Sears&Roebuck
New member
Am I wasting my money? Just put my second tank in a row of this stuff. At $4.29 a gallon I hope its doing something
Ethanol-free premium
- Thread starter Sears&Roebuck
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
JayRolla
New member
If you can make up the difference in better gas mileage then no your saving money. If not, its not worth it.
Ethanol does have better knock suppression.
Last edited:
Probably.
LittleCaesar
New member
Keep a mileage journal to see or buy a Scangauge.....
phattyduck
Elite Member
I did the experiment for a few tanks, didn't notice a difference or any change in engine performance.
Test it for yourself though - just keep good notes.
-Charlie
Test it for yourself though - just keep good notes.
-Charlie
jgue467
Senior Member
There is zero timing adjustment via the knock sensors on these vehicles so there is zero advantage from a fuel efficiency standpoint.
You can achieve the same 'no alcohol' fuel by using any of many ethanol treatments (seafoam, startron). Startron is a far cheaper option than $4.29/gal fuel! :cowboy:
You can achieve the same 'no alcohol' fuel by using any of many ethanol treatments (seafoam, startron). Startron is a far cheaper option than $4.29/gal fuel! :cowboy:
V8Man
Member
No vehicle made before 2003 should ever run E-10 fuel. These vehicles were never designed to run on it. The fuel formulation was introduced in 2000 and made after the truck. Unlike somethings, it isn’t retroactive. The biggest problem is the old vehicles have an open fuel system. E-10 evaporates quicker and leaves behind a crap that will mess with everything in the fuel system, from the fuel pumps, sending units, fuel lines, to the injectors. The problem isn’t as bad for daily drivers but worse for things that set and only run on the weekends. No need for the premium, but stick to real gasoline.
I have a lot of collector old cars and I only store them and run them on 110 low lead aviation fuel. It never goes bad. I know this isn’t realistic for most but that’s all I run in my 1965 Fastback Mustang!
I have a lot of collector old cars and I only store them and run them on 110 low lead aviation fuel. It never goes bad. I know this isn’t realistic for most but that’s all I run in my 1965 Fastback Mustang!
Premium is my only choice here if I want ethanol free, and only 2 brands of it at that. That said, that's all I run in everything I have that runs gasoline. Trucks, cars, lawnmowers, chainsaws, quads etc. Not a fan of ethanol.
JayRolla
New member
Its not an issue on dailys at all. Only cars that sit for a very long time like you said.
Been running e85 for over 15+ years on a 1990 Talon. I would just run a tank of e10 (no real gas here) twice a year and it would clean the "ethanol goo" no problem. But the SS race line, fittings and seals all failed after a good 12 years. The entire SS rubber line on the inside just completely came out in pieces when I removed it.
I now run nascar ethanol lines and fittings from the fuel tank all the way to the rail. Should be good now.
SacStateHornets
New member
Brazil uses predominately ethanol and they sell a lot of Toyota's there. Personally, I run 89 for increased detergents and always stick to top tier gas stations. Sheetz, AM/PM, 7/11 have cheaper gas but they don't add more additives/detergent than what is put into it by the refinery based on EPA rules.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is wrong. The ONLY thing the knock sensor is in there for is to adjust timing, and has been on just about every car built since the mid-80's. GM published a patent on knock sensor controlled timing in the late 60's, and I believe Saab was the first to implement the technology in a production car in the mid to late 70's.
Under steady state driving conditions, the ECU runs a simple feedback loop, gradually increasing timing advance until the knock sensor detects low-level knocking. It then backs off a few degrees and repeats that cycle, continuously hunting for that timing point just on the verge of knocking. That's the most efficient point to run the engine.
Nothing particularly sophisticated about it - it doesn't really even require a computer. You could implement the technique with a couple of op-amps and a handful of resistors, diodes, and capacitors.
JayRolla
New member
For some reason I remember someone else stating our knock sensor will retard timing but does not advance it? I know every car I have tuned the ecu would advance and retard.
I hate knock sensors. They a lot of times get phantom or fake knock and pull timing for no reason. I deactivate it on my DSM since I run e85. Stuff just wont detonate no madder what I throw at it. Love the stuff.
In the old days of mechanical distributors, timing was handled by vacuum (related to engine load) and by centrifugal weights (related to engine rpm). This provided a crude "map" of timing vs. engine load and speed that would get somewhat close in most situations. All of that has been replaced with digital timing maps stored in the ECU memory, which again get the timing close, but not optimum. The knock sensor is then used for fine tuning, to eek out the maximum performance (and more importantly fuel economy) from the engine. Keep in mind that auto makers are under tremendous pressure to increase the average fuel economy of their fleets. Optimizing the timing using a knock sensor is a pretty cheap and easy way to improve economy, so you can bet they all do it.
On a Toyota in particular, the usual knock sensor failure, and the reason the ECU throws a code and pulls timing, is that it isn't getting a signal at all from the knock sensor. When that happens the ECU assumes it has no knock information and retards timing significantly to avoid possible engine damage. You pretty much can't get away with removing the knock sensor on a Toyota - the engine will run like crap due to the retarded timing - unless you figure out a way to compensate by advancing the base timing significantly and thus fooling the ECU into thinking the timing is not as advanced as it actually is.
On a Toyota in particular, the usual knock sensor failure, and the reason the ECU throws a code and pulls timing, is that it isn't getting a signal at all from the knock sensor. When that happens the ECU assumes it has no knock information and retards timing significantly to avoid possible engine damage. You pretty much can't get away with removing the knock sensor on a Toyota - the engine will run like crap due to the retarded timing - unless you figure out a way to compensate by advancing the base timing significantly and thus fooling the ECU into thinking the timing is not as advanced as it actually is.
phattyduck
Elite Member
My understanding is that Saab used it as boost control feedback... like, knock = close wastegate. Yay early turbo tech!
There is some maximum advance that the engine will run. In the case of a (non-boosted) 5vz, is is probably below the knock threshold for even 87 octane in many cases. This is where the 'no extra performance' from higher octane rumors come from. Probably because it is true in this case.
I, for one, enjoy having one vehicle that can take CA piss gas and run just fine on it. Every other vehicle I own and have owned recently runs much better with some 100 octane in the tank...
-Charlie
JayRolla
New member
Ive been running my 4runner on 85 e10 since I owned it. It is nice to pay $2/g.
Ethanol has about 60% of the energy value of gasoline. So, a 10% blend of ethanol/gasoline will have roughly 96% of the energy of pure gasoline. That should translate to a 4% drop in mileage, all else being equal. At a nominal 20 mpg, that would be a .8 mpg loss. So, I can see a mileage hit from using ethanol blend, but probably not 2mpg, unless they have a 50 mpg car.
