Ethanol free Regular?

[John E Davies]

Is it worth running in this truck? There is a source near me and the cost for 87 is 10% higher than the 10% Ethanol stuff. With an expected fuel economy improvement of maybe 5% the extra cost is a non issue.

I have used the premium before in a turbo Subaru and the engine really responded well. I suspect that I may not see much difference in the 5.7 .... comments? I am especially interested to know if there will be any benefit while towing a 6000 lb trailer.

The station is a brand new Maverik. I know some people don't care for the brand, but I have never had a problem with their gas.

Even if there is no difference in the performance I may keep using it. I have always opposed growing food (corn) and then converting it to fuel. It never made sense to me. If I were a farmer, I suppose I would welcome it...

Thanks,

John Davies
Spokane WA

 

[gaijin]

Maverik is not Top Tier gas - I'd steer clear.

HTH

 

[John E Davies]

Maverik is not Top Tier gas - I'd steer clear.

HTH

That is not what I was asking about. But thanks anyway.

I don't care about Top Tier because I use an additive (Archoil 6200) in every tank.

John Davies
Spokane WA

 

[Back 40]

I have always made a practice of running non-ethanol if possible. Ethanol has reeked havoc on enough of my small engine equipment to convince me it cant be doing my 5.7 any favors.

As far as the mileage goes, I run mostly premium, but have noticed very little difference when running 87. I primarily run premium for the better detergent package in the fuel. Others may have more tangible evidence, but i dont think your doing to see more and 2-3% difference in mileage .

 

[Cruisin911]

Nope. Not worth it, and neither is the additive. Here in Colorado, I run the 85 grade (not e85) with zero issues. Of course, that's altitude impacted but this is my second 5.7 Toyota and they're damn near bulletproof

 

[40Man]

I run premium with no Ethanol, and regular with no Ethanol when I can get it (Missouri doesn't allow regular no ethanol for some reason). I get about a 2 mpg bump vs the ethanol gas. With the extra cost, I probably don't break even, but I also get an extra day between fillups due to the extra mileage I get out of a tank.

Having seen first hand what ethanol gasoline can do to small engines, I am happy to steer clear when possible. If you are cycling through gas regularly, ethanol won't gum up the works. For small engines (lawnmowers, motorcycles etc.) I HIGHLY recommend using non ethanol gasoline if possible.

 

[Romer]

I tried it and so no difference in performance

 

[jakerudy]

After several problems with small engines and my wife's Subaru I won't use ethanol gas unless there is no alternative. MPG is reduced due to less energy per gallon and it causes carb problems in small engines. In my wife's Subaru it will set off the check engine light every time. Had to replace O2 sensors in her car due to ethanol so the extra cost of premium is worth it to me.

 

[MisterScott]

I use non-ethanol in all my small stuff and motorcycles. There is a station that is not very convenient but I have two 60 gallon rolling fuel transfer rigs and a whole lot of small cans. Not convenient enough to maintain in the car and trucks. I too have had issues with ethanol and small engines. Ducati gas tanks do not like. However it is more a principal issue with me. The energy content of ethanol fuel is lower than regular gas. There is the water issues. But mostly it is what it takes to make ethanol. Huge amounts of resources that would otherwise be used for food source, in most cases, large amounts of water and natural gas. Apologies to farmers but ethanol is a mandated waste of natural resources too precious to be used for what the are. Stepping off soapbox.

 

[Taco2Cruiser]

I come from 5 generations of farmers, and yes, industrial corn solely for ethanol is part of what they farm. That said, welcome to the government farm bill. All farmers hate it, they don't use it, but they can't get out of it. Farming is extremely expensive with little return. I could talk for years about what it's like, but I'll let it go.

The discussion of ethanol isn't as simple as "would you buy E0 or E10?" Pump filters, ground tank failures, water contamination are all more important.

Zero ethanol is better. But dirty, old, pure gas is much worse than fresh, quality filtered, clean tank stored 10% ethanol fuel.

Like everything, it's not a simple yes or no. There are variables that go along with everything. If they are not taken into account, then the reason you buy something is actually helping. It's like the guy who buys aftermarket parts, just because he thinks Toyota OE part are inferior, just because they came stock on the truck. More to things than what's on the surface.

 

[mtnracer]

We're down in south Florida and 95% of stations only carry 10% Ethanol gas. Closer to the beach there are some here and there that have Rec90 (for boats) which is ethanol free 90 octane gas and that is what I get for our small engine stuff.

I tried Rec90 a few times in the LX and Tundra but didn't notice any difference vs. 93 Octane gas with 10% ethanol.

 

[Haggis]

Some stations here in WYO carry the ethanol free version. I buy it when I can.

 

[Malleus]

The consideration, aside from your personal feeling about ethanol enhanced fuel in general (send all correspondence to Mr. Carter, c/o Plains, GA) is that the engine was designed to run on premium fuel. 93 octane (premium) ethanol enhanced fuel has more available power than 87-90 octane non-ethanol fuel. The engine management design basis is for that octane level. A lower octane level can be used, and the software is designed to modify the engine operating parameters, but it isn't ideal and shouldn't be used regularly (consult your owner's manual). This only applies to this engine, not all engines from all automobile manufacturers.

The primary, functional, reason to be concerned about ethanol enhanced fuel is its effect on the automotive fuel system and engine seals. This is why there are engines which are designated as "green", "Exxx ready" or any other marketing babble you care to add. It's also why BMW paid their owners to have them replace the OEM engine seals with replacement nitrile seals a while back. The ethanol destroys most rubber compound seals; nitrile is impervious to this noxious crap. The same cannot be said about small engines; they suffer operational degradation from water accumulation in the fuel due to their relative (smaller) fuel port sizes (full disclosure: I use only non-ethanol fuel in all my small engines. I just got tired of cleaning carburetors). The same conditions will eventually occur in larger engines, to a much diminished effect.

FWIW, where you get your fuel is really a matter of convenience, not science. All fuel in this country travels through a pipeline system that is used in common for each region. This means that my gas in Charlotte, which is delivered to each station from a regional distribution point in Rock Hill, South Carolina, comes from the same place. Some larger distributors include additives which the smaller "mom and pop" stations selling no name fuel don't, but the basic fuel is the same, because it was delivered from the same distribution point. The only difference is the octane rating of the fuel in each underground tank. The next time you're at the gas station and you see a tanker filling the underground tanks ask him where he gets his fuel.

 

[John E Davies]

The consideration, aside from your personal feeling about ethanol enhanced fuel in general (send all correspondence to Mr. Carter, c/o Plains, GA) is that the engine was designed to run on premium fuel. 93 octane (premium) ethanol enhanced fuel has more available power than 87-90 octane non-ethanol fuel. The engine management design basis is for that octane level. A lower octane level can be used, and the software is designed to modify the engine operating parameters, but it isn't ideal and shouldn't be used regularly (consult your owner's manual). This only applies to this engine, not all engines from all automobile manufacturers.
.

Both the owners manual and the fuel door placard specify 87 octane. The older V8s like the one in my wife's lovely 1998 SC400 definitely require premium.

http://pressroom.toyota.com/toyota/2013+toyota+land+cruiser+product+specs.download

Can you supply some references that indicate the 5.7 was "designed for premium?"

BTW I have been running 87 ethanol free for the last couple of weeks and the engine feels happier (more responsive, maybe smoother) and my mileage has picked up a little. I haven't owned the truck long enough to get a feel for the economy. If I can get an extra 25 miles out of a tank, that would make it worth the cost.

My last solo road trip was fairly flat, no wind, 75 miles and I was seeing 18.4 average at 60 mph on the LieOMeter. That's with a Yakima round roof rack system in place. Again, I haven't had it long enough to know what to believe. I have been doing mostly short trips combined with towing a 6000 pound trailer, so I am seeing a wide range of numbers.

I'll run the good stuff for a while, then switch back, to see how it runs.

John Davies
Spokane WA

 

[Taco2Cruiser]

Both the owners manual and the fuel door placard specify 87 octane. The older V8s like the one in my wife's lovely 1998 SC400 definitely require premium.

http://pressroom.toyota.com/toyota/2013+toyota+land+cruiser+product+specs.download

Can you supply some references that indicate the 5.7 was "designed for premium?"

BTW I have been running 87 ethanol free for the last couple of weeks and the engine feels happier (more responsive, maybe smoother) and my mileage has picked up a little. I haven't owned the truck long enough to get a feel for the economy. If I can get an extra 25 miles out of a tank, that would make it worth the cost.

I'll run the good stuff for a while, then switch back, to see how it runs.

John Davies
Spokane WA

I think he was referring to the LX570. That one has a Premium fuel requirement*
*so they say, I have my doubts, but that is for another discussion.

For MPG. Pure ethanol has 2/3 the energy of gasoline, but since you are only using up to 10% ethanol, then 2/3s of the 10% means that e10 is 96.6% the energy of E0.

We going off of a combined MPG of a 200 Series which is 15. Then with adding 3.3% to 15, you get 15.5 mpg. Or about an extra 12 miles per tank.

That's all math though, real world, well... I'd love to hear your report.

I've had E0 available to me most of my life, and I REALLY hate ethanol. But even I can't find a MPG benefit for it.

My 200 is not my daily through, so I can sit for a few weeks or even a couple months at a time. So after trips, I put E0 with PRI-G in just because of gasoline breakdown reasons.

 

[cruiserdan]

The older the vehicle the more it hates gas cut with alcohol. Of particular concern (to me at least) is the fact that older evaporative emissions systems were designed for "real" gasoline and do not cope well with blended fuel. The 80 Series Cruiser is a perfect example. Mine HATES blended fuel and will easily do 10% better on real gas.

 

[Malleus]

I think he was referring to the LX570. That one has a Premium fuel requirement*
*so they say, I have my doubts, but that is for another discussion.

For MPG. Pure ethanol has 2/3 the energy of gasoline, but since you are only using up to 10% ethanol, then 2/3s of the 10% means that e10 is 96.6% the energy of E0.

We going off of a combined MPG of a 200 Series which is 15. Then with adding 3.3% to 15, you get 15.5 mpg. Or about an extra 12 miles per tank.

That's all math though, real world, well... I'd love to hear your report.

I've had E0 available to me most of my life, and I REALLY hate ethanol. But even I can't find a MPG benefit for it.

My 200 is not my daily through, so I can sit for a few weeks or even a couple months at a time. So after trips, I put E0 with PRI-G in just because of gasoline breakdown reasons.

X2. Sorry I didn't make that clear beforehand.

 

[NYC570]

If you want better MPG go with ethanol free gas. If you want top HP in most conditions go with ethanol blended gas.

 

[Markuson]

The older the vehicle the more it hates gas cut with alcohol. Of particular concern (to me at least) is the fact that older evaporative emissions systems were designed for "real" gasoline and do not cope well with blended fuel. The 80 Series Cruiser is a perfect example. Mine HATES blended fuel and will easily do 10% better on real gas.

Seeing how at least three of us suddenly have "evaporator" error codes popping up after returning home from Ethanol states...perhaps the errors are not a coincidence?

 

[cruiserdan]

That wouldn't surprise me.