E15 Gas?? Just how bad is it for our precious SUV's? (1 Viewer)

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Had this same question when I saw the news release as well. Thanks for the replies! I never run less than mid-grade in the GX, but may start running it in the Tacoma now as well. Longevity is more important to me than a couple of dollars saved at the pump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: r2m
FWIW, 2013 manual, pages 116 and 772 have the same graphic but say only up to 10%, and specifically state not to use E15, E50, E85, or anything with more than 10% ethanol.

I vaguely remember someone mentioning an SAE article from the 80s or something about ethanol blends, basically indicating that ethanol does not significantly affect engine wear. The issue is ethanol blends tend to absorb water, in that when ethanol and gasoline are blended, and then ethanol takes on water, the ethanol/water solution separates from the gasoline, which sinks to the bottom of the tank, while lower-octane gasoline floats to the top. It's the ethanol and water mix that tends to be super corrosive, and then the double whammy of lower octane gasoline = bad motoring times.
In addition to these there is added fuel dilution from the ethanol that would cause lower lubrication meaning you will need more frequent oil changes. I know Toyota does not have an oil life monitoring system in my 2013 but most of the GM vehicles I've had have this. It accounts for city vs highway driving and how long each drive cycle is. More trips of 20mi or less where the engine cannot fully heat up to burn off the water byproducts = more fuel dilution. E15 will only make this worse with the additives to keep the vapor pressures at bay for outside the engine emissions controls. EPA monitors not only the emissions from the engine, but emissions from filling the gas tank, purge canister, PCV system; anything that has gasoline through it they monitor for emissions and try to control that with lower volatility fuel.
 
I ran a full highway tank on non-ethanol recently traveling through Utah, out of curiosity, did not notice a difference in MPG.

Additionally, Running higher octane fuel does not make your vehicle last longer, and does not contribute to longevity, hate to tell you guys. In some scenarios you may get a very unnoticeable power increase.

The 2UZ is not high compression or direct injection. It’s an old dinosaur v8 with enough tech on it to detect knock and correct timing. I run 85 octane anytime possible. Never heard a ping.
 
Last edited:
I ran a full highway tank on non-ethanol recently traveling through Utah, out of curiosity, did not notice a difference in MPG.

Running higher grade fuel does not make your vehicle last longer, hate to tell you guys. It’s not high compression or direct injection. It’s an old dinosaur v8. I run 85 octane anytime possible.
It should have no difference on the engine internals, but E10 specifically will make your fuel system components wear out quicker due to the potential for E10 to become mildly acidic, in addition to the alcohol component of the ethanol drying out the rubber seals. If you drive your GX quite a bit it'll probably take a long time to become an issue, since the ethanol won't be in the tank long enough to turn acidic. Also, Toyota uses excellent quality rubber in their hoses.

I do run E10 as it's mandated for 87 octane in Missouri due to our ag lobby. My GX does seem to run a bit better on 91 but it's not worth the cost with E10 at $3.80/gallon. I do also run Lucas Upper Cylinder Lubricants in mine to counteract some of the ethanol effects by lubricating the fuel system, and it bumps octane by a point or so too. One of these days I'd like to do an actual study and see if there is actual MPG/power benefit out of straight 87 E10 vs. 91 vs. Lucas UCL treated 87 E10.
 
Hmmm, seems like this may be another way for the admin to continue to force the populace to give up internal combustion. :facepalm: There's no way that this wasn't an intended side effect to thin out internal combustion products and generate more tax revenue.

@jiggletits The slight difference is going to manifest itself over time with mostly city and slow speed driving as well as trips where the engine isn't fully warmed up yet. Highway driving difference is going to be negligible.

I do run E10 as it's mandated for 87 octane in Missouri due to our ag lobby

Ugh, more gov't bull****. Of course it is mandated, they gave those sweet subsidies to the farmers to change over their crops from something meaningful to corn for ethanol.
 
Ugh, more gov't bulls***. Of course it is mandated, they gave those sweet subsidies to the farmers to change over their crops from something meaningful to corn for ethanol.
Yes, mandated by our Red State MO government to keep their base happy :). Ethanol is a crock of crap, benefits a few at the expense of all of us!

Don't want to get on too much of a tangent but we are not getting off internal combustion engines any time soon. There are not enough quantities of battery metals available in the near future to make the transition, and we can't develop and permit new mines fast enough in the USA to meet the demand. Prices for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and copper are going to skyrocket and slow the whole thing down based on commodities shortages. Or we'll have to get EV metals from 3rd world counties with lax environmental standards and where they are mined using child labor or other human rights abuses. This is coming from someone who does a lot of work for the mining industry.

EVs are no greener than our 2UZ and 1UR powered GX's, where we at least run domestically-sourced fossil fuels extracted under strict environmental and labor standards.
 
Considering I never run my gas tank low enough to suck that water up from the bottom of the tank, once I use E(whatever), that water will probably sit there forever and do its magic (rust) the tank.
Yeah, I'll just bite the bullet and stay with Premium.
 
I ran a full highway tank on non-ethanol recently traveling through Utah, out of curiosity, did not notice a difference in MPG.

Additionally, Running higher octane fuel does not make your vehicle last longer, and does not contribute to longevity, hate to tell you guys. In some scenarios you may get a very unnoticeable power increase.

The 2UZ is not high compression or direct injection. It’s an old dinosaur v8 with enough tech on it to detect knock and correct timing. I run 85 octane anytime possible. Never heard a ping.
I always run Premium, at whatever the octane is where I'm at as long as it's ≥91.
I agree that I don't feel anything with the butt-ometer as far as acceleration or power, but I definitely see it in MPG. At least 1 - 3 MPG better.
 
Yes, mandated by our Red State MO government to keep their base happy :). Ethanol is a crock of crap, benefits a few at the expense of all of us!

Don't want to get on too much of a tangent but we are not getting off internal combustion engines any time soon. There are not enough quantities of battery metals available in the near future to make the transition, and we can't develop and permit new mines fast enough in the USA to meet the demand. Prices for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and copper are going to skyrocket and slow the whole thing down based on commodities shortages. Or we'll have to get EV metals from 3rd world counties with lax environmental standards and where they are mined using child labor or other human rights abuses. This is coming from someone who does a lot of work for the mining industry.

EVs are no greener than our 2UZ and 1UR powered GX's, where we at least run domestically-sourced fossil fuels extracted under strict environmental and labor standards.
They already do. Glencore owns mines in Congo which is notorious for slave and child labor violations and those mines provide most of the cobalt. A lot of companies are trying to divest from cobalt chemistries, but there is not breakthrough tech yet. Once that happens it might heighten adoption. I just read an article that GM is utilizing a mine in Australia for their batteries but partnered with Glencore, so who knows if it is really from Australia or just another shell gig. Tesla and most of the China built EV's within China are using shell companies from the Congo to supply their batteries as of now to avoid direct human rights violations. Not to mention the shipment of all these minerals using sludge fuel ships and contaminating water and ecosystems to mine the other heavy metals for the batteries. No one has done a real comparison between the two to see what impacts the planet more, but 1 thing will always be worse and that is people buying a new car less than every 10 years. Each time you trade in for a new vehicle you reset your carbon emission stream and never really offset the costs associated. Cars need to stay on the roads for 15+ years to really start to become carbon positive. EV vs gas is at about 10 years before becoming more carbon positive than a gas vehicle; if it were not to remain on the road due to an accident, etc then the carbon offset was really wasted. The Dirty Secrets Of ‘Clean’ Electric Vehicles - https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2020/08/02/the-dirty-secrets-of-clean-electric-vehicles/?sh=27587762650b
 
benefits a few at the expense of all of us!
That's the motto for all politicians regardless of which side they are on (two sides of the same corrupt coin). I'm so happy to be in the middle. lol
 
I have never seen E15, but I believe if you don't want to use E15 fuel, you can get premium which should be E10 at most.
 
I always run Premium, at whatever the octane is where I'm at as long as it's ≥91.
I agree that I don't feel anything with the butt-ometer as far as acceleration or power, but I definitely see it in MPG. At least 1 - 3 MPG better.
I've never had that experience where octane effects MPG, even in my newer direct injected IS350... definitely feel less power on 85 but MPGs were more or less the same.

To play along, the fuel cost to jump to premium over regular is 20%+ here in CO. That fill-up cost is more than 3MPG is saving (3 MPG being your best case scenario, seems like a stretch). So really no savings to be had.

Regardless. ethanol content and octane are not the same thing, though the more ethanol you have... the slower your burn so is detonation is your concern, higher ethanol is a good thing in terms of having similar effects as octane.

Going from E10 to E15 is not going to make a noticeable difference. My Tundra can run up to E85. I ran a few tanks and did notice more than a 1-2 MPG decrease. E85 is also about 70% the cost of 85 octane out here.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom