Premium Gas vs Regular.

Manual states: “select octane rating 87 OR higher”

 

I seriously would think the same if I haven’t seen it happen time and again. Think what you wish, but I’m only stating my observations.

 

It’s now all 10% or less here, doesn’t matter what grade.

it’s a fair reason if the cost isn’t wildly out, but it’s a 40$ difference for a fill if we go 91.

 

If I go with 94 vs 87, It’s about $15-20 difference here I don’t mind it.

 

If ethanol is so bad how come race cars run it?

So if I use Shell premium in my 2011 I'll jump to 26 MPG? I can get 22 on the highway. You have got to try really hard to make a modern vehicle spark knock. Think I heard a tiny ping once trying to take off in 5th gear just before it stalled.

 

It’s supposed to take regular gas. Anything above that is a waste of money. But hey if you got money to burn then let it rip!

 

Mine too, heres proof

 

10% ethanol in the fuel can't be all that bad. I used it in my gen1 tundra for nearly 20 years and 300k miles. My fuel system was spotless, plus the tacoma now runs great on it. Even my 2 stroke engines have been fine on it which are far more prone to have issues with any fuel that has ethanol.

 

Not entirely true but I agree it's a waste of money. This was 100% true in vacuum advanced timing from years ago but with fuel injection, the timing will advance past what 91 can give you even above 10,000 feet. My house is at 7000 ft and even at that altitude, I saw a lot of advance in 91 octane.

Engineering explained did a video on this

 

The only way i can see e10 as being bad is making the fuel mixture slightly more lean. Pure gasoline is 14.7:1, E10 is 14.04:1. On a carbureted 2 stroke, you're leaning out the AFR a little. That's the only way I can see it doing any damage but even that is pushing it.

 

I have no idea how your truck will react. All I can say is how my trucks react. I can also state I wasn’t trying for a spark rattle at any time…it just happened under a very light load. Believe what I say or not, that’s your prerogative. I know what I’m saying is the truth.

 

I think we are both talking the same thing. In modern cars we know the ECU advances or retards the ignition timing similar to the vacuum advance in a carbonated engine. Higher octane will allow for more ignition advance and hence more power or better mileage if driven exactly the same as lower octane. My point is that I don’t need the last 5% possible power. I want better cost per gallon. In higher altitudes you get the same performance with 85 as with 87 at sea level.

 

I agree, waste of $$$$. How are you defining performance?

At 6000' the air is roughly 80% of the density that it is at sea level. If you run an engine at 80% cylinder fill at 6000' above sea level, and with 80% cylinder fill at sea level, their output should be roughly the same with the same fuel, air temperature, etc.

About 2 months ago I ran did a bunch of road tuning and ended up getting about a 10deg timing difference with 91 octane over 85 octane at 7000 feet. Here are my maps that show the difference between 91 and 85 at ~7000ft. I continued beyond this and the final difference was around 10 degrees of timing. The y-axis isn't shown but it's engine load where the far right column is 115%. I believe the column 4th to the right was 83% fill. Ignore the -2 value. That was just something I started with. If it says "-2", it was never touched.

 

93 octane, driving mostly I80 to I476 from Pennsylvania To Delaware, I can’t believe I wasted my money on higher octane, oh I have OTT tune and a KN 77 series intake and stock size tires.

 

We need a trip duration

 

Back in 1986 i had 100 50gallon drums, i filled them with leaded gas and buried them in my yard.
That's what i'm using to fill my tank now.

 

If i did this ill be fine , but she probably broke a collar bone wrist and herniated disc

 

It says 156 miles