87 oct vs. 87 ethanol free vs. 93 premium??? (1 Viewer)

[chrisbruck]

Anyone have any solid experience with the differences in running these three gas choices? The reason I ask is the local QT's are now selling ethanol free which I've never tried in my LC (only 87 with 10% ethanol or 93 premium).

Not trying to rehash the whole 87 vs 93 debate but more curious if the ethanol free 87 offers more MPG.

 

[sean2202]

I did not see a significant difference between 87 and 87 non ethanol in the 100. I have tried both on highway driving same route and since my 100 only gets about 15 mpg any change is barely noticed.

However last year I tried both same route same driver same conditions highway driving on my wife's car and was almost
2mpg more with non ethanol 87. This car was getting 26mpg to almost always 24.2.

If you can use non ethanol

 

[87warrior]

I have not noticed a significant MPG change due to various fuel choices.

I do notice less vapor pressure release when opening the fuel cap after running a tank of non ethanol 87 or 91. Also, don't assume all premium grades of fuel are ethanol free.

 

[apdxyk]

Depends on particular engine/car. I have tried ethanol-free in my LX only once in the hills of Idaho on a road trip, and it was definitely worth it in my case. There was a Sinclair station on the Oregon side, and the attendant filled it without asking with the 87. I told him that I always use 92+, to which he casually replied that this is the real deal. And it was. I didn't do any measurements, but had like 50+ miles extra from that tank. I did the measurements in Ford's panthers, and it yielded 15% more consistently. In some more advanced engines makes no difference.

 

[SurfSwitch]

Wait.. you guys are using regular (87) with no issues?

 

[studawg]

All things being the same, I don't see how it would be possible for any vehicle to NOT get better fuel mileage with pure gas (E0) as opposed to gas cut with some amount of ethanol like E10.

There is also nothing to suggest that ethanol-free fuel, E0, will provide any performance benefit like HP or anything, over gas with ethanol like E10. Of course the ethanol attracts moisture and is known to deteriorate older types of fuel lines and gaskets. Gas with ethanol will phase separate over time, and you will be left with pure gas and water in your tank. Since the octane is raised when the ethanol is added, when that ethanol phase separates, you will be left with gas having an octane rating below what the gas was originally rated at, and some amount of water.

The Land Cruiser owners manual states that 87 is the minimum, but for increased performance, premium fuel with octane rating of 91 or higher is recommended. It is my understanding that knock sensors in the ECU system will figure out what octane is being run and adjust timing and such to compensate for or optimize combustion. Its worth noting that the 2007 LC only requires 87 octane and is rated at 265 HP while the 2007 LX470 requires premium fuel and is rated at 268 HP.

 

[Sligex]

Something interesting to know is that they actually use ethanol as an easy way to boost octane levels in fuel.

Regardless, with my truck, I notice an obvious performance loss when running 87 vs 93, but noticed no difference in running ethanol vs. non-ethanol (other than the pain on the wallet) for 87 in both gas mileage and performance. I have both 87 and 93 non-ethanol available to me (in addition to the 10% ethanol mixes) and for the most part just run ethanol mixes unless the cost difference is not too bad (which it never is).

 

[SNLC]

I run 91 non-ethanol in my 100 every fuel tank.

Cheers

 

[Simplespirit]

Plain 87 (up to 10% ethanol). Avg 14-15 pretty much all city and back roads, towing or not. If I take a trip on the highway I've seen 17ish.

 

[Keowee]

I've seen 1-2 mpg increase in hwy mileage with pure gas but the extra cost per gallon negates the increase for me.

The ethanol mandate is political anyway. Should be done away with.

 

[chrisbruck]

Thanks for the replies. Sounds like the ethanol free won't do a whole lot. I thought MPG's may consistently increase but not the case. Ethanol free is about the same price as premium which I know it runs a little better on. I've done that comparison before.

 

[Simplespirit]

Premium here is 50 cents a gallon more than regular currently. 2.69 vs 2.19. Using premium would effectively have to net me ~20% more mpg to be worth it. That means 18 in the city. Fat chance on that. Or maybe that should be 25% more. Either way.

 

[Rip]

my experience too. 14-15 mpg local whether I use premium or regular. 17-18 mpg on long trips at 70 mph.

 

[studawg]

Ethanol-free will provide increased mileage and range. Premium will provide increased performance according to Toyota.

 

[LXPearl]

Several years ago during the push for ethanol Consumer Reports did some testing on the various fuel mixes. The ethanol does not deliver as many BTUs as pure gasoline. What they found is that the gas mileage was proportional to the BTU rating. The modern engines adjust to the gasoline for the ideal air fuel ratio, so BTUs become the determining factor on mpg. Thus the non-ethanol got better mpg, and the more ethanol added to the fuel, the more the mpg dropped.

 

[AMGAndrew]

Hence why flex fuel capable vehicles get drastically worse MPG on e85 vs running 87 e10.

 

[aaronrules]

My reason for picking non-ethanol gas is purely political. Any evidence that it is better for the environment, provides better MPG's, or helps us use less oil is mostly biased. Ethanol is a government subsidized industry, I'm not a big fan of the US gov't subsidizing industry at all.