings, E85 comes down to 94-96 octane. Some of GM'sGM's stock calibrations were upping power by 15 sae Cert hp and 20-30 lb/ft on E85 over gas.

Is that 100 octane Sunoco you can get at the pumps out West rated at R+M/2?

---

I was able to get a 9.8:1 engine to run very well on E85. The factory ran the intake cams relatively retarded at low-mid loads and only stepped up the advance under heavier loads and higher RPMs, then retarded the cams very quickly after peak torque. I remapped the intake cam advance to fully advance under less load, stay more advanced for a bit longer and pulled down 398 RWTQ @ 2,980 from a NA 5.6 on E85. I was able to run a substantial amount more timing advance off-idle and through the midrange as well. Also did not have to retard the timing (up to 35-37*BTDC) up top after leaning out the very rich factory calibration like I did on 91. Ordinarily my change from 10.8:1 air/fuel ratio to 12.6:1 required retarding the timing down to 32-34* BTDC.

Cams are 232/244 @ .006, 199/210@ .050, .375/.385" lift, exhaust lobe center of 112* and an ICL ranging from 94* to 124*. LSA can be as tight as 103* or as wide as 118*.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caleditor

This is about last years SAE congress keynote speaker Bob Putz

Enjoyed Bob Lutz Keynote at the 2013 SAE World Congress. Here are my notes on some key points he touched and thought I’d share them with you.http://www.cseg.us/wp-content/upload...ss-300x205.jpg
He was asked to speak on what he would do if he were the king of the automotive industry for a week. He quickly changed that to “Emperor of the US” as just Auto industry wouldn’t be sufficient, and a King would have to deal with Congress.
On CAFE standards:
The CAFE and CO2 regulation is a backward way of going about the problem. “Reducing fuel consumption by forcing automakers to sell smaller vehicles is like fighting obesity by forcing clothing manufacturer to sell only small sizes.” He advocated a gradual national gas tax (~25 cents a year), the money from which could be used to fix roads and bridges. In a decade,this tax will take gasoline prices up to $8/gallon which is in line with the rest of the world. This will drive the consumer behavior towards more fuel efficient cars, and let the market forces work. This shouldn’t be a political impossibility in the US, because Europe has made it work with conservative and liberal parties. Out of $8 / gallon in Europe, half of it is gas tax.
On Diesels
He said diesels did not make economic sense in America because of Diesel’s comparative price with gasoline. US diesel regulation is a lot stricter. He guesses that there is a $2000 premium in base engine costs and about $1500-$2000 premium on achieving emissions. All this for a 20% better fuel economy with a fuel that costs about 20% more than gasoline. “Diesel has a certain cachet in the United States as the intelligent way to save fuel, but it’s mostly psychological.”
On Public Transport
He said the auto industry supported public transport. High speed trains competes with Airline industry not the auto industry. Using Switzerland as an example, he said it has been shown that mass transit does not affect car ownership, though it may reduce the miles you put on the car. And public transport will improve the quality of driving as fewer people would be sitting in traffic.
On Fuel cells
Lutz remained very skeptical on fuel cell technology for automobiles and if there would ever be a suitable infrastructure forautomotive passenger fuel cell vehicles to be broadly adopted. He believed the future would be electric cars, perhaps Lithium Air batteries with 10 times the energy density. Li Air cannot be recharged today but that might change in a decade. A decade ago, Li-Ions were not suitable for cars.
On meeting CAFE standards
In Lutz’s opinion, meeting CAFE standards will cost us $5000 more per vehicle. US EPA debates these numbers but he believes it to be a good estimate. Numerous technologies will have to be adopted to meet the standards including materials (e.g., carbon fiber), advanced transmission and hybridization of the vehicle (might only need a small 7-10 mile range like the plug-in Prius). He foresees all types of vehicles adopting “partial electrification” to get a better MPG on the sticker including full size pick-up, SUVs and Corvettes.
In the long run, when a battery can provide a 300 mile range every morning when you unplug, people would wonder whether they really need a gasoline engine ever, and that would be the tipping point.

http://www.cseg.us/tech-blog/page/2/

---

I feel the answer for many people will be CNG conversion and in-garage refueling stations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast355

I feel the answer for many people will be CNG conversion and in-garage refueling stations.

---

For years when I lived in Milwaukee I watched AutoLine Detroit every Sunday. I have seen Bob speak several times on the show. He has an opinion and it has cost him a job or 2.
About 7 or 8 years ago the host John McElroy stated on a few shows that gas prices needed to jump up to the $4 or $5 per gallon price. This would get us in line to explore alternative fuels. If gas is cheap we will stick with it and the initial cost involved with the evolution of alternative fuels would never be recouped.
Then the gas prices jumped to $3.50 or even $5 per gallon and people started to lose their homes. If gas was under $2 per gallon Tesla would not be the presence that they are. Battery technology would be far behind what it is today. Higher gas prices have helped bring down the cost of alternative fuels.

$8 per gallon is too high. I would be making my own Ethanol at home if fuel was $8 per gallon.

A few years back Eaton corp announced a $500 CNG filling appliance for home use that would hit the market in 2015. I have seen a few more low cost compressors coming to market at the $1500 range. The Eaton compressor uses a fluid to compress the CNG and some type of heat transfer unit. The issue with hone filling stations is the compressors get hot and fail. Then they blow crap into the CNG system.

I have customers filling at home for $.60 per gallon after road tax and government incentives.

We have a device that when installed on a vehicle that has been converted to CNG with a low budget and some high dollar kit will add on average 4 mpg over not installing the module. If you ever decide to do CNG on a GM vehicle I would like to give you a module to try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caleditor

For years when I lived in Milwaukee I watched AutoLine Detroit every Sunday. I have seen Bob speak several times on the show. He has an opinion and it has cost him a job or 2.
About 7 or 8 years ago the host John McElroy stated on a few shows that gas prices needed to jump up to the $4 or $5 per gallon price. This would get us in line to explore alternative fuels. If gas is cheap we will stick with it and the initial cost involved with the evolution of alternative fuels would never be recouped.
Then the gas prices jumped to $3.50 or even $5 per gallon and people started to lose their homes. If gas was under $2 per gallon Tesla would not be the presence that they are. Battery technology would be far behind what it is today. Higher gas prices have helped bring down the cost of alternative fuels.

$8 per gallon is too high. I would be making my own Ethanol at home if fuel was $8 per gallon.

A few years back Eaton corp announced a $500 CNG filling appliance for home use that would hit the market in 2015. I have seen a few more low cost compressors coming to market at the $1500 range. The Eaton compressor uses a fluid to compress the CNG and some type of heat transfer unit. The issue with hone filling stations is the compressors get hot and fail. Then they blow crap into the CNG system.

I have customers filling at home for $.60 per gallon after road tax and government incentives.

We have a device that when installed on a vehicle that has been converted to CNG with a low budget and some high dollar kit will add on average 4 mpg over not installing the module. If you ever decide to do CNG on a GM vehicle I would like to give you a module to try.

---

I have actually been looking into converting the 5.7 Express and deleting the gasoline fuel system entirely. The only reason I have not converted is I am stuck between Natural Gas and LPG and single fuel vs dual fuel. Just too many options. With the marine intake on my Express I could pickup a set of gaseous injectors and run an aftermarket fuel rail setup and tune the 0411 to have a sequentially injected gaseous setup. The other problem I have is I am making somewhere in the 450 HP range at 6,000 rpm from the old 350 with the intake, heads, cam, headers, etc. I have not been able to find a set of gaseous injectors large enough to fuel the engine alone and I am afraid to piggy back something. However I have seen some conversions for higher HP engines that actually retain the gasoline system and start bringing in the gasoline injectors when the gaseous fuel injectors start to max out. However with this system it crossed my mind that the "gasoline" injectors could actually be a secondary set of gaseous injectors. I did enough research about the subject to find out I need hours more research to develop a system to work for my intended purpose.

I am with you on the Ethanol. At $8.00 a gallon for gasoline distilling your own ethanol would make sense.

I do know that if I go dedicated gaseous fuel, the engine is coming out, getting flattop pistons and the head is getting angle milled substantially. I will be increasing the static compression ratio to the 11.5-12:1 range. I have also considered a 383 to keep the power output up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast355

I have actually been looking into converting the 5.7 Express and deleting the gasoline fuel system entirely. The only reason I have not converted is I am stuck between Natural Gas and LPG and single fuel vs dual fuel. Just too many options. With the marine intake on my Express I could pickup a set of gaseous injectors and run an aftermarket fuel rail setup and tune the 0411 to have a sequentially injected gaseous setup. The other problem I have is I am making somewhere in the 450 HP range at 6,000 rpm from the old 350 with the intake, heads, cam, headers, etc. I have not been able to find a set of gaseous injectors large enough to fuel the engine alone and I am afraid to piggy back something. However I have seen some conversions for higher HP engines that actually retain the gasoline system and start bringing in the gasoline injectors when the gaseous fuel injectors start to max out. However with this system it crossed my mind that the "gasoline" injectors could actually be a secondary set of gaseous injectors. I did enough research about the subject to find out I need hours more research to develop a system to work for my intended purpose.

I am with you on the Ethanol. At $8.00 a gallon for gasoline distilling your own ethanol would make sense.

I do know that if I go dedicated gaseous fuel, the engine is coming out, getting flattop pistons and the head is getting angle milled substantially. I will be increasing the static compression ratio to the 11.5-12:1 range. I have also considered a 383 to keep the power output up.

---

I have a lot of information on CNG. If you would like to peruse that we can start another thread. I have all of the Dedicated Injector part numbers that we use. The issue would not be the injectors, but the regulator maxing out on flow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caleditor

I have a lot of information on CNG. If you would like to peruse that we can start another thread. I have all of the Dedicated Injector part numbers that we use. The issue would not be the injectors, but the regulator maxing out on flow.

---

I will take you up on that..

http://www.gearhead-efi.com/Fuel-Inj...8633#post38633

I watched the newest episode of Cosmos last night. The main topic was about the leaded gasoline and the controversies behind it. Well, the rest is his-story...