As you may have heard, there's a lot of hand-wringing going on about how the price of gasoline (petrol) is rising here in the US (and elsewhere).  Suddenly, Americans are being forced to pay $4 per gallon to get where they need to go.  Four whole bucks.  Now, I'm not happy about this development.  However, I have enough perspective to recognize that the 92 cents per gallon I paid back in high school was a number that hadn't risen even to match inflation over the preceding 20 years.  Not only that, but we should also thank our lucky stars that we don't live in Europe (or maybe we shouldn't be so thankful - more on that, later). 

All this means is that we're catching up to the rest of the world's take on fuel economy, which isn't a bad thing, really.  And the reality is that we're still getting by on the cheap, relative to the rest of the world that's paying upwards of six and eight dollars per gallon.  All of these things have been said, over and over by pundits, politicians, experts, carmakers, and oil barons, in one manner or another.  The fallout will be more alternative energy sources for automobiles, more interest in drilling for oil in North America, and generally speaking, a driver for innovation and awareness unlike any we've had in a long, long time.  All good things arising from a bad thing.  Nice positive spin I've put together, there, I have to say.

So, you're reading this dumb blog/article thing, thinking "What's troubling ol' Moose about rising fuel costs?"  Good of you to bring me back on point.  My problem is this:  Back in 1993, when I got behind the wheel of my first car (the '79-82 Frankenstang, another blog, in itself), i tanked up at the aforementioned rate of 92 cents per gallon of regular 87 octane gas.  If the Frankenstang complained, I would indulge the ol' girl a bit and tank up on 93 octane (not too many places offering 91 out here on the East coast, in case you're wondering).  No different than anyone else with a pretty old car.  Well, that indulgence of the Frankenstang was at a cost (otherwise it's not really an indulgence), more than 20% greater cost, at $1.12/gallon. 

Again, you're thinking, "Duh, Moose.  It's better fuel, it should cost a good bit more".  I'd agree, until the recent quadrupling of regular fuel costs illustrated that perhaps we'd been getting brutally gouged by Exxon/Mobil, BP/Amoco, Shell, Sunoco, Getty and their ilk for quite some time.  Right now, I fill up the DOHC i-VTEC powered Civic Si with 93 octane, because that kind of performance demands 91 or better (so say the Japanese engineers who designed and built it).  It costs me about $4.20/gallon.  Since there are no self-serve gas pumps in NJ, if I accidentally utter the phrase "Fill it up, regular" at the pump from 15 years of habit, then I save a whopping 20 cents per gallon, and it's $4.00/gallon.  The same 20 cents difference that was there back in 1993.  Except now, that 20 cents difference is a scant 5% mark-up over regular.

I wish I knew enough about additives and the cost of fuel production to know whether we're getting a bargain on 91+ octane now, or if we were getting screwed before.  The one thing I do know is this:  it's a good time to own two cars that require 91+ octane to run at peak efficiency.  The other thing I know is that you're probably a sucker if you're filling up on regular right now.  Might as well go for that incremental 5% bump and indulge your Frankenstang.

Now, if only I could figure a way to justify that $7.99/gallon, 100-octane racing fuel over at the Valero station...

-BAM