Had the truck two weeks , it runs better on 89 octane

Yes, it CAN occur. It is theoretically possible in modified engines or those suffering from poor maintenance can have it.

His isn't a turbo so unless his has massive glowing carbon on the cylinders causing uncontrolled detonation his engine is running on spark ignition which IS controlled by the computer.

There is a BIG difference between turbo or carbon detonation and pinging from timing. The computer controlled timing and will reduce the timing in the presence of pinging or knocking.

 

‘My Highlander needed 91 octane. The Tacoma no difference.

 

Assuming E0 means 0% ethanol, the issue is finding it. Rare to find down here in the states.

 

.

And zero reason to do so.

A tune will give you FAR more improvements and cost significantly less than running high octane E0

 

Given how insanely complex the computer controlled timing is on modern GDI engines, it wouldn’t surprise me if there were differences in the performance of different octane fuels. After all, OVTune squeezes another 20hp out in their 91 octane tune, and has talked about how the ECU learns. The question is how much auto tuning/learning does the stock ECU do between fillups?

 

They've been putting Ethanol in gas since WW-2 in order to make gas go farther and save money. Nothing new about the idea and it works. On older engines, not designed for it there can be damage long term. There are only a handful of 30+ year old cars still on the road where this will be a problem.

MOST owners manuals don't say "use 87 octane". They say "use at least 87 octane." And MANY of them recommend 87 octane for normal driving but 91 octane or higher when towing. Modern engines are constantly being monitored by a computer that can adapt to different octane levels.

Even though Tacoma doesn't specifically call for octane ratings above 87, going to a higher octane CAN improve performance. If nothing else it can help keep the engine cooler, which is a plus when towing or hauling heavy. I ran it for about a year, until gas hit $5/gallon for 87 octane. At that price point the gains in performance weren't worth the cost to me.

My older 07 truck did run with a little more power that was easily noticed by fewer downshifts when driven on the same roads with 87 octane in the tank. I'll note, I had to run 2-3 tanks of 91 octane before the difference was noticeable. For one thing it takes at least 2 fill-ups before you get all of the 87 octane out of the tank and have nothing but 91 in the tank. And it takes time for the computers to adjust to the change. Newer vehicles are even more likely to see improvements than older vehicles.

Even though 85 octane gas is sold at higher elevations I'd strongly advise against using it with most modern trucks. Especially if you're towing above about 5000'.

 

Yes E0 = no ethanol. Where I am, any brands 91+ has got no ethanol.

 

A tune also voids your warranty.

>>

Ethanol, while not “awful” for an engine, can’t be doing fuel economy/performance any favors. Wish we had easier access to E0 down here.

 

Some exceptions, but here in the British Columbia interior, we can generally get 87 with 10% ethanol, 91 with 0% ethanol, and (surprise) 89 with 5% ethanol. Stations only have 2 underground tanks, one for premium and one for regular...there is no "89 tank". Mid-grade is blended at the pump by mixing the 87 and 91.

The Chevron in town also offers 94E0, which is in its own tank, and which is the only fuel I use in our lawnmowers, snowblowers and "generatowers," and which I use in my 2022 whenever I go to fill up the jerry cans for the "owers." (top up the truck first to empty out the hoses and pumps... that way I know the jerry cans are getting 100% 94 grade)

I realize it's not a perfect comparison, but my wife's Sport DCSB usually shows between 500-530 km range when filled with 87 (her preference) and my ACLB show 550-600 km range with I fill up with my usual 91. Both actually get a bit more than that in the real world, but close enough. We are both running 32" truck tires at 40+ psi with manual transmissions and drive fairly conservatively. I have quite a bit of "stuff"with me most of the time (recovery gear, tow ropes, booster packs, tools, and stuff) and am personally a bit heavier than her, so both trucks probably weigh the same while on the road. In round numbers, I get ~10-12% better fuel consumption/range than she does, and my fuel costs about 10-12% more. Given I have a factory lift kit, I think I'm doing OK matching her in terms of $/km.


As the expression goes...your mileage may vary.

 

The corn lobbyists hold too much sway in the US. E0 is impossible in the vast majority of the country.

 

https://www.pure-gas.org/





.

 

They did tests with moonshine. It won't run in a vehicle thats computer controlled. They got an older car with a carb to run pretty decent on moonshine.

 

No they don't. Mine runs worse on 92 E10 gas here. Maybe the way your older 3.5 was tuned, but my 2020 runs the best on 87.

 

I'm a bit curious how it runs worse. I am assuming, of course, you're not just saying the benefits don't outweigh the cost but it actually runs worse.

 

All the Japanese vehicles that I had, ran better and got better MPGs on 91+ E0. Factory ECU calibrations.

I think most of the difference is in ethanol.

 

My stock 17 v6 pinged like a mf on 87 (Shell/sea level), and that was with less than 12K before I sold it. It ran better on 93, but not perfect. I blamed the bogging 6AT at the time.

 

Live at 5,400', work at 5,900' and recreate at over 6,'000. 87 ok? Not towing.

 

It was actually the complete opposite.

 

Although I find this topic over talked about, I’ll bite. I watched this today and found it interesting.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dxAQmj3P8xs

Note that it is not specific to a taco.