tacorancher
Well-known member
Filling with 93 now. Wonder if gains will be diminishing between 91 and 93.
Sponsored
It should improve, but likely unnoticeable. Ethanol content cant play a role here, around me going from 91 to 93 means going from no ethanol to about 10%. And thats fine and great from a performance stand point, but if fuel economy is also the goal, it will likely gain nothing at all, in-fact it may go the opposite. I havent gotten a deep dive into toyotas tuning software, but if its even similar to my bmw the computer can compensate much more than in the past to adapt to fuel and air changes. Id be curious to see if an e30 mix is attainable with the factory fueling system. I know the cap says the ethanol limit, which I believe still allows for the 88octane e15 mix thats so common around me. JB4 will likely have the data on all of this very soon!Filling with 93 now. Wonder if gains will be diminishing between 91 and 93.
It should improve, but likely unnoticeable. Ethanol content cant play a role here, around me going from 91 to 93 means going from no ethanol to about 10%. And thats fine and great from a performance stand point, but if fuel economy is also the goal, it will likely gain nothing at all, in-fact it may go the opposite. I have gotten a deep dive into toyotas tuning software, but if its even similar to my bmw the computer can compensate much more than in the past to adapt to fuel and air changes. Id be curious to see if an e30 mix is attainable with the factory fueling system. I know the cap says the ethanol limit, which I believe still allows for the 88octane e15 mix thats so common around me. JB4 will likely have the data on all of this very soon!
It certainly wouldnt hurt, but if the cost is significantly more I wouldnt bother. I will be curious to see timing adjustments with fueling on these vehicles. May get lucky and HPTuners supports these trucks and I can log some solid data.At Buccees Down here in Texas we have 92 octane zero ethanol option. Should I choose that next
It would be worth a try unless it's ridiculously expensive. My son was an engineer at Ford and one of the dirty secrets is that the MPG ratings from the manufacturers are made from pure gas, no ethanol, and that ethanol does reduce your MPG. We don't have 91 pure gas in Ohio except at a few places and it's ridiculously expensive. Sad part is that ethanol doesn't do much good for supply. It does boost octane while ripping up our engines at the same time. I swear that if the Iowa Caucuses weren't first, we wouldn't have to deal with it.At Buccees Down here in Texas we have 92 octane zero ethanol option. Should I choose that next
Agreed! Here in California with our blended fuel, we have to burn more fuel to get to a destination. I guess there is “special math” that justifies burning “more fuel that is cleaner” but I have yet to wrap my head around it.It would be worth a try unless it's ridiculously expensive. My son was an engineer at Ford and one of the dirty secrets is that the MPG ratings from the manufacturers are made from pure gas, no ethanol, and that ethanol does reduce your MPG. We don't have 91 pure gas in Ohio except at a few places and it's ridiculously expensive. Sad part is that ethanol doesn't do much good for supply. It does boost octane while ripping up our engines at the same time. I swear that if the Iowa Caucuses weren't first, we wouldn't have to deal with it.
Ideally its a balance of alcohol added, increases octane and reduced combustion temperatures. 10% and under shouldn't be noticeable fuel economy changes, but above that drops off. E85 being a 30% increase in fuel demands. Its great for performance applications, and has a nice smell to it. But if Im road tripping and want maximum range, I avoid ethanol in the fuel. Its a subsidized fuel, much like solar farms and wind turbines.Agreed! Here in California with our blended fuel, we have to burn more fuel to get to a destination. I guess there is “special math” that justifies burning “more fuel that is cleaner” but I have yet to wrap my head around it.
Yes, less than 1 mpg loss… my biggest concern is the hygroscopic issue with ethanol.Ideally its a balance of alcohol added, increases octane and reduced combustion temperatures. 10% and under shouldn't be noticeable fuel economy changes, but above that drops off. E85 being a 30% increase in fuel demands. Its great for performance applications, and has a nice smell to it. But if Im road tripping and want maximum range, I avoid ethanol in the fuel. Its a subsidized fuel, much like solar farms and wind turbines.
I believe 100 avgas is still 100LL “low lead” and lead is not ideal for emission equipment, like wide band/oxygen sensors and catalytic converters.How about aviation fuel? You can get it up to 100 octane.
I haven't had an issue myself with it, and ran 88 (E15, 12mpg) or E85 (e70, 11mpg) exclusively in my Tundra for about 10 years now. If its something that doesn't get driven much, and is left in the cold you could develop issues. In the race cars we drain the fuel, and occasionally run the injectors through an injector sonic cleaner.Yes, less than 1 mpg loss… my biggest concern is the hygroscopic issue with ethanol.
Also there is an oil additive/lubricant for race engines that run on alcohol. As alcohol doesn’t have any lubrication properties to it, unlike diesel or gas. Mind you, alcohol fueled race engines are very specific and that really doesn’t apply to blending of alcohol and gasoline to create pump gas.I haven't had an issue myself with it, and ran 88 (E15, 12mpg) or E85 (e70, 11mpg) exclusively in my Tundra for about 10 years now. If its something that doesn't get driven much, and is left in the cold you could develop issues. In the race cars we drain the fuel, and occasionally run the injectors through an injector sonic cleaner.
Probably MS109 race fuel would be ideal, yet unless a tune is created to capture the true benefit of the fuel, then the benefit may be unrealized. It also is not cost effective either.How about aviation fuel? You can get it up to 100 octane.