Fuel - Premium only?

[rick3242]

asked ai and this is the response:

While sharing the same turbocharged 2.4L engine block (T24A-FTS), the Toyota Land Cruiser often recommends premium (91+ octane) fuel while the Tacoma is designed for regular (87 octane) due to different engine tuning, performance goals, and engineering precautions. The Land Cruiser is calibrated for peak power/efficiency, whereas the Tacoma is tuned for broader utility. [1, 2]
Why the Different Octane Requirements:

• Engine Tuning & Calibration: The Land Cruiser is tuned to produce high-end power and torque. The Engine Control Unit (ECU) optimizes spark timing for premium fuel to prevent engine knock and boost power. [1, 2]
• Turbocharger Management: The Land Cruiser uses its turbocharger differently. To avoid premature detonation (knocking) under higher compression in a heavier vehicle, higher octane fuel is required, particularly for towing or high-performance scenarios. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Global Vehicle Strategy: The Land Cruiser is a global vehicle sold in markets with varied fuel quality. The 91 octane recommendation provides a safety buffer, while the Tacoma is primarily designed for the North American market where 87 is standard. [1]
• Performance vs. Economy: Using 87 in the Land Cruiser is likely acceptable but will result in reduced performance and fuel efficiency compared to the 91 octane, which is used to meet rated specifications. [1, 2]

While the Tacoma is optimized to run on 87, it can often gain better performance on higher octane, but it does not require it. Conversely, the Land Cruiser’s ECU is programmed to expect premium for maximizing engine longevity and performance

 

[roadventure]

One of the hold backs that I have had regarding the LC is the need for only burning Premium grade Fuel. Has anyone tried to use 87 Octane or a mix of regular 87 with say, a 1/2 tank of premium? This engine is identical to the the 4runner Hybrid I just dont understand why Toyota requires premium grade fuel.

Yes, the Toyota requires 91 octane gasoline. That's it. The end.

if this is not what you want, then you need to look at a different vehicle.

 

[ET2041]

I've filled with 87, 89, 91 and 91 no ethanol . My LC Premium runs best (mileage wise) on the 91 no ethanol. I feel it is best to burn what is recommended now rather than replace the engine in the future.

 

[Blue Bear]

asked ai and this is the response:

While sharing the same turbocharged 2.4L engine block (T24A-FTS), the Toyota Land Cruiser often recommends premium (91+ octane) fuel while the Tacoma is designed for regular (87 octane) due to different engine tuning, performance goals, and engineering precautions. The Land Cruiser is calibrated for peak power/efficiency, whereas the Tacoma is tuned for broader utility. [1, 2]
Why the Different Octane Requirements:

• Engine Tuning & Calibration: The Land Cruiser is tuned to produce high-end power and torque. The Engine Control Unit (ECU) optimizes spark timing for premium fuel to prevent engine knock and boost power. [1, 2]
• Turbocharger Management: The Land Cruiser uses its turbocharger differently. To avoid premature detonation (knocking) under higher compression in a heavier vehicle, higher octane fuel is required, particularly for towing or high-performance scenarios. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Global Vehicle Strategy: The Land Cruiser is a global vehicle sold in markets with varied fuel quality. The 91 octane recommendation provides a safety buffer, while the Tacoma is primarily designed for the North American market where 87 is standard. [1]
• Performance vs. Economy: Using 87 in the Land Cruiser is likely acceptable but will result in reduced performance and fuel efficiency compared to the 91 octane, which is used to meet rated specifications. [1, 2]

While the Tacoma is optimized to run on 87, it can often gain better performance on higher octane, but it does not require it. Conversely, the Land Cruiser’s ECU is programmed to expect premium for maximizing engine longevity and performance

I have a different name for AI, which I won't use here...but AI is frequently incorrect. Given that the horsepower and torque numbers are identical for both the 4Runner and the LC, it's unlikely that the ECU is using a different tune for the two engines. On the same note, the HP and torque numbers are likely based on the same grade of gasoline (because obtaining a higher compression number requires a higher octane and that equals more HP/torque.)

Yada, yada, yada. Use the recommended octane in the LC.

 

[D-mac]

I have a different name for AI, which I won't use here...but AI is frequently incorrect. Given that the horsepower and torque numbers are identical for both the 4Runner and the LC, it's unlikely that the ECU is using a different tune for the two engines. On the same note, the HP and torque numbers are likely based on the same grade of gasoline (because obtaining a higher compression number requires a higher octane and that equals more HP/torque.)

Toyota can and does publish any numbers it wants for the Land Cruiser, 4Runner, Tacoma, or Crown models' HP or torque, but dyno testing has suggested a different story for each platform's tuning, as explained in many threads. But, it's a lot more fun to guess what the true output numbers are by using finely calibrated butt dynos

 

[Sugarloafer80]

Yes, the Toyota requires 91 octane gasoline. That's it. The end.

if this is not what you want, then you need to look at a different vehicle.

Shallow thinking here. You can't see the big picture I guess. My prior vehicle was a full sized range Rover Westminster costing far more than the LC........I looked precisely where I wanted to. Roadventure, what tuning history do you have, chips, ECU swaps, tunes, piggybacks, multiple maps ????
Thank you D mac. It is about the actual truth. Most are hung up on their own feelings of financial worth and cockiness that they can afford premium blabla bla. Toyota basically f'd up somewhere in specing the 2 vehicles.
Starting to sound like the LC250 specs are underestimated based on the premium requirement. Properly touting the LC as having 350-375 Hp would further boost sales...not that it isn't a big hit already. On the other hand, the 4runner has always been sold as the MORE affordable rugged, off road worthy vehicle in the Toyota lineup. The Land Cruiser starting being the top shelf offerings in the 90's. Then Sequoia came along and stole LC sales in prior generations because most Americans, given the choice, will always buy tyhe bigger vehicle. Maybe they were playing it safe thinking the more value conscious types would appreciate the 4runner/regular recommendations far better than seeing a disclaimer saying for optimal performance run premium.....

It has been anecdotal here for over a year now that the LC gets better mileage and feels better on premium. I can't disagree with any of that. If, indeed , on premium, we are getting output closer to 374HP, 493 ft-lbs tq (using the same 6% gain which may not be the case at all), hell ya premium has a huge advantage..but in the 4Runner as well I predict. There were some unusual marketing games in play when both of these vehicles were introduced........hell ya I run premium and now have sound reasons for doing it, not just that someone playing marketing games in the manuals played with the words recommendation v requirement. So you tire lovers can ignore this thread, but we motor nerds find this stuff interesting....dynos don't lie. Finally, know the truth before you fall prey to the tuners.......

Finally remember AI means artificial idiot.

 

[Sugarloafer80]

I have a different name for AI, which I won't use here...but AI is frequently incorrect. Given that the horsepower and torque numbers are identical for both the 4Runner and the LC, it's unlikely that the ECU is using a different tune for the two engines. On the same note, the HP and torque numbers are likely based on the same grade of gasoline (because obtaining a higher compression number requires a higher octane and that equals more HP/torque.)

Yada, yada, yada. Use the recommended octane in the LC.

Further research is also showing that manufacturers can make MASSIVE mistakes with their choice of motor oil and service intervals as well. Few people on this forum follow the 10K service intervals.........."recommendations". Data is driving that argument also and rightly so.

 

[hikerdrg]

A lot of information and speculation for or against what octane fuel should be used even though some Toyota models share the same engine configuration. Could it be the difference between what fuel to use maybe dependent on what EPA regulations were in place in the year the cars were produced?

 

[SHCKR]

Let's say that we fill up once a week, 15 gallons at $4.60/gallon for premium. That's $3588 a year in fuel.
Let's say regular unleaded is $4/gallon. That's $3120/year.
Is $468/year difference really that impactful on a $70K+ vehicle? Especially if you drive less?

 

[Sugarloafer80]

Let's say that we fill up once a week, 15 gallons at $4.60/gallon for premium. That's $3588 a year in fuel.
Let's say regular unleaded is $4/gallon. That's $3120/year.
Is $468/year difference really that impactful on a $70K+ vehicle? Especially if you drive less?

This is absolutely not what the discussion is supposed to be about. Why does everybody keep thinking this way? This is 100% about how Toyota managed to make the same motor using 2 different fuels give exactly the same specs. No way in hell is it a coincidence. One is correct the other is NOT! I tend to favor sandbagging like the germans have done for ages. It has Nothing to do with fuel costs. It has everything to do with specs that just don't add up. Forget what the artifical idiot spews. The testing listed earlier highly suggests something few are paying attention to..did any of you read that attached article in post #49. They weren't selling anything or promoting a tune. They were simply testing the stock powertrains. In the end, it looks like a big positive for us. Until someone proves the ECU tuning truly is unique, I put my money on the LC with premium is putting up stout numbers........

 

[SHCKR]

This is absolutely not what the discussion is supposed to be about. Why does everybody keep thinking this way? This is 100% about how Toyota managed to make the same motor using 2 different fuels give exactly the same specs. No way in hell is it a coincidence. One is correct the other is NOT! I tend to favor sandbagging like the germans have done for ages. It has Nothing to do with fuel costs. It has everything to do with specs that just don't add up. Forget what the artifical idiot spews. The testing listed earlier highly suggests something few are paying attention to..did any of you read that attached article in post #49. They weren't selling anyhing or promoting a tune. They were simply testing the stock powertrains. In the end, it looks like a big positive for us. Until someone proves the EU tuning truly is unique, I pumy money on the LC with premium is putting up stout numbers........

I'm sure someone here has access to a dyno, and sans some adaptation time, can do runs on both 87 and 93...

 

[Sugarloafer80]

Now we are talking! Its not the $$, its the real HP! Finally, if the tunes are indeed identical, it also says if you can't get Premium, she will put out spec numbers on regular...I bet. So to put a few things together, some have posted 2mpg differences on reg v premium. If that is indeed true, and the price differential is ~10%, it REALY ISN"T worth using regular anyway...at the same time you are giving up 35-38 HP if that testing is to be believed...........I have seen this for years. Really the only time I ever downgrade is in the winter when predetonation is a NON-ISSUE. Old engineer , motor builder friend taught me that years ago. When it is zero outside, fuel is just plain harder to detonate, so extra octane is not needed if just running light etc. Just trying to make people think instead of believing AI. Would be cool if some Toyota tuner tested these theories.

BTW, never use less than 93 in the Quad thanks to its JB4 tune and jumping from 505 to ~575 HP (not believing the 80HP claim)

 

[TakaraLC]

asked ai and this is the response:

While sharing the same turbocharged 2.4L engine block (T24A-FTS), the Toyota Land Cruiser often recommends premium (91+ octane) fuel while the Tacoma is designed for regular (87 octane) due to different engine tuning, performance goals, and engineering precautions. The Land Cruiser is calibrated for peak power/efficiency, whereas the Tacoma is tuned for broader utility. [1, 2]
Why the Different Octane Requirements:

• Engine Tuning & Calibration: The Land Cruiser is tuned to produce high-end power and torque. The Engine Control Unit (ECU) optimizes spark timing for premium fuel to prevent engine knock and boost power. [1, 2]
• Turbocharger Management: The Land Cruiser uses its turbocharger differently. To avoid premature detonation (knocking) under higher compression in a heavier vehicle, higher octane fuel is required, particularly for towing or high-performance scenarios. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Global Vehicle Strategy: The Land Cruiser is a global vehicle sold in markets with varied fuel quality. The 91 octane recommendation provides a safety buffer, while the Tacoma is primarily designed for the North American market where 87 is standard. [1]
• Performance vs. Economy: Using 87 in the Land Cruiser is likely acceptable but will result in reduced performance and fuel efficiency compared to the 91 octane, which is used to meet rated specifications. [1, 2]

While the Tacoma is optimized to run on 87, it can often gain better performance on higher octane, but it does not require it. Conversely, the Land Cruiser’s ECU is programmed to expect premium for maximizing engine longevity and performance

In this case, AI is just giving an answer using the points people made in this thread lol. It is basically googling your question, finding this thread and summarizing the responses people gave. I assume it also throws in few fakebook posts and tiktok videos.

 

[Sugarloafer80]

Exactly, plaguerism with AI is the new normal and most of those idiots don't get very far in life....there is always that one.......I thought for sure you were going to flame me.....hehe....
3 takeaways for everyone that doesn't want to read the entire thread ain.
1. On premium, our LC may indeed be putting out a healthy increase in HP/Tq over the specced numbers
2. Don't burn money on a tune till you baseline your vehicle. They could be selling you fiction.......
3. Use whatever fuel you wish but it will ultimately have little actual effect on your cost per mile based on mpg differences....

Hope this trends this in a better direction. back to which tire gives you the bigger wood......

 

[PDPete]

asked ai and this is the response:

AI is literally going to do nothing more than regurgitate responses on forums like these and sites like Reddit. I doesn't know any better than we do because it's using what we've posted.

AI is great at summarizing data that it has available to it...it's not a magical omnipotent being nor does it usually have access to sources of info that we don't.

 

[GrayBeard]

Exactly, plaguerism with AI is the new normal and most of those idiots don't get very far in life....there is always that one.......I thought for sure you were going to flame me.....hehe....
3 takeaways for everyone that doesn't want to read the entire thread ain.
1. On premium, our LC may indeed be putting out a healthy increase in HP/Tq over the specced numbers
2. Don't burn money on a tune till you baseline your vehicle. They could be selling you fiction.......
3. Use whatever fuel you wish but it will ultimately have little actual effect on your cost per mile based on mpg differences....

Hope this trends this in a better direction. back to which tire gives you the bigger wood......

Appreciate the summary (yours not AI!) and I've read the thread but what I'm still not clear on (and not sure if there can be clarity on):

• Does using 89 Octane do any long term damage? (91 is more difficult to come by where I live, it's generally 89 or 93).
• Assuming it doesn't, is there any scenario in which Toyota would know your habitual gas rating and somehow deny a warranty claim (I doubt it, but given the way the Internet of Things works, who knows?)

If both of the answers are "no", I'm more than content to do the mental math at the pump and decide which octane gives more miles per dollar for my general commute. Especially since I found that winter caused a drop from mid-23s to low 20s mpg whether because of temps, average tire inflation, or gas mix. I'm really wondering if 89 octane in winter would drop that even further or keep me in the 20ish region for the winter months.

I can put 93 in it every time I fill up (and have been when 91 not available) but why spend money you don't have to if you're not damaging the vehicle. As note, where I live 93 can be almost a dollar a gallon more than 89, which at current prices represents about at 20% difference. If the MPG difference is less than 4-5mpg for me, it makes sense to pay less.

 

[PDPete]

Does using 89 Octane do any long term damage? (91 is more difficult to come by where I live, it's generally 89 or 93).

The actual recommendation is for "Premium" fuel. In locations at higher elevations, e.g. Denver, this will be 91 octane...in lower elevation areas, it's 93. (because the reduced air pressure at higher elevations lowers engine compression, so the lower octane fuels behave as their higher octane counterparts would closer to sea level)

I live in Maryland. Some stations do carry 91 octane along with 87, 89, and 93 (Mostly Wawa locations, for some reason)...but that's still considered a "mid-grade" fuel in this area.

Without considering whether or not premium fuel is actually necessary, if you intend to follow the recommendation, and you're in VA, then you'd have to interpret that to be 93 octane.

To add more fuel to this fire (pun intended), here's the actual language in the owner's manual:

You must use only unleaded gasoline

Select premium unleaded gasoline with an octane rating of 91 or higher for optimum engine performance and fuel economy

The emphasis is mine...but to me, this sounds more like a recommendation than a requirement... however, it's a recommendation I have followed and intend to continue following...mostly out of an abundance of caution and the desire to treat this expensive vehicle with the best care possible.

 

[RideWithYanu]

The emphasis is mine...but to me, this sounds more like a recommendation than a requirement... however, it's a recommendation I have followed and intend to continue following...mostly out of an abundance of caution and the desire to treat this expensive vehicle with the best care possible.

I interpret the same, optional, but if you want optimal performance and optimal engine life, you need to use premium. But that’s an option.

 

[EOD Guy]

Appreciate the summary (yours not AI!) and I've read the thread but what I'm still not clear on (and not sure if there can be clarity on):

• Does using 89 Octane do any long term damage? (91 is more difficult to come by where I live, it's generally 89 or 93).
• Assuming it doesn't, is there any scenario in which Toyota would know your habitual gas rating and somehow deny a warranty claim (I doubt it, but given the way the Internet of Things works, who knows?)

If both of the answers are "no", I'm more than content to do the mental math at the pump and decide which octane gives more miles per dollar for my general commute. Especially since I found that winter caused a drop from mid-23s to low 20s mpg whether because of temps, average tire inflation, or gas mix. I'm really wondering if 89 octane in winter would drop that even further or keep me in the 20ish region for the winter months.

I can put 93 in it every time I fill up (and have been when 91 not available) but why spend money you don't have to if you're not damaging the vehicle. As note, where I live 93 can be almost a dollar a gallon more than 89, which at current prices represents about at 20% difference. If the MPG difference is less than 4-5mpg for me, it makes sense to pay less.

In short....... no. I have been using 87 from day one (a few tanks were 93). But there are a zillion opinions on this and my advice is..... do what you're comfortable with.

 

[GrayBeard]

The actual recommendation is for "Premium" fuel. In locations at higher elevations, e.g. Denver, this will be 91 octane...in lower elevation areas, it's 93. (because the reduced air pressure at higher elevations lowers engine compression, so the lower octane fuels behave as their higher octane counterparts would closer to sea level)

I live in Maryland. Some stations do carry 91 octane along with 87, 89, and 93 (Mostly Wawa locations, for some reason)...but that's still considered a "mid-grade" fuel in this area.

Without considering whether or not premium fuel is actually necessary, if you intend to follow the recommendation, and you're in VA, then you'd have to interpret that to be 93 octane.

To add more fuel to this fire (pun intended), here's the actual language in the owner's manual:



The emphasis is mine...but to me, this sounds more like a recommendation than a requirement... however, it's a recommendation I have followed and intend to continue following...mostly out of an abundance of caution and the desire to treat this expensive vehicle with the best care possible.

Yep, Wawas seem to be the place I can find 91 as well.

Let me add more fuel to the fire by bringing back up 91 AKI = 87 RON question. I may have missed it in the thread, but do LCs in RON markets have the same language as US market?

In short....... no. I have been using 87 from day one (a few tanks were 93). But there are a zillion opinions on this and my advice is..... do what you're comfortable with.

At the end of the day I suspect this is the right answer.

Punctuated by the fact that no matter how well I take car of my LC, it's not always in my hands what happens.

As was illustrated this morning when I got rear ended by a guy with no insurance and expired tags. Fortunately he was able to slow down enough (I was at a stop light) that I have some scratches on my trailer hitch and he's got a cracked and dented bumper cover (LC: 1, Malibu: 0).

Doesn't seem to be any more damage, but I've got my 20k service on Monday morning so if anything is amiss it should show up then.

But had he not noticed me I'm not sure what a 45-50 mph collision would have looked like.