The controversy over the quality of gasoline challenges the widely held belief that all gasoline is about the same.
The auto industry analysis reveals that different brands have different detergent levels. And while all gasoline is thought to at least meet the EPA's minimum standard for detergents, the automakers say that level is often insufficient to keep engines clean.
Although the cost of introducing Top Tier gasoline would be minimal for consumers, it could threaten how some oil companies market premium fuel, which costs about 20 cents more per gallon than regular gas.
Premium accounts for about 15 percent of gasoline sales, but experts estimate that demand for premium would fall to about 5 percent if only cars that needed the extra octane used premium.
Some oil companies have sought to increase sales of premium by touting that it contains a higher level of detergents. But Top Tier will blur that advantage, since all grades, including regular, will have to meet the new standard if a marketer wants to participate in the program.
Early this year, GM approached Honda, Toyota and BMW to join in an effort to improve gasoline detergent levels. GM believed that an organized group rather than a lone automaker would show the seriousness of the issue.
The move came at a time when automakers were beginning to produce vehicles to meet the EPA's “Tier 2” environmental standards for reduced emissions. Such vehicles need quality fuel to avoid reduced performance.
“We feel high detergency is preferable,” said Douglas McGregor, an emissions compliance engineer for BMW.
In early April, the American Petroleum Institute held a meeting in Detroit for the oil and auto industries. A week before the meeting, the association received a letter stating that the four automakers would be discussing the Top Tier program.
“We were disappointed,” said Murphy of the petroleum institute, adding that his group didn't know Top Tier was even in the works before receiving the letter.
The oil industry wasn't given an opportunity to give its advice, Murphy said, adding that a new fuel standard typically involves cooperation between the industries.
But collaboration is unlikely. The automakers say they have previously reached out to the oil industry with concerns, but nothing happened. As a result, the automakers decided to proceed unilaterally with a new fuel standard.
“Frankly, we didn't want too much input,” said Buczynsky, of GM. “Because when we have, it would always drop down to the bare minimum.”
The Top Tier standard was modeled after California's fuel quality regulations, which allow half the deposits on intake valves that the federal rules permit. Buczynsky said the amount of detergents in Top Tier-certified gasoline will be two to three times the current EPA standard.
Umm... this was in response to an EPA government mandate that forced the market to consider such an action. This is how governmental mandates in the environmental arena SHOULD work, by focusing market forces into areas that would not have previously been considered otherwise.
Animale
The move came at a time when automakers were beginning to produce vehicles to meet the EPA's “Tier 2” environmental standards for reduced emissions. Such vehicles need quality fuel to avoid reduced performance.
By 2002, the automakers say repair records suggested that the EPA standard for detergents wasn't high enough. They approached the EPA about increasing gasoline detergents, but say they were rebuffed.
The government stayed out of the issue and the automakers took it upon themselves to push for a better standard.
I guess I am not understanding this. They are trying to make the vehicals that they will make in the future require better standard of fuel? Doesn't that bring the price of gas up at a time when gas prices are astronomical?
No, the automakers are attempting to meet the requirements for lower emissions vehicles (as set by the EPA and state agencies such as California EPA). It turns out that the EPA fuel requirements (a separate issue) are not high enough for the automakers to make the higher emissions vehicles. Therefore, the governmental requirement for lower emissions vehicles (California law specifically, EPA has a lower standard than them) is the driving force behind this "market driven" move on the part of automakers.
Not saying this isn't a good thing, but saying that it is all private sector market driven goodness is a gross oversimplification - and denies the part that governmental environmental requirements have had in moving the market to recognize the environment as a real economic factor.
I'm simply highlighting a notable instance where the government isn't dragging industry along through mandates rather, one player in the industry is pushing the advancement to reduce the amount of necessary consumer repairs for their product.
