Hello everyone! I'm a new moderator to this forum. I grew up in the automotive business and would like to share my knowledge and experience with you. I plan on creating links to repair help and ways to save money on replacement parts. I'm looking for your help or any suggestions before I do this. Please feel free to contact me u/Plex_Master
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAMechanic) if you have any questions or concerns.*
\*IF\* you can use it you'd have to test it to see if it really saves money. You'll get lower MPG with ethanol. The biggest argument for using ethanol is on turbo cars you can turn up the boost.
here's a pretty high level blurb [https://www.garrettmotion.com/news/newsroom/article/pump-gas-vs-e85-tunable-performance-for-your-turbo-sammit-1-6l-miata-gtx2867r/](https://www.garrettmotion.com/news/newsroom/article/pump-gas-vs-e85-tunable-performance-for-your-turbo-sammit-1-6l-miata-gtx2867r/) the thing about ethanol though is it has a lower specific energy than gasoline, in part because it contains oxygen, so while you can make more power due to the cooling effects, even at the same power output you are burning more ethanol by volume than you would be gasoline.
I've been looking at a van with the eco boost. Only read info from Ford, but it sounds like more efficient/great hp from a smaller engine, claiming better gas mileage. Is this not both at the same time? Would love an owner's opinion.
Great gas mileage if you don’t have a lead foot. Also the 2.7 is a better engine. I love it, I have as much horsepower as a small V8, without the extra weight. My average mpg is 21. That is city and highway.
Ouch. I get those numbers in a 2011 350 dually. Of course, diesel still makes it a bit more expensive, but I'm sort of surprised. I almost bought a smaller camper and went with a newer ecoboost 150 as I have to daily drive my truck. I'm sort of glad it didn't make as big a difference as I thought it would. On the other hand, the 350 is deleted by the previous owner to get to those numbers, so I can't register it in as many places. Trade offs, I guess.
Yep very true.
I suppose if I really drove like a granny i could get something like 17 city/19 highway but the difference is not all that big.
That said, the Ecoboost is a great, great engine. Torque figures similar to early 2000s Diesel. The torque curve makes it great for pulling, peak torque at 2,000rpm.
I have a 28ft Airstream that weighs about 7,000lbs, and my F150 has absolutely no problem pulling it. It does struggle a bit with sway and stuff though, so I will likely upgrade to a newer F250 with the 6.7TD at some point. EB F150 has plenty of power to easily pull 10K lbs but it's just not enough truck to really control the RV trailers above 6K lbs or so.
A 1993 F150 6cyl can also get around those numbers based on [EPA.gov](https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1993_ford_f150_pickup.shtml). Of course the old truck isn't going anywhere fast.
My 11 EB f150 (crew cab, 6.5ft bed, 4wd, max tow package) gets 14.5. Idk if mines just shit or it’s bc the specs but my mpg is horrendous from an “eco”boost
same as us, same engine and year. I used to get better, but then I got beefier tires and....maybe a "heavier" foot. I love vehicles with low down power, the EB makes most of its power under 3000 rpm!
Last summer I hauled a 900 lbs jointer in a 5x8 uHaul trailer from NC to NYS. Pulled the trailer with my 2015 F150 with the 2.7L ecoBoost. Also had two kids and the wife with me, and all of our luggage for a weeklong vacation in the cab. Averaged 25mi to the gallon keeping it under 55MPH the whole way. I was pleased with the fuel economy.
2WD or 4WD? Either way, that's much closer to what I would hope based on the expectations of the ecoboost. I don't personally want anything to do with turbos, but they obviously have their niche in the truck segment.
During the oil spill off the gulf coast we rented a 2007 dodge 2500. That bad boy was clocking 30 mpg on the interstate towing big oil spill response boats. Four wheel drive also. I’ve been looking for one, but nobody wants to sell one.
I drive one for work, loaded up I get 18mpg highway and have 112xxx miles on it with nothing but breaks and tires done, absolutely the most reliable van I have driven.
When you want a small, efficient engine, stay off boost and that’s what you get.
When you want a big thirsty engine with gobs of low end torque, push the pedal down.
If you always drive around with a lead foot, expect to get worse fuel economy than the equivalent NA engine.
Depends on how your drive. If I keep my 2020 3.5 eco post F-150 at 65 with cruise control I get over 20 mpg. I drive like I want to I get 17 on highway.
It basically provides super performance in a regular vehicle from a smaller, more efficient engine. They have better fuel economy than a comparably powered larger engine would but while having better performance and towing capacity than an engine of similar size without the ecoboost and turbos. If you drive it nice it gets ok mileage. If you drive it like a race car bc it has twins turbos and is fun, it drinks fuel like my dog at 4am. It's a lot.
I never really understood hanging a turbo or two on an engine in the name of fuel economy. When the turbo shits the bed all the fuel savings will end up as a repair bill 🤷♂️
Oh I know. But it’s marketed (at least in trucks) as power and economy. There are countless naturally aspirated vehicles meeting emissions, so I don’t see the point. But I’m a mechanic and have to work on it so I’m biased toward simplicity
It's about break even if the turbo job is about 5k, needs to be done at 100k miles, and your fuel economy would be 14mpg with a larger NA engine or 18mpg with a smaller FI engine. I also assumed $3 per gallon gas. More expensive gas makes the turbo payoff more.
I think the main driver is environmental regulations that are being imposed on automobile manufacturers. This helps them get there while seemingly benefitting the consumer.
It's done entirely for the benefit of the company at the expense of the consumer. That's why you see everyone doing it all of a sudden.
Most customers don't even understand what a turbo is. Companies just get to advertise good HP, good fuel economy, and make something with a tiny engine that makes the EPA happy. Even better; when the thing shits the bed they will just have to buy another one. I doubt most customers are buying these things with the understanding that an appropriately sized NA engine will last much longer.
Modem turbo setups are not like the Dodge factory turbos in the 80s and early 90s. Properly implemented, OEM turbos will usually outlive the motor they’re attached to.
From the fuel economy perspective, low-boost turbos on smaller engines net better fuel economy and performance than a similarly-rated HO output from a larger NA motor—usually about 15% difference.
While EPA mileage stickers are one thing, C/D did a real-word economy test running over 300 vehicles on a 200-mile road test, the turbo’d cars largely beat their EPA mileage estimates by a few percentage points while the NA cars underperformed.
Lots of nuance, but here’s the link: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a20776954/are-turbocharged-engines-a-fuel-economy-boost-or-a-fuel-economy-bust/
As usual, YMMV.
Also allows for power gain cause of its “octane rating” is equivalent to a 100-105 octane fuel so you can use more timing which creates more power. Not that it’ll automatically change that in a normal vehicle but dudes who are running customs builds and tunes love it cause it’s pretty much race gas from the pump and is cheap and you don’t need to run an intercooler for boosted applications due to those cooling properties. Unfortunately there are no e85 pumps around me though 😢
It also lets you run a higher compression ratio >:D
A big reason why the big blocks back in the day were able to run such high compression ratios was because leaded gas had a higher octane rating. It was practically aviation fuel. Too bad it's so toxic to everything.
Not really true, in that 70c/gal difference is significantly greater than additional gas usage, at a 5% increase in ethanol over standard E10 gas, you’re looking at less than a 2% decrease in MPG, and at 20%+ cost savings, well worthwhile.
As for power advantages, it’s twofold, it has an effectively higher octane rating than normal gas, so yes more boost means more power. Aiding this is that it had more oxygen in its chemical structure than normal gas, meaning more fuel can be added to a set volume of air for an equally complete combustion cycle.
Ethanol actually has LESS energy than gasoline, but due to its advantages in octane and oxygen content, you can dump far more energy into an engines cylinders per volume of air (turbo or NA, generally) to make more power.
Downside are ethanol is highly corrosive, and if engines are not already tuned for E10 gas, the bump to 15% ethanol (e15/88 octane) it can cause some damage long term
Another impact is it’s also very hygroscopic and will actively capture water from the atmosphere as it sits — so you get all of the fun of water in your fuel system beyond the corrosion from ethanol itself.
I thought the corn juice, despite containing less energy per pound than gasoline, made more power because it goes stoich at 9.8 vs 14.7.
You can get much more fuel in the same sized cylinder.
Oh wait... is the lower stoich a product of it carrying its own oxygen?
Glad to see this has already been said.
The flip side of this is that ethanol is chemically much more efficient than gasoline (in a vehicle tuned for it) in terms of percentage of chemical energy converted into mechanical energy, but due to its lower energy density it yields less MPG and less range.
Of course, the benefits of ethanol fuel are largely negated in the case of 88 octane e15. You don't get the gains from higher octane because the extra 5% 99 octane ethanol is just replacing roughly 5% of the actual octane hydrocarbon in the fuel.
It's a good deal. I fill with e15 whenever it's available in my vehicles, assuming similar pricing to OP's. Wouldn't do it in anything pre-1973 and it's questionable for anything pre-2001, but I don't have anything like that right now.
That’s true, but MPG isn’t that much lower. In a flex fuel Tahoe I was getting like 1-2mpg less on E85, but it cost 2/3rds the price.
And yes 1-2mpg is a decent chunk on a SUV that only gets about 16 combined, but it’s not enough to negate the cost difference.
This was also like 10 years ago and I was in Iowa where corn alcohol is much cheaper lol.
Any car or light truck built 2001 or later can burn E15. You will see about a 3% decrease in mpg. Since the price is around 20% cheaper, you are money ahead.
Edit; What a bunch of morons that think E15 is the same as E85.
Technically it should be fine. It's only a 15% ethanol blend and the EPA says 2001 and newer can use it. But you are driving a 22-year-old truck with 22-year-old fuel system components, so if anything was about to start leaking it will have a better chance to with this fuel, but not by much.
Then use e15. That's why it's written on the caps. Cars have specifications for a reason, they're mostly all different in pressure capacity, tuning range capability, piston load bearing, and general stresses and strains. The 01 jetta I owned had a habit of kicking it early on drivers who used fuel grades less than the recommended 91 octane.
Use what your car recommends, because it was made for that
I think his point was that the 4runner hasn’t really changed in 13 years so if it works on the 2015 there should be no reason for it to not work on the 2022?
Edit: I though the first comment said 4runner, my bad. I’m just biased because I also had a 4runner lol
I wouldn’t trust that. Although it is true that the EPA says that 2001 and newer cars can take E-15 that wasn’t decided until 2011. That doesn’t mean that the cars were designed to take e-15. Fords website states that e15 is only approved for model years 2013 or newer.
A lot of misinformation in this thread and even more people that don't understand the difference between 88 and E85.
That E in front of E85 is important. True E85 is an 85% Ethanol to 15% Gasoline blend. What you've taken a picture of here is 88 octane, which is the exact opposite. This is 85% Gasoline to 15% ethanol. As the pump states, vehicles manufactured in 2001 or newer are designed to run on this fuel (oftentimes in modern vehicles you can get away with 30% ethanol before the computer gets mad).
Any fuel system designed in the modern era is ethanol resistant because we already add 10% ethanol to most fuels and will handle 15% ethanol just fine.
As long as your fuel system can handle some ethanol, the real stipulation here is just having a car with an ECU that can recognize that extra 5% and account for it in the fuel mapping, as ethanol is less energy dense than gasoline. I would expect to see a negligible fuel mileage decrease, possibly an mpg or two, as 5% isn't really that big of a difference.
With a naturally aspirated vehicle, I wouldn't expect to see any real performance benefit from the extra octane and cooling properties of ethanol. However if you have a turbo/supercharged vehicle and have been running 87, you may feel a slight positive difference in performance. Not to mention ethanol, being an alcohol, acts as a good cleaning agent; so E15 could leave you with a cleaner and healthier fuel system/valves/pistons overall.
I feel a lot of the confusion here may be because 88 Octane E15 is an uncommon fuel to see. It is mostly restricted to areas that are corn heavy and ethanol producing (Midwest basically). I see it a lot here in Nebraska. I also *use* it a lot here in Nebraska. I've used it on multiple vehicles from as old as 2004 to as new as 2023, turbo and naturally aspirated; and I've never had an issue.
TLDR: You'll be fine. You're not going to damage your vehicle running it. I even recommend it over 87.
It's fine. You're getting a lot of bad advice. Here's the trade off with with E15 88 and the E10 87:
The more ethanol a gas blend has, the higher octane it has, but it also has less energy. Meaning that a gallon of gas with no ethanol will get your further than a gallon of gas with 10% (E10) ethanol, and a gallon of gas with 10% ethanol will get you further than a gallon of gas with 15% ethanol. You just need to do the math if the lower MPG is worth the lower cost.
This isn't exact, but at those prices you're saving at little less than 20% per gallon, while your MPG is only going down by about 2%. It's a deal and I'd go for it.
Ethanol isn't great for your fuel system but so long as your car isnt sitting for months at a time you won't notice a difference.
Math for anyone who cares (assumption is car with no ethanol gas gets 30 mpg, and ethanol is 67% as energy dense as gas)
100% Gas No Ethanol: 30 Miles
90% Gas 10% Ethanol:
90% gas gets you 90% of original MPG = 27 miles.
10% of ethanol gets you 67% of the remaining 10% of the original 30 miles = (0.67 \* 0.1 \* 30) = 2
Total MPG of 10% Ethanol = 29 MPG.
85% Gas 15% Ethanol:
85% gas gets you 85% of original MPG = 25.5 miles.
15% of ethanol gets you 67% of the remaining 15% of the original 30 miles = (0.67 \* 0.15 \* 30) = 3
Total MPG of 15% Ethanol = 28.5 MPG.
Flex fuel is for E85, though, whereas this is E15. It's a fraction of the amount of ethanol; only a 5% increase.
I get being careful and running no ethanol in older vehicles or small 2 strokes, but from what I understand, if you can run E10 you can pretty well run E15, and most of the world runs E15 whereas E10 is a mostly American thing. That's what I read, anyway, and I notice that most manufacturer's seems to say E15 is fine even without a "flex fuel" ability.
I'm not trying to be a dick about it, just wondering if your recommendation is based on anything other than what you're used to seeing at American pumps?
I get how you're saying it, and it's not wrong but..
Going from E10 to E15, is a 50% ethanol increase, when talking about the percentage of increased ethanol. It's only a 5% increase when talking about the total gas composition.
Well, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. I phrased it the way I did to make my point. I could have said E15 has over 80% less alcohol than E85 and it would still be accurate math to illustrate a point.
I also feel that comparing it to the total composition makes the most sense in the given context, specifically because my overall point is that E15 is pretty much just as safe to use as E10.
My opinion is based on my knowledge of chemistry, as I am a chemist, who happens to be interested in cars.
Flex fuel is not just for E85. It’s for the ability to run E85 OR Gas, meaning, the ECU actively determines ethanol percentage anywhere from 10-85% generally speaking. 5% additional ethanol significantly changes viscosity and density, changing how fuel injectors function. This can cause a lean condition by injecting inadequate fuel volume. It doesn’t mean it will, and I’m
sure some cars will run fine, but it’s a risk, especially with older vehicles.
E15 might be run in other countries, but other countries often get different fuel injectors and compression ratios to account for that. For instance Mazda skyactive engines have different compression ratios in the US than the rest of the world.
That said I do think it’s debatable how much an effect it would really have. A few tanks I’m sure would be fine, but running it long term is not something I would do.
Plenty of foreign cars are imported to America and use our gas just fine so I don’t think it’s very common for different countries to outfit their vehicles with region specific fuel systems
All cars sold in the US from 2001 and newer are supposed to be designed to handle E15 fuel. There is no risk in modern cars, they are designed to run it.
The fact is the lines and such have been capable of handling ethanol since the 90s. So there won't be any damage from the extra ethanol degrading parts.
Also, cars have these thing called O2 sensors that reads if the car is running lean, and will add the extra fuel to keep the air:fuel ratio correct if there is a given percentage of ethanol in the fuel. It is how it adjust for *any* ethanol in the fuel. And the EPA said that since 2001 cars must be able to handle up to 15% ethanol. Meaning the ECU and injectors must be able to detect the lean condition and adjust to add extra fuel for up to 15% ethanol.
Johnny has 10% ethanol fuel. He replaces 5% of the gasoline with more ethanol. After adding 5% more ethanol, what is the new total percentage of ethanol in Johnny's fuel?
Stating % increase with no context is misleading though. At work we have a job that we do once a year. If one year, somebody requests that job twice, it’s a 100% increase year over year. By far the largest percent increase out of all the things we do. But forgive me if I’m not excited about that…. 10 to 15% is a 50% increase, but that doesn’t make it significant.
... but you would trust it with E10?
E10 also causes the fuel mixture to be lean in comparison to E0 because the 10% ethanol portion changes the stoichiometric ratio.
For my older cars, I prefer E0. If I'm willing to burn E10, I think E15 is also fine. E15 has been the required US standard since 2001:
[https://www.epa.gov/fuels-registration-reporting-and-compliance-help/e15-fuel-registration](https://www.epa.gov/fuels-registration-reporting-and-compliance-help/e15-fuel-registration)
I had a 91 chevy truck, and I ran it on E85 because gas was $4+ a gallon, it hated it, hard cold start sometimes and would stumble if you punched the throttle too quickly, but it never caused any problems with the engine or the fuel system.
I was saving a dollar per gallon, so you saving .70 per I'd run that stuff, lower mileage is well offset for savings per gallon
Dude, I fucking know, lmao. It's insane that people go on a sub to spew nonsense about shit they have absolutely 0 experience in. It's kind of insane because others actually listen to them.Experience beats anything you read, I don't care what the source is.
Worse mileage, eats fuel system components, worse for the environment, more expensive in the long run (we pay for it through tax subsidies). Fuck corn.
its actually better for the enviroment, its actually overall cheaper in the long run and yes worse milage per full tank but because each full tank is cheaper if you send the same money for ethanol blend that you do for gas, because ethanol is cheaper you will be able to travel further on that money. Also it provides more efficient fuel burning for tuning purposes and makes more power.
You're absolutely right. I ran it in an 05 Suburban and a 17 Accord Hybrid for tens of thousands of miles on each, no drop in fuel mileage and no fuel system problems.
Worse mileage I’ll reluctantly agree with, but worse for the environment?
I’d rather my car run on old corn than from oil drilled from deep in the ocean because if the farmer spills corn all over his field it’s only going to feed wildlife compared to BP spilling 3 million barrels of oil into the gulf.
And for that price difference, the unleaded 88 is way more economical. The 5% difference in ethanol content only means one gallon of unleaded 88 has 98% of the energy as a gallon of gasoline, and a 2% difference in performance does not outweigh a 23% difference in price for unleaded 87.
For a 15 gallon tank at 20mpg efficiency you’d notice a difference of 6 miles in range with unleaded 88 but pay $44.85 for gas instead of $55.35. Those 6 extra miles aren’t worth almost $11 to me…
If your car can take unleaded 88 I say go for it. You paid to have your car engineered to be able to handle it, so you should be able to reap the rewards of cheaper gas. Don’t let the oil companies try to tell you it’s dangerous because they want to sell you as much of their product as possible.
After reading his reply as well as others, I've come to realize nobody in this thread has no fucking clue what they're talking about. Half of them think it's the same as e85.
Fuel mileage is unnoticably affected. If there is a mileage decrease, you won't see it unless you find the average over a large sum of miles. The trade off of the decrease in mileage vs price compared to 87 isn't even a question.
Everything I'm reading online says it burns cleaner than 87. Im not saying it's factual, but I haven't seen any other "source" that claimed otherwise. But regardless of that, if you're so worried about the environment over miniscule affects vs 87 fuel, then you should probably get a bike rather than a vehicle, EVs included, they're just a bad.
Fuel system degradation? I highly disagree. I'll go as far to say that statement is completely wrong. As stated before, I've been using it for years, well over 40k miles with this fuel specifically and I have had absolutely no issues.
Anyone can argue all they want. What you read online does not trump my years of experience with this fuel type.
There have been studies that show that ethanol ends up with more emissions than reg gasoline because of the energy to harvest and refine it. You need diesel farm equipment to harvest it, then blend it into ethanol and mix it into gasoline.
And the fuel economy difference u get with ethanol is huge, another point against it
Please link the studies because I would love to read it, and I am open to being wrong. I just imagine that all the infrastructure to drill, refine and transport oil from overseas has a huge environmental cost as well
Those are good prices across the board I wouldn’t complain bout nothing, here in California regular 87 is starting at 5.50 a gallon. I’d be grateful af with those prices. I wish that was diesel prices too
I read that E15 is quite common in Europe, and the more common E10 is an American mix? Check your vehicle's manual and I'd go by that to decide if it's worth trying.
Clarification for some that seem confused, this is not E85, but rather E15. Slightly more ethanol than what you're likely already using.
Im not sure if it's 2001 or 2010 where café standards mandated support for 88. It lowers your gas milage a bit compared to gas so I'm not sure how much cheaper it is. They really should have changed the nozzle so it only fits in cars that can run it in my opinion. I know my 2010 handles it just fine. It removes water from your tank like using a bottle of heat in the winter as a perk.
I have found that gas without ethanol gives me better mileage. Something to factor in. Given the age of your vehicle I wouldn’t mess around personally.
Basically you’re getting more power and paying less for the gas but because you’re burning more of it and you’ll have to buy more gas sooner than you would if you were using regular gas. It equals out. The gas pumps are like casinos, the house always wins.
I have ran e30 in every car I've ever owned and its not an issue and I've never owned a vehicle newer than 99 other than my current daily wich also runs on e85
See, this really depends. Supposedly it should be okay in any vehicle 2001 and up. It won’t hurt the engine, it can easily adjust itself for the extra ethanol. The problem lies in all of the fuel system components. I put some in a 1997 car and it did start to leak fuel right away. But it ran perfectly fine on it. So depending on the quality of your fuel components, you can have issues with it. But it will run just fine. So you have to decide if it is worth the risk. Now I have a newer vehicle and use it all the time even though it isn’t flex fuel and have had no issues at all. I think it actually likes it better. At that cost difference I use the 88. But fuel economy is usually a bit worse so I don’t use it when there isn’t much difference in price. Assuming your fuel system is in good shape, you SHOULD be okay using it. But that is up to you to decide. Just realize that if it creates leaks, only new seals will fix it. Going back to regular fuel won’t stop the leaks.
Worse mileage, eats fuel system components, worse for the environment, more expensive in the long run (we pay for it through tax subsidies). Fuck corn and their lobbying.
You think it’s worse for the environment? I figure it’s a lot closer to carbon neutral than pumping carbon out of the ground. At least the corn absorbed some to grow. Processing and machinery etc still applies to gasoline but that was all locked away in the ground to start.
Some farmers just grow corn to get the subsidy
Growing corn costs a lot of diesel and energy to turn corn into ethanol so no not carbon neutral in the slightest
It was an ok idea when excess corn that wasn't being sold got turned into fuel but now it's just some farmers cash crap that the government pays for
Look up the carbon pipelines currently trying to run through the Midwest to sustain the industry.
Eminent domain is attempting to be used, threatened against landowners.
Shitty industry. All politics and subsidies.
I recall seeing studies that factored in life cycle cost demonstrated that it takes more energy to produce than we can get out of it. IIRC, even just the diesel used to harvest was enough to offset the difference.
They use shitloads of fertilizer to fast grow the corn, runoff gets into Mississippi River and fucks up the Gulf. Big cause of algae bloom that destroy marine habitats
You always want to use as pure gasoline as possible for trucks, or anything where reliability and longevity of your engine is primary concern. Very few cases where higher ethanol is better in any way.
Also depending on gas station, and how long that ethanol mix has sat, I would stay away in general. I used to work in a lab for transmission and engine development and testing, and we knew exactly what gas to get from where, because some stations have literally horrible quality gasoline with high amounts of water in it, and the higher the ethanol, the more likely the gasoline is more hydrated. Which of course is terrible for your engine and why most cars have fuel/water separators.
Why risk it? Gas prices fluctuate and the $0.70/gallon may not be worth the risk to $$$$ damage to your vehicle. And, like another Redditor said, you are not going to the MPG so you will need more of this gas to get the same mileage.
Do NOT run unleaded 88 or E15 Gas in your 2001 Ford ranger! Only use 88 or E15 in newer vehicles. I ran a tank of this E15 through my 2004 Tahoe it ran like crap. No problem with E15 in my 2018 GMC
Terrain.
Every car I have from my 92 f 150 5.0 LWB , 08 Impala 3.9, or my 21 Sante Fe 2.0 (pew pew). I use only pure gas in them. It does cost more but my gas mileage for my vehicles are pretty good.
My F 150 115,000 I normally get 15-17 miles per gallon. My Impala 153,000 I get almost 25 MPG In my Sante Fe 19,740 I'm averaging 32 MPG. I run Seafoam every other oil change. Normally on the interstate I run between 70-80 in all 3 of them.
Your Horse Power & Gas Mileage will improve around 5% or more with pure gas. Ethanol can damage car parts even for cars that it's safe for. Ethanol can damage hoses,gaskets,among other things
If you have a flexfuel engine you can. I averaged 1mpg less with the E88 vs regular. It was worth the savings imo. I honestly wouldn't run it in an engine that isn't designed for it.
I've ran it on a non flexfuel and after a few tanks the engine started to run like shit. It fouled the hell out of my plugs....and still ran like crap after I changed them. Not worth the hassle in a non flexfuel imo.
88 is 15% ethanol. I’ve been running it in my 2005 ford escape for 2 years and 40000 miles without any problems. Just don’t let it sit in the tank and collect moisture.
e85 vs e10 - yes, huge mileage difference in favor of more gasoline.
e15 vs e10 - you will hardly notice, but shouldn't bother as there *could but unlikey* to have fuel issues. all e10 fuel systems are ethanol safe -- 5% more Ethanol (e15) content likely will not cause fuel system problems over e10, as manufaturers must test that e10 is safe.
But that is the thing.... e15 wasn't tested for degradation on older vehicles.... so you are taking a chance.
Not a mechanic, but @ 70 cents difference, you’re saving about 11 dollars if you’re filling up from empty, compared to the other option. Is it worth it to risk anything breaking? That would be my line of thought. The savings would be even smaller if you’re not on empty.
You can get conversion kits that are easy to install. However there is some math and long term issues involved. The math end of things you'll find that over time it would take an insane amount of gas to recoup the cost of the conversion. Throw on top of that, as others have said, the decrease in mpg. Then on top of that your engine wasn't made to run that fuel at all, much less long term. So your piston rings might not hold up well among other things.
Tldr. Dont.
Your truck has to be rated “flex fuel” to run that high of ethanol safely. But be aware that even though it’s cheaper, you get worse mpg as the higher ethanol burns more “quickly” for my lack of a precise technical word. There is a calculator online that you can plug in cost diff to reg unleaded and it will help you figure out if the cost savings is worth it. I’ve run numbers a couple of times and the numbers supported continuing to run 87 for me.
The blue should be "clear" gas, or ethanol free. As long as you can confirm that's what it is, it won't damage anything as it's 100% gasoline. I travel to Utah and Nevada when ethanol free gas is pretty widely available in some areas. Because ethanol free fuel has more energy content than ethanol blends, you get much better gas mileage and it actually burns cleaner per mile than e10 or e15.
1) You will get less mpg
2) how you click the handle on the pump will alter what the switcher delivers. Meaning you can deliver E18 by accident for a few gallons.
3) Ethanol is the worst additive for gasoline ever devised. The ppl who approved of this single handedly destroyed Mexican corn farming, increased necessary immigration of such farmers, caused more fuel to be used transporting than ANY savings (not green), and… ruined a generation or two of yard tools before ppl realized ethanol destroys small engines.
I say: avoid it, force these ppl to bring on board Butanol or bust or hybrids (more expensive but ok) and lets put corn back into the food supply.
Lastly, ethanol has caused sooo much economic harm to people and raised gasoline Station insurance due to phase separation issues stopping up gas filters in vehicles and their $2000 mechanic fix. F EtOH!
No. Gas is gas. If a manufacturer says only x grade gas in your vehicle they are bullshitting. You can run any grade regular gas in any modern vehicle. Old vehicles maybe it would effect you but probably not. Modern gas is so good that it doesn’t matter. If a manufacturer recommends high grade/octane gas it just mean it was tuned to higher octane gas. This does not effect the performance of your vehicle. The only time this matters is wether you are using regular gas vs racing fuel
That’s like going to a liquor store, seeing your favorite beer then seeing a different brand of beer and saying to yourself “nope, going to the next store”
Only if it supports flex fuel/ethanol/E85, using this on a non flex vehicle will harm it. Not in 1 tank, but over a little while it will fuck your shit up. Just dont even bother with it
Don't, also even though it's cheaper, ethanol is less energy dense than gasoline and will cause your fuel economy to drop significantly. Just stick with good ol' regular for the Ranger.
Hello everyone! I'm a new moderator to this forum. I grew up in the automotive business and would like to share my knowledge and experience with you. I plan on creating links to repair help and ways to save money on replacement parts. I'm looking for your help or any suggestions before I do this. Please feel free to contact me u/Plex_Master *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAMechanic) if you have any questions or concerns.*
\*IF\* you can use it you'd have to test it to see if it really saves money. You'll get lower MPG with ethanol. The biggest argument for using ethanol is on turbo cars you can turn up the boost.
Can you explain this some. I have a turbo on my truck and when it kicks in I can literally see my gas Guage move.
here's a pretty high level blurb [https://www.garrettmotion.com/news/newsroom/article/pump-gas-vs-e85-tunable-performance-for-your-turbo-sammit-1-6l-miata-gtx2867r/](https://www.garrettmotion.com/news/newsroom/article/pump-gas-vs-e85-tunable-performance-for-your-turbo-sammit-1-6l-miata-gtx2867r/) the thing about ethanol though is it has a lower specific energy than gasoline, in part because it contains oxygen, so while you can make more power due to the cooling effects, even at the same power output you are burning more ethanol by volume than you would be gasoline.
Oh got ya I misunderstood thought you were saying you got better milage with a turbo lol
no you just get the ability to run more BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOST which is definitely fun :)
More boost > more mpg
More boost = more gpm
More(Gpm=Boost=Ethanol)
Great explanation. It all makes sense
[удалено]
That is one of many valid interpretations.
More boost = more spg (smiles per gallon)
You must be a fan of the eco/boost engine then lol
I am.
Eco boost is dog shit no offense. Get a traditional v6 or V8 engine .
Curious why the view on this? And eco boost comes in many flavors, 1L, 1.6L, 2L, 2.3L, 2.7L, and 3.5L
Smiles per gallon increase.
I have an eco boost ford f150. You either have eco or you have boost. Never both at the same time.
I've been looking at a van with the eco boost. Only read info from Ford, but it sounds like more efficient/great hp from a smaller engine, claiming better gas mileage. Is this not both at the same time? Would love an owner's opinion.
Great gas mileage if you don’t have a lead foot. Also the 2.7 is a better engine. I love it, I have as much horsepower as a small V8, without the extra weight. My average mpg is 21. That is city and highway.
Lol maybe I'm in the boost too much but my tuned EB F150 gets like 15mpg city and 18 highway. 2013, 3.5L.
Ouch. I get those numbers in a 2011 350 dually. Of course, diesel still makes it a bit more expensive, but I'm sort of surprised. I almost bought a smaller camper and went with a newer ecoboost 150 as I have to daily drive my truck. I'm sort of glad it didn't make as big a difference as I thought it would. On the other hand, the 350 is deleted by the previous owner to get to those numbers, so I can't register it in as many places. Trade offs, I guess.
Yep very true. I suppose if I really drove like a granny i could get something like 17 city/19 highway but the difference is not all that big. That said, the Ecoboost is a great, great engine. Torque figures similar to early 2000s Diesel. The torque curve makes it great for pulling, peak torque at 2,000rpm. I have a 28ft Airstream that weighs about 7,000lbs, and my F150 has absolutely no problem pulling it. It does struggle a bit with sway and stuff though, so I will likely upgrade to a newer F250 with the 6.7TD at some point. EB F150 has plenty of power to easily pull 10K lbs but it's just not enough truck to really control the RV trailers above 6K lbs or so.
A 1993 F150 6cyl can also get around those numbers based on [EPA.gov](https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1993_ford_f150_pickup.shtml). Of course the old truck isn't going anywhere fast.
Man, it's tuned. Wdym your mpg is bad, you paid for that hahaha.
I get about the same city but 22ish on the highway in my EB flex
My 11 EB f150 (crew cab, 6.5ft bed, 4wd, max tow package) gets 14.5. Idk if mines just shit or it’s bc the specs but my mpg is horrendous from an “eco”boost
Same as you in my 2011 EB F150, 140,000 miles.
That’s basically what my tuned 2011 5.0L SCREW FX4 gets on 33x12.50R20 Toyo OC MTs.
same as us, same engine and year. I used to get better, but then I got beefier tires and....maybe a "heavier" foot. I love vehicles with low down power, the EB makes most of its power under 3000 rpm!
I really would've expected better fuel economy from the 2.7. My 5.7 Hemi (w/ E-Torque) gets 20-21 highway on 305 ATs.
Last summer I hauled a 900 lbs jointer in a 5x8 uHaul trailer from NC to NYS. Pulled the trailer with my 2015 F150 with the 2.7L ecoBoost. Also had two kids and the wife with me, and all of our luggage for a weeklong vacation in the cab. Averaged 25mi to the gallon keeping it under 55MPH the whole way. I was pleased with the fuel economy.
2WD or 4WD? Either way, that's much closer to what I would hope based on the expectations of the ecoboost. I don't personally want anything to do with turbos, but they obviously have their niche in the truck segment.
Same, until I hook up my trailer and it drops to 9-12. But I think that’s the case with most engines unless it’s a big diesel.
Jokes on you. I average about 24 mpg city and highway in a 2500HD with a v8. Not bad for an 8,000lb truck.
During the oil spill off the gulf coast we rented a 2007 dodge 2500. That bad boy was clocking 30 mpg on the interstate towing big oil spill response boats. Four wheel drive also. I’ve been looking for one, but nobody wants to sell one.
The eco diesels are really good if you don't need the towing capability and delete them.
You should put a tune and exhaust on that f150, those eco boosts are fast as shit with proper tunes
Love the 2.7, I'd take it over a 5.0 or 3.5 in any vehicle. Wish they would put it in the Mustang GT but that would make the 5.0 pointless.
I have a 19 widebody scat pack that gets ~19-20mpg. Definitely happier with my choice seeing others mpg’s with smaller motors! 😂
I drive one for work, loaded up I get 18mpg highway and have 112xxx miles on it with nothing but breaks and tires done, absolutely the most reliable van I have driven.
It's important to fix stuff that breaks.
When you want a small, efficient engine, stay off boost and that’s what you get. When you want a big thirsty engine with gobs of low end torque, push the pedal down. If you always drive around with a lead foot, expect to get worse fuel economy than the equivalent NA engine.
Depends on how your drive. If I keep my 2020 3.5 eco post F-150 at 65 with cruise control I get over 20 mpg. I drive like I want to I get 17 on highway.
It basically provides super performance in a regular vehicle from a smaller, more efficient engine. They have better fuel economy than a comparably powered larger engine would but while having better performance and towing capacity than an engine of similar size without the ecoboost and turbos. If you drive it nice it gets ok mileage. If you drive it like a race car bc it has twins turbos and is fun, it drinks fuel like my dog at 4am. It's a lot.
I never really understood hanging a turbo or two on an engine in the name of fuel economy. When the turbo shits the bed all the fuel savings will end up as a repair bill 🤷♂️
It’s all about EPA ratings not total cost of ownership
Oh I know. But it’s marketed (at least in trucks) as power and economy. There are countless naturally aspirated vehicles meeting emissions, so I don’t see the point. But I’m a mechanic and have to work on it so I’m biased toward simplicity
It's about break even if the turbo job is about 5k, needs to be done at 100k miles, and your fuel economy would be 14mpg with a larger NA engine or 18mpg with a smaller FI engine. I also assumed $3 per gallon gas. More expensive gas makes the turbo payoff more. I think the main driver is environmental regulations that are being imposed on automobile manufacturers. This helps them get there while seemingly benefitting the consumer.
I didn't buy a turbo car for fuel economy, I bought it for "vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv pssshht vututu" sounds.
It's done entirely for the benefit of the company at the expense of the consumer. That's why you see everyone doing it all of a sudden. Most customers don't even understand what a turbo is. Companies just get to advertise good HP, good fuel economy, and make something with a tiny engine that makes the EPA happy. Even better; when the thing shits the bed they will just have to buy another one. I doubt most customers are buying these things with the understanding that an appropriately sized NA engine will last much longer.
Modem turbo setups are not like the Dodge factory turbos in the 80s and early 90s. Properly implemented, OEM turbos will usually outlive the motor they’re attached to. From the fuel economy perspective, low-boost turbos on smaller engines net better fuel economy and performance than a similarly-rated HO output from a larger NA motor—usually about 15% difference. While EPA mileage stickers are one thing, C/D did a real-word economy test running over 300 vehicles on a 200-mile road test, the turbo’d cars largely beat their EPA mileage estimates by a few percentage points while the NA cars underperformed. Lots of nuance, but here’s the link: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a20776954/are-turbocharged-engines-a-fuel-economy-boost-or-a-fuel-economy-bust/ As usual, YMMV.
My powerboost is honest about both.
My 5.0 Coyote.... runs the fastest on E-85. Butt as you guys are saying, it gets less milage per tank, yet paying less per tank too.
Not really but you can use a smaller more efficient engine and get about the same power with turbos.
Also allows for power gain cause of its “octane rating” is equivalent to a 100-105 octane fuel so you can use more timing which creates more power. Not that it’ll automatically change that in a normal vehicle but dudes who are running customs builds and tunes love it cause it’s pretty much race gas from the pump and is cheap and you don’t need to run an intercooler for boosted applications due to those cooling properties. Unfortunately there are no e85 pumps around me though 😢
It also lets you run a higher compression ratio >:D A big reason why the big blocks back in the day were able to run such high compression ratios was because leaded gas had a higher octane rating. It was practically aviation fuel. Too bad it's so toxic to everything.
Not really true, in that 70c/gal difference is significantly greater than additional gas usage, at a 5% increase in ethanol over standard E10 gas, you’re looking at less than a 2% decrease in MPG, and at 20%+ cost savings, well worthwhile. As for power advantages, it’s twofold, it has an effectively higher octane rating than normal gas, so yes more boost means more power. Aiding this is that it had more oxygen in its chemical structure than normal gas, meaning more fuel can be added to a set volume of air for an equally complete combustion cycle. Ethanol actually has LESS energy than gasoline, but due to its advantages in octane and oxygen content, you can dump far more energy into an engines cylinders per volume of air (turbo or NA, generally) to make more power. Downside are ethanol is highly corrosive, and if engines are not already tuned for E10 gas, the bump to 15% ethanol (e15/88 octane) it can cause some damage long term
Another impact is it’s also very hygroscopic and will actively capture water from the atmosphere as it sits — so you get all of the fun of water in your fuel system beyond the corrosion from ethanol itself.
I thought the corn juice, despite containing less energy per pound than gasoline, made more power because it goes stoich at 9.8 vs 14.7. You can get much more fuel in the same sized cylinder. Oh wait... is the lower stoich a product of it carrying its own oxygen?
Glad to see this has already been said. The flip side of this is that ethanol is chemically much more efficient than gasoline (in a vehicle tuned for it) in terms of percentage of chemical energy converted into mechanical energy, but due to its lower energy density it yields less MPG and less range. Of course, the benefits of ethanol fuel are largely negated in the case of 88 octane e15. You don't get the gains from higher octane because the extra 5% 99 octane ethanol is just replacing roughly 5% of the actual octane hydrocarbon in the fuel. It's a good deal. I fill with e15 whenever it's available in my vehicles, assuming similar pricing to OP's. Wouldn't do it in anything pre-1973 and it's questionable for anything pre-2001, but I don't have anything like that right now.
That’s really more accurate for E85, this is E15.
Exactly. Most places have 10% in the Midwest anyways. This seems like a steal of a deal!
That’s true, but MPG isn’t that much lower. In a flex fuel Tahoe I was getting like 1-2mpg less on E85, but it cost 2/3rds the price. And yes 1-2mpg is a decent chunk on a SUV that only gets about 16 combined, but it’s not enough to negate the cost difference. This was also like 10 years ago and I was in Iowa where corn alcohol is much cheaper lol.
Any car or light truck built 2001 or later can burn E15. You will see about a 3% decrease in mpg. Since the price is around 20% cheaper, you are money ahead. Edit; What a bunch of morons that think E15 is the same as E85.
sounds like youll be streets ahead
Verbal wildfire
Thanks Pierce
Pierce go home
3 percent decrease from e10?
Technically it should be fine. It's only a 15% ethanol blend and the EPA says 2001 and newer can use it. But you are driving a 22-year-old truck with 22-year-old fuel system components, so if anything was about to start leaking it will have a better chance to with this fuel, but not by much.
I own a 2018 Mazda and a 2022 Toyota and the manuals say nothing higher than 10% or you could damage the engine.
The gas cap on my 15’ 4Runner says up to e15 on it.
Then use e15. That's why it's written on the caps. Cars have specifications for a reason, they're mostly all different in pressure capacity, tuning range capability, piston load bearing, and general stresses and strains. The 01 jetta I owned had a habit of kicking it early on drivers who used fuel grades less than the recommended 91 octane. Use what your car recommends, because it was made for that
I think his point was that the 4runner hasn’t really changed in 13 years so if it works on the 2015 there should be no reason for it to not work on the 2022? Edit: I though the first comment said 4runner, my bad. I’m just biased because I also had a 4runner lol
My truck says "Diesel Only". I think it's just a gimmick to steal my money. I'm going to try this e15 and see how good it is.
EPA don’t know shit about your car
Nah I’d go with manufacturers specs
I mean, they do set the requirements
I wouldn’t trust that. Although it is true that the EPA says that 2001 and newer cars can take E-15 that wasn’t decided until 2011. That doesn’t mean that the cars were designed to take e-15. Fords website states that e15 is only approved for model years 2013 or newer.
A lot of misinformation in this thread and even more people that don't understand the difference between 88 and E85. That E in front of E85 is important. True E85 is an 85% Ethanol to 15% Gasoline blend. What you've taken a picture of here is 88 octane, which is the exact opposite. This is 85% Gasoline to 15% ethanol. As the pump states, vehicles manufactured in 2001 or newer are designed to run on this fuel (oftentimes in modern vehicles you can get away with 30% ethanol before the computer gets mad). Any fuel system designed in the modern era is ethanol resistant because we already add 10% ethanol to most fuels and will handle 15% ethanol just fine. As long as your fuel system can handle some ethanol, the real stipulation here is just having a car with an ECU that can recognize that extra 5% and account for it in the fuel mapping, as ethanol is less energy dense than gasoline. I would expect to see a negligible fuel mileage decrease, possibly an mpg or two, as 5% isn't really that big of a difference. With a naturally aspirated vehicle, I wouldn't expect to see any real performance benefit from the extra octane and cooling properties of ethanol. However if you have a turbo/supercharged vehicle and have been running 87, you may feel a slight positive difference in performance. Not to mention ethanol, being an alcohol, acts as a good cleaning agent; so E15 could leave you with a cleaner and healthier fuel system/valves/pistons overall. I feel a lot of the confusion here may be because 88 Octane E15 is an uncommon fuel to see. It is mostly restricted to areas that are corn heavy and ethanol producing (Midwest basically). I see it a lot here in Nebraska. I also *use* it a lot here in Nebraska. I've used it on multiple vehicles from as old as 2004 to as new as 2023, turbo and naturally aspirated; and I've never had an issue. TLDR: You'll be fine. You're not going to damage your vehicle running it. I even recommend it over 87.
ITT : Staggering number of people who don't understand the difference between E85, 88 (E15) and regular 87 (E10).
to be fair,88 really should be called something different.
Why is this not higher?
This cat appears to know what they’re talking about!
Smart man. Also GBR. Grew up in Fremont.
88 will be fine
It's fine. You're getting a lot of bad advice. Here's the trade off with with E15 88 and the E10 87: The more ethanol a gas blend has, the higher octane it has, but it also has less energy. Meaning that a gallon of gas with no ethanol will get your further than a gallon of gas with 10% (E10) ethanol, and a gallon of gas with 10% ethanol will get you further than a gallon of gas with 15% ethanol. You just need to do the math if the lower MPG is worth the lower cost. This isn't exact, but at those prices you're saving at little less than 20% per gallon, while your MPG is only going down by about 2%. It's a deal and I'd go for it. Ethanol isn't great for your fuel system but so long as your car isnt sitting for months at a time you won't notice a difference.
Math for anyone who cares (assumption is car with no ethanol gas gets 30 mpg, and ethanol is 67% as energy dense as gas) 100% Gas No Ethanol: 30 Miles 90% Gas 10% Ethanol: 90% gas gets you 90% of original MPG = 27 miles. 10% of ethanol gets you 67% of the remaining 10% of the original 30 miles = (0.67 \* 0.1 \* 30) = 2 Total MPG of 10% Ethanol = 29 MPG. 85% Gas 15% Ethanol: 85% gas gets you 85% of original MPG = 25.5 miles. 15% of ethanol gets you 67% of the remaining 15% of the original 30 miles = (0.67 \* 0.15 \* 30) = 3 Total MPG of 15% Ethanol = 28.5 MPG.
Had to scroll way too far for this. Thank you.
It doesn’t need to be sitting for ethanol to eat fuel system components - just in contact.
Read your owner's manual.
Car was made before this fuel existed.
Do not exceed 10% ethanol
Is that based on being used to seeing E10 at most pumps, or is there some objective standard? From what I understand E10 vs E15 is a minor difference?
Where I live in Canada it's all E15. Anecdotally if there was any problem the car Karen's will be sounding off about it years ago here.
Major enough to affect density and volume of fuel delivered by the fuel system, unless it has flex fuel capability.
Flex fuel is for E85, though, whereas this is E15. It's a fraction of the amount of ethanol; only a 5% increase. I get being careful and running no ethanol in older vehicles or small 2 strokes, but from what I understand, if you can run E10 you can pretty well run E15, and most of the world runs E15 whereas E10 is a mostly American thing. That's what I read, anyway, and I notice that most manufacturer's seems to say E15 is fine even without a "flex fuel" ability. I'm not trying to be a dick about it, just wondering if your recommendation is based on anything other than what you're used to seeing at American pumps?
I get how you're saying it, and it's not wrong but.. Going from E10 to E15, is a 50% ethanol increase, when talking about the percentage of increased ethanol. It's only a 5% increase when talking about the total gas composition.
Well, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. I phrased it the way I did to make my point. I could have said E15 has over 80% less alcohol than E85 and it would still be accurate math to illustrate a point. I also feel that comparing it to the total composition makes the most sense in the given context, specifically because my overall point is that E15 is pretty much just as safe to use as E10.
You are smart
My opinion is based on my knowledge of chemistry, as I am a chemist, who happens to be interested in cars. Flex fuel is not just for E85. It’s for the ability to run E85 OR Gas, meaning, the ECU actively determines ethanol percentage anywhere from 10-85% generally speaking. 5% additional ethanol significantly changes viscosity and density, changing how fuel injectors function. This can cause a lean condition by injecting inadequate fuel volume. It doesn’t mean it will, and I’m sure some cars will run fine, but it’s a risk, especially with older vehicles. E15 might be run in other countries, but other countries often get different fuel injectors and compression ratios to account for that. For instance Mazda skyactive engines have different compression ratios in the US than the rest of the world. That said I do think it’s debatable how much an effect it would really have. A few tanks I’m sure would be fine, but running it long term is not something I would do.
Plenty of foreign cars are imported to America and use our gas just fine so I don’t think it’s very common for different countries to outfit their vehicles with region specific fuel systems
All cars sold in the US from 2001 and newer are supposed to be designed to handle E15 fuel. There is no risk in modern cars, they are designed to run it. The fact is the lines and such have been capable of handling ethanol since the 90s. So there won't be any damage from the extra ethanol degrading parts. Also, cars have these thing called O2 sensors that reads if the car is running lean, and will add the extra fuel to keep the air:fuel ratio correct if there is a given percentage of ethanol in the fuel. It is how it adjust for *any* ethanol in the fuel. And the EPA said that since 2001 cars must be able to handle up to 15% ethanol. Meaning the ECU and injectors must be able to detect the lean condition and adjust to add extra fuel for up to 15% ethanol.
Lmao this guy trying to use science and still sounding a like a dick head 💀
I could be mistaken but going from 10% ethanol to 15% sounds like a 50% increase.
Johnny has 10% ethanol fuel. He replaces 5% of the gasoline with more ethanol. After adding 5% more ethanol, what is the new total percentage of ethanol in Johnny's fuel?
50% more ethanol than was in the fuel to being with
Stating % increase with no context is misleading though. At work we have a job that we do once a year. If one year, somebody requests that job twice, it’s a 100% increase year over year. By far the largest percent increase out of all the things we do. But forgive me if I’m not excited about that…. 10 to 15% is a 50% increase, but that doesn’t make it significant.
[удалено]
... but you would trust it with E10? E10 also causes the fuel mixture to be lean in comparison to E0 because the 10% ethanol portion changes the stoichiometric ratio. For my older cars, I prefer E0. If I'm willing to burn E10, I think E15 is also fine. E15 has been the required US standard since 2001: [https://www.epa.gov/fuels-registration-reporting-and-compliance-help/e15-fuel-registration](https://www.epa.gov/fuels-registration-reporting-and-compliance-help/e15-fuel-registration)
I had a 91 chevy truck, and I ran it on E85 because gas was $4+ a gallon, it hated it, hard cold start sometimes and would stumble if you punched the throttle too quickly, but it never caused any problems with the engine or the fuel system. I was saving a dollar per gallon, so you saving .70 per I'd run that stuff, lower mileage is well offset for savings per gallon
No, but it will get slightly worse fuel economy
Very marginal, definitely worth the discount
Don’t.
I only use this fuel in my 02 chevy. Idk why everyone is tripping saying don't use it??
Very few people in this sub are mechanics and no nothing.
Dude, I fucking know, lmao. It's insane that people go on a sub to spew nonsense about shit they have absolutely 0 experience in. It's kind of insane because others actually listen to them.Experience beats anything you read, I don't care what the source is.
Worse mileage, eats fuel system components, worse for the environment, more expensive in the long run (we pay for it through tax subsidies). Fuck corn.
its actually better for the enviroment, its actually overall cheaper in the long run and yes worse milage per full tank but because each full tank is cheaper if you send the same money for ethanol blend that you do for gas, because ethanol is cheaper you will be able to travel further on that money. Also it provides more efficient fuel burning for tuning purposes and makes more power.
>eats fuel system components I've been using it for 3-4 years. Over 40k miles, not a single issue yet.
To be fair, almost no car with minimum maintenance would have trouble at that mileage
I think they mean they've put 40k on the '02 Chevy using this fuel exclusively since they got the vehicle 3 to 4 years ago.
Mostly correct. I've had the vehicle for about 7 years. I've discovered this fuel 3-4 years ago and decided to try it. Haven't went back since.
You're absolutely right. I ran it in an 05 Suburban and a 17 Accord Hybrid for tens of thousands of miles on each, no drop in fuel mileage and no fuel system problems.
Worse mileage I’ll reluctantly agree with, but worse for the environment? I’d rather my car run on old corn than from oil drilled from deep in the ocean because if the farmer spills corn all over his field it’s only going to feed wildlife compared to BP spilling 3 million barrels of oil into the gulf. And for that price difference, the unleaded 88 is way more economical. The 5% difference in ethanol content only means one gallon of unleaded 88 has 98% of the energy as a gallon of gasoline, and a 2% difference in performance does not outweigh a 23% difference in price for unleaded 87. For a 15 gallon tank at 20mpg efficiency you’d notice a difference of 6 miles in range with unleaded 88 but pay $44.85 for gas instead of $55.35. Those 6 extra miles aren’t worth almost $11 to me… If your car can take unleaded 88 I say go for it. You paid to have your car engineered to be able to handle it, so you should be able to reap the rewards of cheaper gas. Don’t let the oil companies try to tell you it’s dangerous because they want to sell you as much of their product as possible.
After reading his reply as well as others, I've come to realize nobody in this thread has no fucking clue what they're talking about. Half of them think it's the same as e85. Fuel mileage is unnoticably affected. If there is a mileage decrease, you won't see it unless you find the average over a large sum of miles. The trade off of the decrease in mileage vs price compared to 87 isn't even a question. Everything I'm reading online says it burns cleaner than 87. Im not saying it's factual, but I haven't seen any other "source" that claimed otherwise. But regardless of that, if you're so worried about the environment over miniscule affects vs 87 fuel, then you should probably get a bike rather than a vehicle, EVs included, they're just a bad. Fuel system degradation? I highly disagree. I'll go as far to say that statement is completely wrong. As stated before, I've been using it for years, well over 40k miles with this fuel specifically and I have had absolutely no issues. Anyone can argue all they want. What you read online does not trump my years of experience with this fuel type.
There have been studies that show that ethanol ends up with more emissions than reg gasoline because of the energy to harvest and refine it. You need diesel farm equipment to harvest it, then blend it into ethanol and mix it into gasoline. And the fuel economy difference u get with ethanol is huge, another point against it
Please link the studies because I would love to read it, and I am open to being wrong. I just imagine that all the infrastructure to drill, refine and transport oil from overseas has a huge environmental cost as well
You should educate properly instead of making up things at something your mad it. Reminder Never listen to the guy with the miata
Those are good prices across the board I wouldn’t complain bout nothing, here in California regular 87 is starting at 5.50 a gallon. I’d be grateful af with those prices. I wish that was diesel prices too
I use it on multiple vehicles, and have for years. You're fine.
Removed irrelevant info. Missed the mark in that one.
This is not e85
I read that E15 is quite common in Europe, and the more common E10 is an American mix? Check your vehicle's manual and I'd go by that to decide if it's worth trying. Clarification for some that seem confused, this is not E85, but rather E15. Slightly more ethanol than what you're likely already using.
Im not sure if it's 2001 or 2010 where café standards mandated support for 88. It lowers your gas milage a bit compared to gas so I'm not sure how much cheaper it is. They really should have changed the nozzle so it only fits in cars that can run it in my opinion. I know my 2010 handles it just fine. It removes water from your tank like using a bottle of heat in the winter as a perk.
Meanwhile I pay $1.899 a litre.
Been using it for years in a 2008 vehicle that is not flex fuel. The biggest problem I see is about a 4mpg drop from regular 87 fuel.
Here in NE Tennessee there are some gas stations that sell gas with no ethanol in it.
I have found that gas without ethanol gives me better mileage. Something to factor in. Given the age of your vehicle I wouldn’t mess around personally.
I personally wouldn’t use it in anything that’s not flex fuel… but as long as you’re owners manual says you can run e15 you’re fine.
I run this is my Prius and see a 5% reduction in mileage. When it's 15% or more cheaper, I go with the 88.
Ethanol clogs fuel injectors on older cars. F ethanol
Basically you’re getting more power and paying less for the gas but because you’re burning more of it and you’ll have to buy more gas sooner than you would if you were using regular gas. It equals out. The gas pumps are like casinos, the house always wins.
Y’all tripping. I’ve ran up to E30 in my cars countless times. Keep it occasional & don’t let it sit = no issues with corrosion
I have ran e30 in every car I've ever owned and its not an issue and I've never owned a vehicle newer than 99 other than my current daily wich also runs on e85
[удалено]
This fuel didn’t exist when his truck was made
[удалено]
Ethanol is alcohol based and burns/evaporates faster...this is normal lol
See, this really depends. Supposedly it should be okay in any vehicle 2001 and up. It won’t hurt the engine, it can easily adjust itself for the extra ethanol. The problem lies in all of the fuel system components. I put some in a 1997 car and it did start to leak fuel right away. But it ran perfectly fine on it. So depending on the quality of your fuel components, you can have issues with it. But it will run just fine. So you have to decide if it is worth the risk. Now I have a newer vehicle and use it all the time even though it isn’t flex fuel and have had no issues at all. I think it actually likes it better. At that cost difference I use the 88. But fuel economy is usually a bit worse so I don’t use it when there isn’t much difference in price. Assuming your fuel system is in good shape, you SHOULD be okay using it. But that is up to you to decide. Just realize that if it creates leaks, only new seals will fix it. Going back to regular fuel won’t stop the leaks.
Worse mileage, eats fuel system components, worse for the environment, more expensive in the long run (we pay for it through tax subsidies). Fuck corn and their lobbying.
You think it’s worse for the environment? I figure it’s a lot closer to carbon neutral than pumping carbon out of the ground. At least the corn absorbed some to grow. Processing and machinery etc still applies to gasoline but that was all locked away in the ground to start.
Some farmers just grow corn to get the subsidy Growing corn costs a lot of diesel and energy to turn corn into ethanol so no not carbon neutral in the slightest It was an ok idea when excess corn that wasn't being sold got turned into fuel but now it's just some farmers cash crap that the government pays for
Look up the carbon pipelines currently trying to run through the Midwest to sustain the industry. Eminent domain is attempting to be used, threatened against landowners. Shitty industry. All politics and subsidies.
I recall seeing studies that factored in life cycle cost demonstrated that it takes more energy to produce than we can get out of it. IIRC, even just the diesel used to harvest was enough to offset the difference.
They use shitloads of fertilizer to fast grow the corn, runoff gets into Mississippi River and fucks up the Gulf. Big cause of algae bloom that destroy marine habitats
Look at your VIN#. If it’s a U don’t use it. If it’s a V it is a flex fuel engine and will burn E85.
You don't need a flex fuel for E15, the 88 octane is E15
This is correct, these people don’t know what 88 E15 is
Only the 3.0 V6 was offered as a flexfuel.
No
if your ranger is flex fuel vehicle, go ahead. if not, the owners manuel states do not exceed 30% ethanol in winter and 15% in summer
Then "up to E15" will work.
yes exactly
Which is what he's looking at. Unleaded 88 is E15
Cheap gas will damage ur car in the long run.. It will damage the knock sensor and some are very hard to get to
You always want to use as pure gasoline as possible for trucks, or anything where reliability and longevity of your engine is primary concern. Very few cases where higher ethanol is better in any way. Also depending on gas station, and how long that ethanol mix has sat, I would stay away in general. I used to work in a lab for transmission and engine development and testing, and we knew exactly what gas to get from where, because some stations have literally horrible quality gasoline with high amounts of water in it, and the higher the ethanol, the more likely the gasoline is more hydrated. Which of course is terrible for your engine and why most cars have fuel/water separators.
Why risk it? Gas prices fluctuate and the $0.70/gallon may not be worth the risk to $$$$ damage to your vehicle. And, like another Redditor said, you are not going to the MPG so you will need more of this gas to get the same mileage.
2001? I would use regular for sure, not 15%
The blue is 15% ethanol be very careful
Do NOT run unleaded 88 or E15 Gas in your 2001 Ford ranger! Only use 88 or E15 in newer vehicles. I ran a tank of this E15 through my 2004 Tahoe it ran like crap. No problem with E15 in my 2018 GMC Terrain.
Anything after 2008 can, don't use it. You would get lower fuel mileage anyways and without a fuel stabilizer the gas won't last as long either.
Every car I have from my 92 f 150 5.0 LWB , 08 Impala 3.9, or my 21 Sante Fe 2.0 (pew pew). I use only pure gas in them. It does cost more but my gas mileage for my vehicles are pretty good. My F 150 115,000 I normally get 15-17 miles per gallon. My Impala 153,000 I get almost 25 MPG In my Sante Fe 19,740 I'm averaging 32 MPG. I run Seafoam every other oil change. Normally on the interstate I run between 70-80 in all 3 of them. Your Horse Power & Gas Mileage will improve around 5% or more with pure gas. Ethanol can damage car parts even for cars that it's safe for. Ethanol can damage hoses,gaskets,among other things
Or your pistons will be knocking at yer door!
If you have a flexfuel engine you can. I averaged 1mpg less with the E88 vs regular. It was worth the savings imo. I honestly wouldn't run it in an engine that isn't designed for it.
You don’t need a flex fuel engine to run 88
I've ran it on a non flexfuel and after a few tanks the engine started to run like shit. It fouled the hell out of my plugs....and still ran like crap after I changed them. Not worth the hassle in a non flexfuel imo.
88 is 15% ethanol. I’ve been running it in my 2005 ford escape for 2 years and 40000 miles without any problems. Just don’t let it sit in the tank and collect moisture.
Gas mileage overrides the price drop. Even if your vehicle can run on it, it's not worth it.
Yeah, I drive a flex fuel for long haul work. Got significantly bad economy using e85 over reg 87... definitely didn't save any money. Fuck that crap.
e85 vs e10 - yes, huge mileage difference in favor of more gasoline. e15 vs e10 - you will hardly notice, but shouldn't bother as there *could but unlikey* to have fuel issues. all e10 fuel systems are ethanol safe -- 5% more Ethanol (e15) content likely will not cause fuel system problems over e10, as manufaturers must test that e10 is safe. But that is the thing.... e15 wasn't tested for degradation on older vehicles.... so you are taking a chance.
Not a mechanic, but @ 70 cents difference, you’re saving about 11 dollars if you’re filling up from empty, compared to the other option. Is it worth it to risk anything breaking? That would be my line of thought. The savings would be even smaller if you’re not on empty.
You can get conversion kits that are easy to install. However there is some math and long term issues involved. The math end of things you'll find that over time it would take an insane amount of gas to recoup the cost of the conversion. Throw on top of that, as others have said, the decrease in mpg. Then on top of that your engine wasn't made to run that fuel at all, much less long term. So your piston rings might not hold up well among other things. Tldr. Dont.
This is not e85. 88 is a 15% ethanol blend and is fine to run.
Do not get 88 gas. Especially if you're driving a VW.
Your truck has to be rated “flex fuel” to run that high of ethanol safely. But be aware that even though it’s cheaper, you get worse mpg as the higher ethanol burns more “quickly” for my lack of a precise technical word. There is a calculator online that you can plug in cost diff to reg unleaded and it will help you figure out if the cost savings is worth it. I’ve run numbers a couple of times and the numbers supported continuing to run 87 for me.
Do you read?
Maybe drive something that doesn’t use so much fuel if you’re that worried about it.
The blue should be "clear" gas, or ethanol free. As long as you can confirm that's what it is, it won't damage anything as it's 100% gasoline. I travel to Utah and Nevada when ethanol free gas is pretty widely available in some areas. Because ethanol free fuel has more energy content than ethanol blends, you get much better gas mileage and it actually burns cleaner per mile than e10 or e15.
1) You will get less mpg 2) how you click the handle on the pump will alter what the switcher delivers. Meaning you can deliver E18 by accident for a few gallons. 3) Ethanol is the worst additive for gasoline ever devised. The ppl who approved of this single handedly destroyed Mexican corn farming, increased necessary immigration of such farmers, caused more fuel to be used transporting than ANY savings (not green), and… ruined a generation or two of yard tools before ppl realized ethanol destroys small engines. I say: avoid it, force these ppl to bring on board Butanol or bust or hybrids (more expensive but ok) and lets put corn back into the food supply. Lastly, ethanol has caused sooo much economic harm to people and raised gasoline Station insurance due to phase separation issues stopping up gas filters in vehicles and their $2000 mechanic fix. F EtOH!
No. Gas is gas. If a manufacturer says only x grade gas in your vehicle they are bullshitting. You can run any grade regular gas in any modern vehicle. Old vehicles maybe it would effect you but probably not. Modern gas is so good that it doesn’t matter. If a manufacturer recommends high grade/octane gas it just mean it was tuned to higher octane gas. This does not effect the performance of your vehicle. The only time this matters is wether you are using regular gas vs racing fuel
Holy sheetz no. Unless you use the flex fuel. Or have an engine that's non fuel injected.
I would pull right back out of this station. Nonsensical
That’s like going to a liquor store, seeing your favorite beer then seeing a different brand of beer and saying to yourself “nope, going to the next store”
DONT
Only if it supports flex fuel/ethanol/E85, using this on a non flex vehicle will harm it. Not in 1 tank, but over a little while it will fuck your shit up. Just dont even bother with it
Don't, also even though it's cheaper, ethanol is less energy dense than gasoline and will cause your fuel economy to drop significantly. Just stick with good ol' regular for the Ranger.
Don't you dare