The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum

Go Back   The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum > BOATING FORUMS > Trucks & Trailers
Search

Notices

Random Quote: Our Drinking Team has a fishing problem!
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-06-2011, 06:42 PM
  #1    
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: MA
Posts: 4,290
Default Mileage with 87 vs 89 octane, surprised

I have been getting about 13mpg around town with 87 octane for the last 15k miles hand calculated. A couple weeks ago by chance I put 89 octane in it as it was all the station had and I did not have time to go anywhere else, checked the mileage and it was about 14.5mpg. Thought it might be fluke so I have being using 89 octane for the last 3 tanks, mileage has been between 1.5 and 2 mpg improved. So with 87 octane at $3.75 a gallon it was costing me about $0.288 per mile, with 89 octane at $3.90 a gallon my cost per mile is $0.268 per mile. I was surprised and might as well save $.02 a mile, truck seems to stay in 6th gear better in hilly areas as well.
Truck is '10 Toyota Tundra crewmax with bigger load range E tires and a 2" lift in the front.
__________________
'05 Pacific 1925
MacCTD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2011, 06:52 PM
  #2    
Admirals Club
THT sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Masaryktown, Fla.
Posts: 10,816
Default

Thanks for the info...as much as I read about not using anything more than the octane your vehicle is rated for i always wondered. These vehicles all have pretty sophisticated electronics that retard spark advance once pinging is noticed, so why cant they advance timing for higher octane gas? That slight timing advance could very well reflect the mileage increase....
__________________
"RICKS REEL SERVICE; IT'S MORE THAN REPAIRS !"

http://ricksreelservice.com










Key West 268, BF 150's "Lisa Anne"
triumphrick is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 08-06-2011, 06:57 PM
  #3    
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hernando Beach, Fl
Posts: 645
Default octane

Ethanol robs gasoline of it's power, have found this true in cars, trucks and outboards. Got to go up one octane level to get the non ethanol equivalent at lower rating. Sad but true. Thanks Dick
__________________
Contender 33T
dobrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2011, 08:39 PM
  #4    
Joe
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 14,270
Default

You didn't say what engine your Tundra has in it..but in my 4runner 4.7l V8, it recommends 91 octane. Through experimenation, I found it got better gas mileage with 89 than it did 87 or 91.
Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2011, 09:06 PM
  #5    
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NC/GA
Posts: 4,918
Default

Got to go up one octane level to get the non ethanol equivalent at lower rating.

Never heard of better fuel mileage with higher octane, but there's still much about ethanol yet to be learned. I'm pretty sure, however, that 87 octane fuel is 87 octane with or without ethanol. Both 87 and 89 contain 10% ethanol (in theory), so the BTU loss should be the same ...
Curmudgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 04:37 AM
  #6    
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sunny florida
Posts: 11,603
Default

Ethanol/alcohol has a higher effective octane rating than gasoline..that's one reason it's used in some race cars (NOT Nascar). The ethanol content has nothing to do with this.

Triumphrick is on the right track..it's the knock sensor clicking the time back that causes the reduction. Just like engines that say "Premium only" ..they'll run on 87 octane, but will give less power and fuel economy due to retarded timing.
billinstuart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 05:08 AM
  #7    
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: MA
Posts: 4,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post
You didn't say what engine your Tundra has in it..but in my 4runner 4.7l V8, it recommends 91 octane. Through experimenation, I found it got better gas mileage with 89 than it did 87 or 91.
Engine is the 5.7L.
__________________
'05 Pacific 1925
MacCTD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 05:23 AM
  #8    
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Palmetto Bay
Posts: 323
Default

with my 2010 6.0 Chevy I can pick up a solid 1-1.5 mpg using 89 and a solid 2-2.2 using E90 non ethanol

87 is junk
BUIZILLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 05:38 AM
  #9    
gf
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 10,309
Default

Mac, I know I put more miles on my Tundra than you, I'm over 28K now. My fuel economy has continued to get better over time. We're down in PA for a few days and we got 17.5 MPG over the 400 miles on the way down. That's on plain old 87 octane. If my wife drove slower I bet we could have averaged 18 MPG!
gf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 05:49 AM
  #10    
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: MA
Posts: 4,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gf View Post
Mac, I know I put more miles on my Tundra than you, I'm over 28K now. My fuel economy has continued to get better over time. We're down in PA for a few days and we got 17.5 MPG over the 400 miles on the way down. That's on plain old 87 octane. If my wife drove slower I bet we could have averaged 18 MPG!
Have you tried 89, be interested to see if you mileage improved any. Most of my driving is just around town about 8k miles a year.
__________________
'05 Pacific 1925
MacCTD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 06:49 AM
  #11    
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sarasota, FL
Posts: 2,501
Default

I'll have to give the 89 octane a try on the next gas station stop. I average about 14-15 city and 17-18 hwy with 87 octane in my '09 Tundra 5.7. I'll give it a try tomorrow during a 400 mile road trip and see if it does any better.
__________________

2005 Sea Hunt 202, Honda BF150 2009 Toyota Tundra
HullSlap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 07:19 AM
  #12    
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 200
Default

Try doing the math with supreme fuel. Also consider branded premium. ie shell, exxon, valero etc. Murphy products are usually major producer over-runs. Branded companies quality control is very stringent with it comes to their supreme product. Ethanol is hot and changes the flash point of all grades of gasoline. I would not recommend buying 89 over 87. It's hard to lower the octane of blended fuels. If your were a chemist , I am not, you would find the 87 and 89 octane coming out of most branded nozzles around the south will test at about 90 octane. Weights and measures with NC dept of agriculture ceritifies product that is not below a certain octane and flashpoint. Its not an issue with them that the product is a higher number than labeled. All gasolines are not created equal.
blue yummy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 07:59 AM
  #13    
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sunny florida
Posts: 11,603
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BUIZILLA View Post
with my 2010 6.0 Chevy I can pick up a solid 1-1.5 mpg using 89 and a solid 2-2.2 using E90 non ethanol

87 is junk
My 2007 Chebby 6.0vvt has surprisingly high calculated compression ratio. Sure, high swirl combustion chamber helps. I haven't monitored knock sensor activity, but on an older 5.7 vortec the knock sensor was pretty active, clicking timing back in 4 degree increments constantly.

I just got a tank of Chevron which the engine seems to really like. Maybe less ethanol? I do agree, all gasoline is not the same.
billinstuart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 08:07 AM
  #14    
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Buford Ga Destin Florida
Posts: 424
Default

1 ?why the e rated tires for a 1/2 ton pick up ? Are they 10 ply also?
stev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 08:10 AM
  #15    
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 200
Default

Not less ethanol. Quality gasoline with A quality additive package that provides what today's engines require.
blue yummy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 08:27 AM
  #16    
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Philly
Posts: 61
Post

I noticed the same thing this summer with pulling the boat. I gained 2 (8 last year and 10 this year) MPG using 89 octane witha 5.7 Hemi and a 6K lb boat. I initially gained 2.5+ when I had to slow down to 70MPH due to worn out shocks. I replace them and now i'm back to "normal" speeds.
Billdc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 09:22 AM
  #17    
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Athens, Ga
Posts: 34
Default

I have been running 89 in my 2005 Chevy Z-71 with the 5.3 since I bought it about 2 years ago. I put 87 in it about 2 weeks ago for a trip down to the coast for a tourney to try it out. I noticed about a 1-1.5 mpg difference, if not more, on the highway between the two octanes. Never tried it pulling the boat or running around town. Don't think I will now considering the difference I see on the highway. This ethanol bull is just plain crap.
__________________
Captain Matt Tsiklistas
USCG 50 Ton Masters
Double Trouble Fishing Team
Winner of the 2011 Sapelo Open KMT
National Qualifier
dbldown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 12:31 PM
  #18    
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: MA
Posts: 4,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stev View Post
1 ?why the e rated tires for a 1/2 ton pick up ? Are they 10 ply also?

Yes, they have a lot less sidewall flex so lateral stability is better on the highway especially when towing. They are E rated, but I would have been fine with D but in the brand and size I wanted I had limited choices. I run them at 40psi when empty and have a pretty flat contact patch and even wear.
__________________
'05 Pacific 1925
MacCTD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 06:06 AM
  #19    
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: seattle,wa
Posts: 246
Default

In Western Washington, most gas comes from one of a few refineries, the different brand tankers all load from the same tank, and the driver programs in the additives for the brand of gas he is delivering. In the past, I've found I got better mileage when I used 89 instead of 87.
__________________
If people concentrated on the really important things of life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles. - Doug Larson
seaeagle2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 10:33 AM
  #20    
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,788
Default

I know it is not trucks, but in my old Maxima I calculated 93 was the best gas. Mileage increase heavily outweighed cost increase. In my Altima, 87 is the best. The others gave the same mileage. Basically the same V6 engines with the Altima have 0.5 liters more displacement and 60 more horsepower. Also the Maxima did 20 city and 28 hway. The Altima does 17 city and 34 hway. Weird engine. My point is they are all different so test out yours.
Locke N Load is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 



©2009 TheHullTruth.com

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0