Every Republican president has brought a new war and an economic crash...

[Geo]

Exactly Mr Geo...Exactly! UNIPARTY as work here.

Welcome to the Epstein Class........................

Epstein was part of the Rothchild clan, he's probably on a Darpa black ops island somewhere.

 

[harddriver]

 

[harddriver]

Epstein was part of the Rothchild clan, he's probably on a Darpa black ops island somewhere.

 

[lol]

 

[IndyWS6]

My dad worked at Exxon for his entire career and I have some knowledge with this from my science background. Not that I'm an expert, but do have a little insight.
Octane is basically ignition vs performance. 87 ignites easier but doesn't offer as good of performance. 93 is harder to ignite but offers better performance. It may have made a difference putting 93 octane in cars back in the 70's & 80's as it kept the engine cleaner and running better. Now-a-days with computer controlled fuel injection instead of carburetors its more about engine design. If you have a performance sports car or similar that's designed for 93 octane then that's what you should be putting in it. Most cars on the road do just fine with 87 so anything more becomes a waste of money. That said, whatever you started putting in your vehicle you should stick with it because that's what the engine broke in with using.

One caveat of this... I'm not a car guy so y'all likely have a better understanding than me on that side of the fence. I only have my insight on the fuel side of things.

That’s part of my point. Running 93 octane (or whatever “premium” is in your area) in a car that would typically be fine with 87, won’t cause issues. The reverse is a different story. If we standardized on “high” octane fuel - and my understanding is it’s cheaper to produce - we all win. Think of the long term savings… no need to haul tankers with different fuels, fewer underground storage tanks, less complex pumps. Not to mention the multi-billion $ savings by reducing complexity at the refineries. There’s probably something that makes this impractical (kickbacks, lobbyists, greed…) but it sounds reasonable on the surface.

 

[harddriver]

The Democrats could have voted for the WAR POWERS RESOLUTION act yet they voted to fund the current military WAR. That is a UNIPARTY when certain policies are a stake.

 

[Floyd Eye]

My dad worked at Exxon for his entire career and I have some knowledge with this from my science background. Not that I'm an expert, but do have a little insight.
Octane is basically ignition vs performance. 87 ignites easier but doesn't offer as good of performance. 93 is harder to ignite but offers better performance. It may have made a difference putting 93 octane in cars back in the 70's & 80's as it kept the engine cleaner and running better. Now-a-days with computer controlled fuel injection instead of carburetors its more about engine design. If you have a performance sports car or similar that's designed for 93 octane then that's what you should be putting in it. Most cars on the road do just fine with 87 so anything more becomes a waste of money. That said, whatever you started putting in your vehicle you should stick with it because that's what the engine broke in with using.

One caveat of this... I'm not a car guy so y'all likely have a better understanding than me on that side of the fence. I only have my insight on the fuel side of things.

Mercedes C350. Have to run 91 minimum. I can't even find 91 around here, so 93 it is.

 

[Floyd Eye]

By the way, Brent Crude is $87/barrel right now.