From what I understand the latest Tundra engine has an adaptive ECU to take advantage of higher octane however, the 4Runner does not.

If you look at the VR Tune dyno charts on the Tundra you will see that the 4Runner produces a much higher % gain with the VR Tune vs. the Tundra; evidence of such that the Tundra does have an octane adaptive ECU and the 4Runner does not.

Dyno charts on Vivid Racing site for the 4Runner are back to back tests on premium fuel stock vs. VR tune.

Not necessarily true. Anyone can go from a tank of 87 to a tank of 91 and feel a considerable power, torque, and smoothness difference.

Toyota GR engine - Wikipedia

An updated version of this engine features Dual VVT-i, increasing output to 270 hp (201 kW; 274 PS) at 5600 rpm and 278 lb⋅ft (377 N⋅m) at 4400 rpm on 87 octane and 285 hp (213 kW; 289 PS) and 289 lb⋅ft (392 N⋅m) on 91 octane.

Ditto. I can feel the same difference on 91. The ecu wont allow advance timing until after a few consecutive tanks of 91 to flush out lower octane fuel. Which is why it takes a few tanks to feel a difference

Encouraging read however, I ran many consecutive tanks for 92 octane and never noticed anything to write about. As much to say if this was a solution I wouldn't have purchased a Pedal Commander last year.

With the VR Tune, writing about it and sold my Pedal Commander. Anyone else out there have VR Tune results to share?

Except... nowhere is it legal to drive that fast on public roads. I'm fine with going a few over. But yeah it really pisses me off when I see a**holes putting others at risk. But apparently some people think they are special and the rules should not apply to them. And I'm no hipster.

Unfortunately the rule of thumb is that this ISN'T true. A typical vehicle with a fixed engine map isn't able to produce any more power (or operate any differently) on higher octane fuels. Meaning the ECU or perhaps even the physical design of the engine can only advance spark or make other adjustments to maximize power on 87 octane.

Like I said, it's uncited and is therefore not proof of anything. I could have added that line to Wikipedia myself out of the blue, so without citation we have no idea what the original source is. We also have no A:B dynos on higher octane fuels to suggest that it's true. I've put a few tanks of 93 in and though it does seem to make a difference, the placebo effect is very strong!

for daily driving I run 87 for road trips I like to run premium. Some of my hwys are 75 mph posted, like having the comfort of possibly having a little extra available power.

So would you say that overall it increases drivability ?

The only time I really paid attention to this was on a cross-country trip with my 3rd Gen pulling a small u-haul trailer in 2012. I was more curious about whether straight gasoline would give different mpg versus 10% ethanol. It seemed to return maybe 2 mpg more, but was also more expensive. Probably was higher octane too. Again, I was more curious about the blend difference.

Unfortunately, dude, you don't know what the Hell you are talking about.

ECUs have been adding or pulling timing in response to detected or inferred octane for like 15-20 years, now. What else do you want? It's not like compression will be variable. That technology only came out within the last year, from Infiniti.

So stop running your ignorant mouth. Hell, you don't need experience running hundreds of advanced ECUTEK logs and tuning your own Mazda MZR engine (a 2010 car, from 2006 or earlier design at that) to have proof. Just check out the Toyota manual from the 2006 Tacoma:

From the 2006 Tacoma Owners Manual
"OCTANE RATING
2TR- FE engine - Select Octane Rating 87 or higher.
1GR- FE engine - Select Octane Rating 87 or higher. For improved vehicle performance, use premium unleaded gasoline with an Octane Rating of 91 or higher."

The 1GR-FE pulls less timing from theoretical optimum, the higher octane you use, up to about 93. Or rather, the inferred octane, based on how progressively long it can go without detecting significant knock.

It also adjusts the vvti tables based on the same, such that when you're on 91-93 octane, it broadens the torque curve a bit, so max torque comes in a few hundred rpm sooner and lasts a few hundred rpm longer. There are literally hundreds of tables inside modern ECUs. Nothing "fixed".

These principles are the exact same ones leveraged by tuners like Vivid, who if you couldn't read, actually offer various tuning levels based around the octane you use, too lol.

Btw, to give you an idea of how long ECUs have been "advanced", my 2010 Mazda with the 2006 original engine and ECU design, was still capable of flashing to RaceROM, which let me use the Cruise Control speed switch to toggle between various tunes on the fly, with the rev counter needle changing from 1k, 2k, and 3k on the fly briefly, to indicate whether I was in "bad gas", "race tune", or "data logging" mode.

Your super long, emotional, and kludged together reply was unnecessary, having completely misinterpreted what I said. But thank you for the lesson on engine controls. Have you considered submitting your ideas as a TRB paper?

Why pay the Euro when you can run unrestricted on many sections of the Autobahn?

Unfortunately, you poor, slackjawed and guffawing indigent, if you want to master engine tuning, you'll have to a) suppress the frequent pangs of frustration and desire to quit, and continue on a path toward more than semiliterate reading comprehension, and b) be subjected to voluminous documentation and training materials far in excess of my abhorrent few hundreds of words or a single TRB paper.

Also unfortunately, all the above effort would be - in the opinion of this humble writer - a fools errand. I therefore recommend you continue to go about your way, guffawing at passing butterflies, contributing false information to internet forum threads about how engine controls work and how octane affects them, and wondering why your boogers taste salty today but were altogether sweeter yesterday.

I don't know about the other non-insane people on the forum, but I think this thread has really brought out the best in everybody.