Gas Mileage - Ethanol

Ethanol is generally added to transfer lines going to intermediate storage tanks, but not always. Calibrated flowmeters and pumps provide the 10% verified with periodic lab measurement of same, inventory drawdowns, and digital network measurements from the system. Additives added at the rack are subject to similar flow meters and pumps, although the volumes are much less. Verification of concentration is generally based on volume of gas vs additive inventory drawdowns over time, matched with measurements from the digitized and networked pump system.

 

Both ‘18 and ‘22 Taco’s always do better on Shell Gas. I always try to find a ‘top tier’ supplier, but regardless of the brand, Shell always does better. I’ve been argued with, called names, and accused of being a shill…whatever. I get 17.5 to 18.0 mpgs on ever other brand, top tier or not. I get 19.5 to 20.0 mpgs on Shell. I’ll gain an additional mpg running ‘high test’ 93 octane from Shell.

 

I get virtually the same mileage regardless of whether I use Shell, Mobil, or any of the off-brand gasolines. To say I doubt anecdotal claims stating one brand provides better fuel economy than another is an understatement.

Of course someone might pipe up and say, "Yeah, but you have a 6MT, only automatic Tacomas distinguish between fuel brands."

 

Ethanol CAN make your engine a better performing engine. Much better than petroleum gasoline. But ethanol isn't scalable because our existing infrastructure won't support it. You kill MPG when you make an engine that can run on any fuel from E-0 to E-85. But build & tune it for E-0 and run E-0 or build & tune it for E100 and run E-100 and you get a better engine with better performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_DQPLihXfo

 

My ‘18 was 6AT, and the ‘22 is 6MT. I understand why I “shouldn’t” see the differences I do, but that doesn’t counter that it actually happens. Actually, the 6AT did a bit better on mileage overall (we’re taking 21-ish here), but it was bone stock and spent most of the time I owned it on the highway. My ‘22 has a bit of a lift and oversized KO2 tires, so I expect less mpgs.

I had a ‘12 Honda Crosstour that lost between 2-3 mpgs when not using a Top Tier fuel. That was the first vehicle I ever owned where the mileage difference between brands was apparent.

Before that, any difference between brands in anything I’d ever owned was negligible.

 

Yeah - the truck is always a few tenths ‘optimistic’. I put everything on Fuelly. Taco said 23.8, Fuelly said 23.6. Still - pretty darn good.

This may be the root of the problem. Not that that I suddenly got great mileage, but stopped getting my normally crappy mileage. Unfortunately, it’s going to take some time to ‘get the data’.

Off-topic approved. I’ll have much more mileage data if I make it to Oshkosh for EAA AirVenture this summer. I think these half-scale F4Us gets better mileage than my Taco.

Semper Fi!

 

You are correct, sir. Corsair was Navy. I should know that, I built many Corsair scale models when I was a kid.

Anyhoo, Semper Fidelis (Always Faithful)! Thank you for your service & have great night guys

 

Everyone knows the Navy has always been part of the Marine Corps. Semper Fi!

 

I run the regular 87 octane stuff in my truck. Mileage averaged ~24 mpg on my latest trip (1400 miles total) trip to Virgina, and I getting around 22 mpg on my day-to-day putzing around. I can't complain about that.

 

How the hell?
I'm in the 16's on 87.
I have to run 94 to keep it anywhere near the 20 mark.

And I cruise like a Grandpa.

 

That's weird....I wonder why the difference? I know this V6 gets better mileage than my previous 2.7L engines, and they were all manual transmissions. I sure can't explain it. I don't hot-rod it, but I do have a bit of a lead-foot sometimes.

 

I would argue something is wrong with your motor; I routinely get between 21 and 23.5 mpg on 87 running speeds in the mid-70 range. The fact is, these engines were not designed to take advantage of the extra detonation resistance of higher AKI fuels, so if anything, 93 AKI fuel should reduce your fuel economy.

 

My mileage on 10E 87 octane fuel (no specific brand) averages 20-21 MPG across a range of driving conditions. The times I reach above 21 (up to 23) MPG is in well controlled highway traffic, in cruise control, at 65 MPH. I look at the on vehicle monitor, but also track fill-ups and mileage to calculate independently. The automation matches spot tracking. And, well within what Toyota says I should get.

 

My '23 OR gets 18.6 with ethanol and a little over 19 around town with non ethanol. I have 6500 miles on mine.

 

You would get run over around here at 62mph on the highway!

 

OK - finally got some more data. (7 tank fulls) Survey says: I like Shell.

My truck: 2023 ACLB 4x4 V6 AT on 265/70R17 Duratracs
- First 12,930 miles took roughly 735 gallons, or 17.6 mpg. (Sheetz 87)
- Switched to Shell. 2,111 miles on 107.6 gallons, or 19.6 mpg. (Shell 87)

My results are similar to @KY_Rob so I would say its worth checking other brands if you're looking for better mileage.

On my way home Friday night, I refueled in Canton, OH and got 25.3mpg on the last 87 miles of my drive.

 

* You'll burn about 6 gallons less gas every 1000 miles. Depending on how much you're paying for the Shell gas it may be costing you more money even though you're getting a bit better fuel mileage. That 2 mpg isn't really a big deal. If you were driving a car that got 35 mpg vs 17.6 mpg, you'd save over 30 gallons of gas driving 1000 miles

* Going to a higher-octane gas won't get you better fuel mileage. It MIGHT give you a small bump in power and the engine MIGHT run a little cooler. It MIGHT be enough to notice when towing. It MIGHT not.

*If there is any real-world difference in performance between non-ethanol gas and gas with up to 10% Ethanol in it, I've never been able to detect it. In theory yes, in a lab yes. In the real-world no.

* Driving style is the biggest factor in your fuel mileage. There is a huge difference if you can keep it under 70. The difference between 65 and 75 is huge with trucks. Road conditions you have no control over are part of this. Driving into a strong headwind will take 4-5 MPG from you. Coasting down long mountain roads for 30-50 miles will add 4-5 MPG.

* Wide tires and tires with aggressive tread have very high rolling resistance. That means your truck won't coast very far, you have to keep your foot on the skinny pedal a lot more to keep it moving. That is the 2nd biggest factor.

* Larger diameter tires and heavier tires (all else being equal) don't make a HUGE difference in fuel mileage. They take more power to get turning and will slow acceleration some. But once you get them moving it takes no more power to keep them moving than smaller, lighter tires. This confuses a lot of people is because most guys who opt for larger diameter tires also get wider tires with more aggressive tread.

* Don't trust the onboard display until you've hand calculated several tanks. My old Tacoma doesn't have that feature, but other cars I own, or have owned do. MOST of them are off by around 2 mpg, some as much as 4-5 mpg. Some are pretty darn close (within 1 mpg or better), but they always show a little better fuel mileage than you'll get by doing hand calculations.

 

The Shell is cheaper, so it’s a double savings. I’ll take it.

Same octane. It’s not an octane issue.

Based on…. you said so? I’ll alert the scientific community.

Same drive to work every day, same 3-hr drive to my parents. No, wait - you got me, I drove 2,000 miles down hill with a tail wind. Gimme a break!

Um, same tires, Sherlock. Changed them out with less than 1k on the truck.

I don’t ‘trust’ the display, but I’ve never had a vehicle that was off by more than a few tenths, maybe 0.5 mpg at most. All of my fill-ups are on Fuelly for anyone to check.


The whole point of the thread was that I found a surprising difference in -my- mileage, inquired about others’ experience, and then (happily) confirmed that difference over 2,000 miles of driving.

I’m not here to say Brand X is better; my conclusion was “its worth checking other brands if you're looking for better mileage.”

You, however, seem intent on shooting down any possible improvements in mileage as a figment of my (or anyone’s) imagination. I respectfully disagree.

 

Sensitive much? He didn’t say anything you posted was wrong, simply pointed out a bunch of facts that contribute to fuel economy (or lack of).

 

Hand calculated mpg is most accurate way to figure it all out. Tacomas just aren’t going to be as efficient as others. A few mpgs here and there really doesn’t matter too much. Filler-up with regular and enjoy the ride. Most others with trucks probably wish they were driving a Tacoma. And those other truck drivers are probably also complaining about their mpgs.