If I fill my truck up with non-ethanol fuel..

What happens?

better mpg? More pep? Nothing?

I need to run out some more fuel, but I found a station selling 87 octane non-eth. Curious to try it, since it is not an option back home.

 

I ran a tank through our 2014 Highlander while driving cross country a few months ago. Didn't notice any differences at all in power, smoothness or MPG.

 

Nothing happens cept it cost more. I’ve tried a couple of tanks noticed no difference.

 

Technically, ethyl alcohol has about 90% of the energy of octane, so 10% alcohol means that you lose 1% fuel efficiency.

Fact is that the "other" differences in winter gas will account for a much more significant difference in efficiency.


If you want to do a test, make sure that you unplug your battery for an hour after your SECOND fill-up, then run about 10 tanks through it for the system to calibrate, then start measuring.

 

I have a '06 Matrix as my daily driver. When ethanol mix gas came out, my hwy mpg dropped from 34 to 30mpg

 

Gasoline has a higher energy density than ethanol and does not absorb water (can be stored for much longer).

 

The New York Times stated that E10 gasoline actually gives you 2-3 miles per gallon less than pure gasoline (ethanol free).
In my Tacoma that is exactly what I found on long round trip FL to AK and when in Canada with ethanol free (pure gasoline) my mpg went up 2 mpg so from 20 to 22 or a 10% increase. Isn't it interesting that 10% ethanol decreases your mpg 10%. And yes ethanol does not trap water so is more corrosive. Methanol or what's in dry gas traps or encapsulates the water in gas and then it gets burned in combustion. But as I only use ethanol free in my boat and see the price all the time, the increased cost of it is not cost effective over E10 price wise in vehicles (about $0.60 higher or 25% more here).

Why then were we forced to use it - look at who profited from the corn planting and rise in prices as corn starch is also in many food products - pure greed and stupidity again hey that's a shocker.

 

Ethanol is a government mandated fart. If it was up to the free market that sheet would be gone.

 

In my experiences, minor MPG improvements have been observed however not enough gain to offset the 10-15% higher cost at the pump.

 

It’s more expensive because it’s not subsidized. It’s better for plastics and isn’t hydroscopic.
I don’t buy corn gas

 

I too have increased mileage by using Ethanol free gas, as others have said. But like others have said as well, the cost of it outweigh the benefits, IMO for daily driving anyways.

 

It might get better MPG, but you will need to calculate your cost per MPG to see if it is worth it. If you don’t drive your truck often using corn free is probably better since it wont attract moisture.

I had a Ford Ranger 3.0 V6 which would run flex fuel. When running E85 (mostly corn fuel) the exhaust smelled like a dryer vent. It didn’t knock under load (typical for that truck) due to the higher octane but it was gutless. Trying to tow the boat or going up a hill it felt like a four banger. Gas mileage was typically around 14 mpg with corn gas and closer to 19 with cheap real gas. I didn’t do any unplugging of the computer between tanks. However that year I tested several different fuel grades and found that even when E85 was less expensive during Obamas first term, the lower cost per gallon always resulted in a higher cost per mile driven. That Ranger got the best MPG on Super Unleaded but it got the best cost per mile with mid grade gas.

As far as Ethanol free fuel that is all I ever run in my ’83 RX-7 (Wankel Rotary with 4bbl carb). I also tend to put Ethanol free in my RV when I put it away for the year. The Yoda gets cheap regular gas but once got racing fuel when Charlotte NC ran out of gas after Katrina and my Baja gets super because of the turbo.

 

It makes a 10% diff. in MPG for me. Not that it's worth the money though because it sure is more than 10% more expensive.

 

ethanal free is all I use in anything I have.

 

Got I pic of the rx? I have an 83 also...

 

That was such a fantastic car. Before they got greedy for HP.

 

At one time I had 3 different rotary engine vehicles. A 1973 RX 3 station wagon, a 1974 RX4 station wagon and a 1977 Rotary Truck.

Looking back, wish I had kept them, and had purchased the Cosmo, that I only dreamed of owning
And yes, you will get better MPG with non-ethanol fuel.

 

I ran ethanol free for years (it’s the only gas available where I lived) and noticed no change when I moved and started using 10% ethanol.

 

Nice, I've had an r100 , 2- rx2s and a gsl=se... not much ethanol up here.

 

I haven't ran E10 in my tacoma much although I live in Iowa, ethanol heart of the country. I did notice in my 2011 F150 Flexfuel that I lost about 5-6 mpg running E85. The price had to be $.50 or more cheaper than regular for it be worth it, also noticed less power and longer warm up times. I ran probably 8 tanks through it, so it had plenty of time to "learn". I noticed about 1 mpg difference between E10 and Regular though for what thats worth.

In my Tacoma I haven't noticed a notable difference in MPG between E10 and Regular. I do prefer to run straight gas though as I have seen Ethanol levels vary quite drastically in both E10 and E85. In fact there have been a few highly modified street cars in my area that have blown up because of a "bad" batch of E85. Some have measured as low as E60 when they blew up their engine. They tried to get money out of the gas station but none have won that battle. I have also seen E10 be as high as E30. So for me, I just don't trust the fuel mixologists.