What specifically makes the 2005-2008 models unsuitable for E10 fuel?

[J Henderson]

Not ethanol but there's a similar system in operation. Normal diesel is now labelled B7. With 7% of it being made up of "bio components".

[Texas]

Here we go…..’Cat amongst the Pigeons’ time….

If early 250 can/should only run on E5 and are not compatible with E10 ( only a 5% difference!) then as E10 is anything UPTO 10% Ethanol then check this vid out.😳

 

[Vintagesixtysix]

Maybe we are going to get a short term price reprieve….🤞

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/exclusive-britain-germany-push-g7-halt-biofuel-mandates-tame-food-prices-2022-06-23/

 

[ColinBarber]

On 6/15/2022 at 10:35 AM, catnap said:

I'd caution against this correlation being pointed to as a cause, as the high pressure fuel pump (and all parts connected to it) are not listed as having changed in 2007. There was a revision in 2006 but this doesn't match up in the timeline and is likely a very early part revision for the first run of the cars:

Only the two parts I posted are showing as having had revisions in 2007, specifically October.

It's entirely possible that it's only the type of plastic used for the pump basket and the associated gasket material not being up to spec for withstanding E10, but I don't want to call this discovery a fix or the definitive answer to this question. There may, of course, be things that changed that aren't listed but I can't verify that.

 

[Edit] To add- the in-tank pump itself did not see a revision. It's the plastic basket that contains the components within the tank that was revised- linked in a previous post.

The reason has been posted multiple times in the past. The grade of aluminium of the high pressure rails, pipes and/or pump reacts with the fuel. All the early Toyota Direct injection engines are affected, and other Japanese manufacturers too.

[Mr Vlad]

Well looking at that video above it seems most E10 petrol is 5% or less. So as Rasta Mouse use to say    wahgwan?

[Texas]

You first then😂

[Texas]

“The reason has been posted multiple times in the past.”

Really???……not around here it hasn’t !

So are you saying somebody Does know Exactly what parts are Not compatible and are likely to/will fail?

[ColinBarber]

48 minutes ago, Texas said:

“The reason has been posted multiple times in the past.”

Really???……not around here it hasn’t !

So are you saying somebody Does know Exactly what parts are Not compatible and are likely to/will fail?

I’ve posted the reason on multiple threads over the last year or so. You can see what parts changed at the end of 2006 if you look on a reliable epc, not the inaccurate one posted earlier in this thread. 

[catnap]

11 hours ago, ColinBarber said:

I’ve posted the reason on multiple threads over the last year or so. You can see what parts changed at the end of 2006 if you look on a reliable epc, not the inaccurate one posted earlier in this thread. 

Please provide a link to a reliable EPC then, as Amayama use the same as these guys: https://lexus-europe.epc-data.com/is250_220d/gse20r/2912/

Also, the E10 changeover for the 250 was in October 2007, otherwise my car would be certified for E10 as it is a June 2007 model.

[MJB18]

As Colin said, it's the fuel delivery pipes. If you lived in North America you would have had them changed for free under a recall.

https://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/20/ethanol-leads-to-recall-of-some-lexus-models/

 

[catnap]

17 minutes ago, MJB18 said:

As Colin said, it's the fuel delivery pipes. If you lived in North America you would have had them changed for free under a recall.

https://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/20/ethanol-leads-to-recall-of-some-lexus-models/

 

I have to disagree with this- and I should point out that I'm happy to be proven wrong on my theory, but hear me out:

The fuel delivery pipes (23803-31013) were changed in November 2006, which is before my vehicle was made (June 2007) and apply to vehicles made from the very first production run until that date. However, the cars were certified for E10 use changed in October 2007 (according to Lexus and the government website checker).

Thus, if this were true then my vehicle should be approved for E10 which it is not. It will already have the updated fuel pipes, which the dealer just confirmed with me on the phone a few minutes ago- it does, and that has not certified it.

Is it therefore not more likely that the fuel delivery pipe issue was a general problem/recall that was fixed (because they were faulty and could not withstand any amount of ethanol rather than a small amount), and the parts changing in October 2007 as posted above are the actual problem parts that enable the use of E10?

Looking at the fuel pipes recall and pointing to that as the cause of the E10 issue is not much more than correlation, especially as the dates don't match up. I would also point out that the fuel rails did not change- only the crossover delivery pipe between the two rails. Neither did the pump- there have been zero revisions to it that I can see.

Again, happy to be proven wrong- but this isn't solid, hard proof. I'm aware that I don't have that either, but I do have to disagree on the fuel pipes theory for the reasons above. I'm also happy to discover a new, reliable EPC that has correct data but until then, the two sources I've posted are identical.

[ColinBarber]

1 hour ago, catnap said:

I have to disagree with this- and I should point out that I'm happy to be proven wrong on my theory

Here is the recall. It nicely states the problem and cause. The pipes have been coated (anodised I suspect) to correct the issue.

RCDNN-09V020-2280.pdf

 

We need the associated TSB to see the part codes - potentially the codes were kept the same, they aren't always changed which is confusing and maybe why part code change dates aren't matching up. 

[catnap]

13 minutes ago, ColinBarber said:

Here is the recall. It nicely states the problem and cause. The pipes have been coated (anodised I suspect) to correct the issue.

RCDNN-09V020-2280.pdf 256.9 kB · 0 downloads

 

We need the associated TSB to see the part codes - potentially the codes were kept the same, they aren't always changed which is confusing and maybe why part code change dates aren't matching up. 

Okay, that's really interesting. Do you know where the TSB can be found? I've been tempted to hop onto TIS lately to grab PDFs of the workshop manual (as I had with my IS300) as it's so useful to have. Are TSBs viewable on there?

 

If you can share your reliable EPC as well I'd be very interested to have a look and see if there are differences between it and Amayama etc.

[ColinBarber]

2 minutes ago, catnap said:

Okay, that's really interesting. Do you know where the TSB can be found? I've been tempted to hop onto TIS lately to grab PDFs of the workshop manual (as I had with my IS300) as it's so useful to have. Are TSBs viewable on there?

If you can share your reliable EPC as well I'd be very interested to have a look and see if there are differences between it and Amayama etc.

Yes TIS should have the TSBs. https://www.lexus-tech.eu and the Toyota equivalent have them for Europe, but this was never a TSB in Europe so won't be there. I'm sure it's posted on the web somewhere - just a case of finding it.

As for a reliable EPC, https://www.lexus-tech.eu is the place as it is the official source but costs money to subscribe. toyodiy.com is normally very good, except for the very latest models.

[catnap]

24 minutes ago, ColinBarber said:

Yes TIS should have the TSBs. https://www.lexus-tech.eu and the Toyota equivalent have them for Europe, but this was never a TSB in Europe so won't be there. I'm sure it's posted on the web somewhere - just a case of finding it.

As for a reliable EPC, https://www.lexus-tech.eu is the place as it is the official source but costs money to subscribe. toyodiy.com is normally very good, except for the very latest models.

Great, I'll have a look.

 

Comparing the EPCs I have to your source (toyodiy.com) shows identical information though it's laid out differently. The same two components within the fuel pump basket change (plastic carrier and O-ring) so I stand by my assumption that these two items are also needed for E10, given that they change at the exact date when the vehicles became certified.

 

If I find the TSB and the associated part numbers, I'll post back.

[ColinBarber]

1 hour ago, catnap said:

If I find the TSB and the associated part numbers, I'll post back.

Here's the full procedure - parts required on page 45 (the first page 45 😉) - most of the parts are consumable gaskets because of the strip down required.

RCRIT-09V020-5884.pdf

[catnap]

15 minutes ago, ColinBarber said:

Here's the full procedure - parts required on page 45 (the first page 45 😉) - most of the parts are consumable gaskets because of the strip down required.

RCRIT-09V020-5884.pdf 4.46 MB · 1 download

Excellent, thanks Colin.

I've done quite a lot of reading and comparing the EPC on TIS to Amayama and the rest.

I note that the fuel rails have a revision from 2008 onwards. The recall was Jan 2009, and the replacement part was August 2008 to August 2010, then 2010 onwards. That date range might work if the part was changed before the recall plan was officially ready.

So there's a few parts that changed, as the TSB noted.

However, the Lexus EPC agrees with Amayama and my observation that two parts within the fuel pump assembly change in October 2007- the same parts as previously noted.

So in order to be certain, I would assert that the parts needed in the TSB plus these two are needed, and then the car is fine to run on E10 indefinitely.

I will total everything up at Amayama to get a feel of how expensive this would be, assuming someone chooses to do this DIY, which seems quite doable for intermediate+ skill level. The only issue I see with this is that the part number did not change so you cannot be assured of receiving the newer part.

[catnap]

Total cost for all parts from Amayama is £328.76. Not horrible, but if you work out the 10p difference a litre between E5 and E10 over a tank (£6.50), it'd take 50 tanks to recoup the cost which is 19,600 miles assuming 400 per tank.

So it's not entirely viable.

That said, if you were to buy the two fuel rails from a wrecked 2009 (to be safe) onwards car, you could save £200 on that cost. Let's assume you get the rails for £50. That's 11,000 miles or 27 tanks to recoup the cost.

It's curious that Toyota didn't recall the IS250 in Europe- only Thailand and the US. Thailand seems to be specifically because of the low-moisture content ethanol used over there, and the US was because there was a "possibility" it "may occur" due to the ions generated by the injectors. Perhaps this is overly cautious due to the litigious nature of the US.

I might write to Lexus and see if I can get any clarification on the matter. Part of me still hopes it's just those two fuel tank components I listed, but perhaps not. At least there's some clarification and a collection of knowledge on the subject now.

[ColinBarber]

16 minutes ago, catnap said:

However, the Lexus EPC agrees with Amayama and my observation that two parts within the fuel pump assembly change in October 2007- the same parts as previously noted.

So in order to be certain, I would assert that the parts needed in the TSB plus these two are needed, and then the car is fine to run on E10 indefinitely.

That's a stretch. Parts change all the time for various reasons. Yes if you replaced those extra parts you would be fine but it's possibly overkill. Certainly there is no safety issue related otherwise it would be included in this recall, or other ones that have affected the IS250 over the years.

 

21 minutes ago, catnap said:

The only issue I see with this is that the part number did not change so you cannot be assured of receiving the newer part.

Lexus would make sure all old stock was purged at the time. 12 years later I cannot see any possibility of receiving an old part - not a genuine part from a genuine supplier.

[catnap]

2 minutes ago, ColinBarber said:

Certainly there is no safety issue related otherwise it would be included in this recall, or other ones that have affected the IS250 over the years.

No, that's true. I do wonder if that plastic basket and O-ring slowly deteriorate in ethanol which is why they were changed at the exact time the E10 cutover is noted.

[ColinBarber]

1 minute ago, catnap said:

It's curious that Toyota didn't recall the IS250 in Europe- only Thailand and the US. Thailand seems to be specifically because of the low-moisture content ethanol used over there, and the US was because there was a "possibility" it "may occur" due to the ions generated by the injectors. Perhaps this is overly cautious due to the litigious nature of the US.

E10 wasn't being used in Europe at the time so wouldn't have been an issue. But yes, the US gets many more recalls than the UK because of their laws/governance/litigious nature.

[Spark plug]

On 6/27/2022 at 5:27 PM, Texas said:

Here we go…..’Cat amongst the Pigeons’ time….

If early 250 can/should only run on E5 and are not compatible with E10 ( only a 5% difference!) then as E10 is anything UPTO 10% Ethanol then check this vid out.😳

 

Going from 5% to 10% is doubling the amount of ethanol not just adding a little more 

[Spark plug]

I'm sticking with e5 super 

[Sundance]

1 hour ago, Spark plug said:

I'm sticking with e5 super 

Me too! 😊

これもです 😑

[Mr Vlad]

I had a 1/4 tank of E5 but decided to fill up on E10. Have I noticed any difference? No. I always use Millers ecoboost additive by the way. My thoughts about none compatibility of E10 to a number of cars is changing. After watching just how much ethanol is in E10 compared to E5 its virtually no different. I'm going to alternate between the two. If anything fails in the future then it'll simply get addressed.