E85 conversion for 1st gen?

Has anyone done a conversion to e85 on a 1gen Tacoma v6 3.4 these gas prices aren’t helping

 

I mean, the fuel system/lines aren't meant for E85.

Let's not forget the lack of tuning ability on a 1st Gen.

If gas mileage is an issue, maybe drive something else? Not like these trucks use a ton of fuel anyway.

 

It would be cheaper and probably have more of a mileage impact to change your driving style. Take evrey pound of unneeded stuff out of the truck, make sure the tires are inflated properly and religiously use the cruise control while driving the speed limit. I did this back in 2008 when gas was back up around $4.00 a gallon and I had a 75mile round trip commute to work. I was able to squeeze an extra day of fuel out of it a week.

 

Even if it was easy to run E85, E85 has lower energy density than regular gas or E10 . You'll pay less per gallon but your MPG will also drop... your cost per mile might end up being similar to or worse than regular gas.

 

These are both extra correct. Frequent and regular maintenance will have a greater impact as well in the long run

 

E85 is cheaper because it's garbage. It's corrosive. Will ruin throttle body, fuel lines, hoses... basically anything rubber or aluminum (which would include your cylinder heads) leads to pre-ignition that can damage spark plugs, pistons etc.

And E85 gets, on average, 25-30% LESS milage than gas.


I wouldn't even run that shit in a vehicle that was "designed" for it.

 

Certain vehicle OEM will void your warranty if you run it in their vehicle,,

 

We're talking first gen Tacomas. I don't think vehicle warranties are a consideration at this point.

 

We might be... according to these assholes that wont stop calling me

 

E85 is not worth the effort to switch to in a 1st gen Tacoma, unless you are boosted. Even then, you won't get the benefits (power) out of it without tuning and as previously mentioned, there is no tuning ability with the stock ECU. You would need to convert to a standalone ECU of some kind, Haltech for example. That's on top of converting all your fuel lines over to handle E85, along with the fuel pump and injectors that also need upgraded.

Then there is the shitty gas mileage you will get. Like half of what you get now. Not to mention that depending on where you live, the price of E85 isn't that much different from regular pump gas. And there is also the scarcity of stations that carry E85. Hard to find or few and far between for many West Coast states.

 

According to this, it can indeed COST you money to switch to E85, and that's not even considering the issues with corrosion etc... And yes, I know this is from 2016, but it perfectly illustrates the lower cost per gallon vs. lower MPG issue.

https://blogs.sas.com/content/sastraining/2016/03/22/does-e85-fuel-save-you-money-or-cost-more/

Using subsidized corn byproducts as fuel IMO is dumb. Stick to gasoline, or go electric.

 

However, E85 makes great power and burns cleaner and cooler. Great for racecar!!

Oh and no to electric. It's not the answer. Too damaging to the environment to make and dispose of the batteries.

 

Most manufacturers also recommend or mandate sooner OCI if using E85.
E85 has its place, but I don’t think it’s place is in a stock 1st Gen Tacoma.

Pinch your pennies somewhere else maybe?

 

Propane.

 

Ya think,,,

Just addin' to the conversation on E 85

 

Nothing is THE solution. There is no 1 solution. But EVs, either hydrogen or li-ion (or some newer technology) battery, are clearly A solution.

So if Li-Ion batteries are "too damaging to the environment" what IS the solution? Continue pretending that an alternative to fossil fuels that isn't perfectly environmentally friendly in all aspects isn't worth pursuing?

The "it's not good for the environment" is a bit of a red herring because it ignores the fact that it is still better for the environment (overall) than what it's intended to replace. It also ignores the fact that the batteries last 10+ years and can be recycled. And recycling technology is getting better, upscaled, and more efficient every day. Batteries currently aren't recycled as much as they could because the process is "difficult and expensive" however that is a simple problem with supply and demand. Currently, it's cheaper just to mine the resources rather than recycle them, but that used to be true for steel and aluminum, too.

People like to focus on how damaging lithium mines are, or how they aren't "perfectly" environmentally friendly, I guess so they can continue driving their fossil fuel powered vehicles guilt free. A lot of the critiques assume we'll continue using the same technologies and methods for disposing of batteries well into the future which is short sighted and naive.

 

Li-Ion batteries ARE extremely damaging to the environment there is really no debating it, what so ever, on an intellectually honest level.

Furthermore... you keep using this word "solution." Solution to what? Solution to the problem that people with an agenda that is anti-oil/anti-growth (or with a very large financial stake in Li-Ion... or both) tell you is a problem?

Li-Ion batteries ARE NOT in any way shape or form "better" for the environment than fossil fuel... period.

 

Ask for a raise.

 

I never said Li-Ion batteries WEREN'T harmful to the environment. So just what are you trying to debate there?

You used the word "answer." Answer and solution mean the same thing. Since you used that word first, I'll ask you what THE answer is.

You talk about people being in the pocket of what I can only assume would be "big li-ion", but what about oil? Do yo not think that the oil industry stands to profit off the anti-battery mindset?

The SCIENCE on the effects of fossil fuels is clear. What to do about it is political, and those on the left who think the answer is drum circles and unicycles are just as wrong as those on the right who pretend climate change isn't real. Both sides are equally guilty of misrepresenting science to their advantage/bias.

Feel free to deny the science, but unfortunately what refutes science isn't Fox news or the oil industry. Better science refutes science.

Based on what metric? That seams like an absurdly overly generalized statement.

 

Lmao... First of all, I don't even know how the difference between "answer" and "solution" is in the discussion. You say I said "answer"... uh, no I didn't. "Answer" is found nowhere in my post you quoted.

So, no... I didn't use the word "first" (or at all, for that matter)

You keep searching for a "solution" or, now I guess you want an "answer"... But my point is that the solution/answer (or what ever word you want to use) is to a problem that is exaggerated... by people who have a vested interest in selling you a solution/answer.

You want to talk about science? Ok, lets talk about the carbon footprint of the multiple dump trucks the size of 3 story houses running 24/7 mining lithium and the other minerals it takes to make a battery. Let's talk about the hundereds of acres of DEAD space created by the evaporation pools that are left over when the lithium is stripped out. Lets talk about the fact that 1 tonne of Lithium requires a half a million gallons of water to produce... Put that is perspectiveTesla model 3 sold around 200,000 units in 2020. Each Model 3 takes around 12kg of lithium to produce a battery. That means ONE model of ONE make of car used over a billion gallons of water to produce... that's not including other Tesla models, or ANY model of GM, Ford, VW, Porsche, Kia, Toyota, Nissan, Chrysler etc, etc, etc. And most lithium mines, today, are located in arid areas. The Lithium mining process has decimated local farming, and completely altered the available groundwater for the local people.

AND THEN... lets look at the FACT that nearly 50% of the US gets its fricken electricity FROM FOSSIL FUEL ANYWAY.

And beyond that... there's also the slave labor of little orphan kids in Africa that brings you the cobalt necessary to make your "green" batteries.


AND THEN there is the, previously mentioned, issue of the lack of a realistic method of disposing of the batteries.



And all the while we have, literally, MILLIONS of people burning MILLIONS of gallons of gas, in traffic, on the freeways driving to an office job that is no longer neccesary because we have telecommuting available... and no one even considers this a viable way to make progress against the climate change boogyman. And some of the worst offenders of this are the very companies that say climate change is going to end us. Financial sector, Google, Facebook (tech companies in general)