Interesting observation after using E0 gasoline (non-ethanol) (1 Viewer)

[40Man]

So I ran my last tank with E0 gasoline to see if there was any difference. After adding RW Wheels and KO2s I have been getting roughly 15.8 mpg calculating for the 3.9% difference in tire size (down from 16.6 mpg with stock wheels/tires).

After one tank of ethanol free, I went 308.3 miles on 18.8 gallons. Adjusting for tire size (4% larger tire) I got a surprising 17.04 MPG. This was my normal commute all week.

Granted, there are a ton of variables that go into MPG, but I was really surprised to see such a big jump. Another factor is I was using premium gas E0 vs regular E10 (can't find E0 in my area that isn't premium).

I'll keep this up for a few more tanks to see if this last tank was just an outlier.

Either way, not really a cost saving strategy when you take into account the cost of E0 premium in my area, but if it keeps me on the road a bit farther between fill-ups I'll probably keep doing it.

 

[odinskind]

I've been running pure gas too for the last two tanks. I really haven't paid attention to my mileage though. I normally run premium and the only pure gas option was 87. So I may switch back over to the higher octane.

 

[mcgaskins]

If there was an ethanol free station within 15 miles of where I live or work I'd be filling up there all the time. Ethanol is bad stuff for a lot more reasons than just mpg and power. In motorcycles, using gas with high ethanol content (in Ducatis specifically) has been proven to swell the gas tanks to the point you can't even remove them from the mounting brackets, and if you're able to get them off there's no way to get them back on. It was a huge class action lawsuit in fact and all dealers "mandated" you use ethanol free gas or they would not warranty your gas tank. I loathe ethanol, but finding a gas station that doesn't sell it is extremely hard. This site has a list by state, and there are literally no gas stations in Denver where we live: Ethanol-free gas stations in the U.S. and Canada

 

[txtortoise]

Our local Walmart has it under the Murphy label, at 87 octane. Also saw it quite a bit in Hawaii.

I've always run major brands, i.e., Chevron and Exxon, for the additives, etc., so not that enthused about Murphy...but would love to run EO.

Ethanol-free gas stations in the U.S. and Canada

 

[GoISU]

Wow, not a single pure gas location in Chicagoland. The map looked promising until I zoomed in. I'm guessing... politics.

 

[Romer]

I ran it for a tank and found no real difference. It was at a Murphys station though. I also am running 33's but the gauge seems pretty close so no upscaling. When I looked into it I read somewhere on here that the gauge at stock is a bit under to ensure compliance. I hadn't heard that before, but I am pretty rock on with the speed showing up on the dash and what a GPS tells me, so I don't upscale

I run regular 85 Octane though as I noticed no difference between that and mid grade at 87. I am a mile high so your Octane values may vary

I average about 14.3MPG on a mix of highway and street driving

 

[40Man]

Update: Four tanks on 91 octane E0 have yielded 17.04 to 17.7 mpg. Wish I had 87 E0 closer to me to do an additional comparison.

 

[lgop]

Ethanol also leaves a syrup in the engine. Once it builds up I think you have to physically remove it.

 

[bugsnbikes]

what are the diesels getting ? this is just horrific mpgs for newish mildly built rigs .......last i checked my 80 on 37s was doing better than this. ( i was really looking forward upgrading from the 80 but am now rethinking)

 

[Markuson]

what are the diesels getting ? this is just horrific mpgs for newish mildly built rigs .......last i checked my 80 on 37s was doing better than this. ( i was really looking forward upgrading from the 80 but am now rethinking)

LC's weight almost three tons stock & are full-time four wheel drive with V8 power to pull 8500lbs.
I'm curious what three ton, full-time 4-wheel drive vehicles you are comparing to?

 

[Tummler]

LC's weight almost three tons stock & are full-time four wheel drive with V8 power to pull 8500lbs.
I'm curious what three ton, full-time 4-wheel drive vehicles you are comparing to?

Tahoe 16/23
LC 13/18

The LC has about 450 lbs over the Tahoe, but that doesn't explain the difference.

It is my humble opinion the main cause of the MPG discrepancy between LCs and other similarly sized SUVs is relative emphasis o. ground clearance and aerodynamics.

 

[mark71]

Tahoe 16/23
LC 13/18

The LC has about 450 lbs over the Tahoe, but that doesn't explain the difference.

It is my humble opinion the main cause of the MPG discrepancy between LCs and other similarly sized SUVs is relative emphasis o. ground clearance and aerodynamics.

Is the Tahoe full time 4WD?

 

[Willy beamin]

no its RW - not apples to apples

 

[NLScooby]

what are the diesels getting ? this is just horrific mpgs for newish mildly built rigs .......last i checked my 80 on 37s was doing better than this. ( i was really looking forward upgrading from the 80 but am now rethinking)

You have got to be the anomaly......nearly every built 80 that I have seen/heard of (even on "just" 35's) seem to get 10-12 mpgs. Although I do seem to recall that you had a "lightweight" version, correct?

 

[NMC_EXP]

When burned, a gallon of ethanol releases less energy than a gallon of gasoline. It is that simple.

All other things remaining equal, straight gasoline will yield better MPG than gasoline diluted with ethanol.

 

[bugsnbikes]

You have got to be the anomaly......nearly every built 80 that I have seen/heard of (even on "just" 35's) seem to get 10-12 mpgs. Although I do seem to recall that you had a "lightweight" version, correct?

yeah mines light at 5200lbs. But i was hoping that the 200-pig could easily lose 500-1000 lbs by eliminating alot of the fluff. My 1fz55 improved 2-3mpg with a 1000lb weight loss (4200lbs) and proper gearing.(4.11-35s)

If the 200 could get 15/19 with a little weight reduction- id grab one and introduce it to 'my little friend' sawszall.....well maybe not this aggressive

 

[TonyP]

Depending on how much you are willing to gut I'm sure you could get close to 5k. Adding armor is another story.

In stock form with radar cruise on I was doing 19mpg in Nebraska going 65ish

 

[bugsnbikes]

Im a little upset with Toyota who built the 1uz-fe (hands down a much more refined and durable v8 than the Ls engines) and didnt make the 100 or 200 engines comparably fuel miserly to the LS or 1uz.

Granted the auto trannies and full time 4wd coupled with portly-ness dont help....but still - cmon Toyota- everyone isnt a Saudi Sheik with 40c per gallon gas and expensive pump prices havent just materialized recently........Toyota has just dropped the ball imho.

 

[bugsnbikes]

Depending on how much you are willing to gut I'm sure you could get close to 5k. Adding armor is another story.

In stock form with radar cruise on I was doing 19mpg in Nebraska going 65ish

stock- 19 is good. Do these 200s benefit from lower hwy rpms with a small bump up in tire size/ gearing advantage or is the overdrive already maximizing rpms with stock tire size? ie/ bumping to a 255/85 taller skinny-and dropping 150-200 rpms on the hyw)

Im not sure i could live with a 33" on a 200 with its horrible breakover angles...but thats likely easily remedied with some better clearanced bumpers of which i havent really seen offered but im sure is possible with some descent design/ thought.

 

[TonyP]

For every mph above 65 you'll lose mpg exponentially.