Swift 100R vs 100LL

[sansoneservices]

Anybody know pricing of Swift 100R.. if not substantially cheaper than 100LL I'm not interested. I've heard our LyConisaurs need leaded fuel for valve faces and seats. STC's are being approved by the FAA and the EPA might start pushing the UL fuel soon. Opinions??

 

[Hang 4]

No idea on price, but the valve seat thing is an OWT.

 

[Pinecone]

How can you know the price before it is made and available.

G100UL costs $1 per gallon more at the refinery than 100LL. There is 1.3 million gallons of G100UL ready to ship.

 

[Sac Arrow]

How can you know the price before it is made and available.

G100UL costs $1 per gallon more at the refinery than 100LL. There is 1.3 million gallons of G100UL ready to ship.

Why is that? Is it because you need a more expensive octane booster to replace lead?

 

[Jim_R]

Anybody know pricing of Swift 100R.. if not substantially cheaper than 100LL I'm not interested.

You'll be interested in whatever fuel works for your application when 100LL is no longer available, regardless of the price. Perhaps you've been living under a rock for the last 10-20 years or so, but that's the ultimate endgame here. You shouldn't expect any of the replacements to be cheaper than 100LL.

 

[Dana]

Back when UL first came out for cars, we were told that it would be cheaper "because they didn't have to put lead in it." Yeah, right.

 

[robin ardoin]

Why is that? Is it because you need a more expensive octane booster to replace lead?

Essentially, yes.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Why is that? Is it because you need a more expensive octane booster to replace lead?

I would expect that it's more about the low volume than about any specific component.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

For the early market entrant, wanna get their R&D investment back as soon as possible.

 

[Hang 4]

I would expect that it's more about the low volume than about any specific component.

It's both. There's a few octane boosters e.g. toluene, that cost more than TEL (tetra ethyl lead) in the quantities they are being purchased at. (for G100UL, no idea about Swift) There's a lot of potential cost savings in distributing an unleaded product in trucking and rail cars. The quantities are too low to go in pipelines. There's also some good data on less engine wear and longer oil change intervals from G100UL testing.

Swift has likely been one of the barriers to G100UL getting distributed. They are pretty much toast if G100UL gets out there. Swift's 94 UL is not useable by a large part of the fleet, which represents most of the piston consumption. Swift also doesn't have the years of testing GAMI has done.

 

[sansoneservices]

You'll be interested in whatever fuel works for your application when 100LL is no longer available, regardless of the price. Perhaps you've been living under a rock for the last 10-20 years or so, but that's the ultimate endgame here. You shouldn't expect any of the replacements to be cheaper than 100LL.

You might notice my original post acknowledged the EPA will establish the endgame. Yes we're expecting leaded avgas to eventually go away. I crawled out from under that rock today

 

[robin ardoin]

I would expect that it's more about the low volume than about any specific component.

TEL is a very cost effective octane booster. The aromatic compounds used to make G100UL, for the most part, require more processing than just simple distillation of crude which increases cost. Yes, costs may be quite a bit disparate compared to 100ll upon first adoption at FBO's and this may improve with volume, but, over the long term, G100UL is going to cost a bit more than TEL boosted high octane fuel because of the aromatics cost.

 

[Racerx]

It's AML is basically nil. And theyve acknowledged it won't work in all engines. Asking what the price is right now is putting the cart before the horse

 

[Pinecone]

Why is that? Is it because you need a more expensive octane booster to replace lead?

That is part of it. It is also new, some start up costs.

TEL has been used for many years because it is very cheap for the octane boost.

 

[Pinecone]

TEL is a very cost effective octane booster. The aromatic compounds used to make G100UL, for the most part, require more processing than just simple distillation of crude which increases cost. Yes, costs may be quite a bit disparate compared to 100ll upon first adoption at FBO's and this may improve with volume, but, over the long term, G100UL is going to cost a bit more than TEL boosted high octane fuel because of the aromatics cost.

However, it is open to be being made at more refineries. So more competition. And the margin on AVGAS is higher than MOGAS, so possibility that it could be very close to the same.

And, right now, 100LL varies from about $4.20 to over $11 per gallon. So a lot of wiggle room.

 

[robin ardoin]

However, it is open to be being made at more refineries. So more competition. And the margin on AVGAS is higher than MOGAS, so possibility that it could be very close to the same.

And, right now, 100LL varies from about $4.20 to over $11 per gallon. So a lot of wiggle room.

Regardless, it will be made from refined petroleum products, just like all motor gasoline. These products are combined at a blending plant (which may be remote from the refinery) to formulate the desired end product. My point is that the aromatic components used to boost the octane rating are more expensive to formulate and will make the fuel, at a wholesale level, more expensive than 100LL. Economies of scale will likely reduce the original disparity but, due to the relatively low volume of avgas sold, I can't see how a product more expensive to formulate will have cost parity with a product cheaper to formulate. Even 93 octane is more expensive than 87 due to these facts. I look at 100LL and G100UL (or any UL) in the same light.