05-24-2022, 12:23 PM
|
#91
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Earth
Posts: 294
|
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Earth
Posts: 294
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Something_Awesome
There are a lot of people saying their 4Runners have some form of "improvement" by running 91 or better. A lot of people. And it's on many different platforms (not just here). maybe 35/65 split. If 35% of people are saying Premium improves performance, that's a strong minority. What's more is they provide technical explanations as to why this is. I always thought there was no affect.
I will investigate and use premium for the next two months and see what happens.
My suspicion though is that if anyone is seeing an improvement, it is likely more to do with the premium gas in your area having lower ethanol content. Just a guess. In Los Angeles, it appears that all grades using only 10% ethanol. I think we may switch to 15%. I wonder if 91 would stay at 10% though. I can't imagine these turbo'd, high performance cars loving more ethanol. If that happens, then 91 would be the move for me.
|
Ethanol has a higher threshold for detonation thus forced induced cars love it. The issue with ACN 91 is that it's 91 and full of special air quality "improving" additives that can rob performance. LOTS of late model turbo owners run a gasoline and E85 mix in their modified turbo cars, typically to get around E30-E50.
In a naturally aspirated, lower compression, and lower revving motor like the 4Runner, you're wasting your time running 91+ plus wasting a TON of money. Any improvement in power is mental.
Last edited by Charles Bronson; 05-24-2022 at 12:25 PM.
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
05-24-2022, 01:35 PM
|
#92
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,149
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,149
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Something_Awesome
There are a lot of people saying their 4Runners have some form of "improvement" by running 91 or better. A lot of people. And it's on many different platforms (not just here). maybe 35/65 split. If 35% of people are saying Premium improves performance, that's a strong minority. What's more is they provide technical explanations as to why this is. I always thought there was no affect.
I will investigate and use premium for the next two months and see what happens.
My suspicion though is that if anyone is seeing an improvement, it is likely more to do with the premium gas in your area having lower ethanol content. Just a guess. In Los Angeles, it appears that all grades using only 10% ethanol. I think we may switch to 15%. I wonder if 91 would stay at 10% though. I can't imagine these turbo'd, high performance cars loving more ethanol. If that happens, then 91 would be the move for me.
|
I appreciate the sacrifice your wallet is making in the name of science
__________________
A mistake that makes you humble is much better than an achievement that makes you arrogant
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
05-24-2022, 01:51 PM
|
#93
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: San Diego
Posts: 245
|
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: San Diego
Posts: 245
|
Wow, 7 pages of guessing and anecdotes...
Until measured with data collection, we won't really know what differences there are.
Car and Driver did a somewhat recent comparison on a varied set of vehicles. Now while there are some differences in the 4R with these, there is one big takeaway from this: not much is gained from higher octane in these run of the mill production vehicles. Even when there was improvement, it was not significant.
Is Premium Gas Worth It? We Test High Octane on 4 Popular Vehicles
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
05-24-2022, 02:28 PM
|
#94
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: OC, Derpifornia
Age: 40
Posts: 1,244
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: OC, Derpifornia
Age: 40
Posts: 1,244
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dezertbomber
Wow, 7 pages of guessing and anecdotes...
Until measured with data collection, we won't really know what differences there are.
Car and Driver did a somewhat recent comparison on a varied set of vehicles. Now while there are some differences in the 4R with these, there is one big takeaway from this: not much is gained from higher octane in these run of the mill production vehicles. Even when there was improvement, it was not significant.
Is Premium Gas Worth It? We Test High Octane on 4 Popular Vehicles
|
Sport Compact Car did a similar test on a Honda Accord V6 at the time (2000ish). Anytime they ran 91 the car consistently lost 10hp at the wheels. This was after running a couple of tanks through it back and forth between 91 and 87. So they would switch fuels and "let the ECU see it" as everyone claims.
__________________
2019 Runner TRD Offroad Premium w/KDSS
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
05-24-2022, 06:31 PM
|
#95
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Earth
Posts: 294
|
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Earth
Posts: 294
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whippersnapper02
Sport Compact Car did a similar test on a Honda Accord V6 at the time (2000ish). Anytime they ran 91 the car consistently lost 10hp at the wheels. This was after running a couple of tanks through it back and forth between 91 and 87. So they would switch fuels and "let the ECU see it" as everyone claims.
|
Not surprised. Higher octane fuel is it's resistance to ignite. The 4G motor is not designed or tuned to the necessitate the need for higher octane fuel. Chances are it will result in marginally less power and lower mpgs.
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
05-24-2022, 07:08 PM
|
#96
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 170
|
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 170
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whippersnapper02
Sport Compact Car did a similar test on a Honda Accord V6 at the time (2000ish). Anytime they ran 91 the car consistently lost 10hp at the wheels. This was after running a couple of tanks through it back and forth between 91 and 87. So they would switch fuels and "let the ECU see it" as everyone claims.
|
That's interesting. And that's a monster drop off. 10HP on a 2000ish Accord is a big number.
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
05-24-2022, 08:02 PM
|
#97
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: OC, Derpifornia
Age: 40
Posts: 1,244
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: OC, Derpifornia
Age: 40
Posts: 1,244
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Bronson
Not surprised. Higher octane fuel is it's resistance to ignite. The 4G motor is not designed or tuned to the necessitate the need for higher octane fuel. Chances are it will result in marginally less power and lower mpgs.
|
I started to run 91 in my 2010 Tacoma because I had experienced some minor pinging at low RPM/high load situations (AC on and accelerating). Eventually I supercharged so I needed to run it anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Something_Awesome
That's interesting. And that's a monster drop off. 10HP on a 2000ish Accord is a big number.
|
It was the 6th gen when the 2 door had the optional 3.0 V6 with dual exhaust. I have long since thrown out the issue but this has been a debate for years. People seem to think the ECU can see octane and change the tune enough to make more power but it wouldn't make sense for a manufacture to tune for a higher octane but recommend the lower octane.
Toyota did have "91 for better performance" listed in the early Tacomas (05/06) but it was removed probably because it didn't do anything.
__________________
2019 Runner TRD Offroad Premium w/KDSS
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
05-24-2022, 09:33 PM
|
#98
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 170
|
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 170
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whippersnapper02
I started to run 91 in my 2010 Tacoma because I had experienced some minor pinging at low RPM/high load situations (AC on and accelerating). Eventually I supercharged so I needed to run it anyway.
It was the 6th gen when the 2 door had the optional 3.0 V6 with dual exhaust. I have long since thrown out the issue but this has been a debate for years. People seem to think the ECU can see octane and change the tune enough to make more power but it wouldn't make sense for a manufacture to tune for a higher octane but recommend the lower octane.
Toyota did have "91 for better performance" listed in the early Tacomas (05/06) but it was removed probably because it didn't do anything.
|
I agree with you, but manufacturers do things like that. They sometimes opt to be stealth with respect to certain features/benefits/functions. For example, VW always understates its 0-60 times. In the 2022 Golf R, they say the 0-60 is 4.7 seconds. Literally every reviewer, be it Canada, US, UK, is achieving about 4.2. That is a big difference.
And does Toyota not say their transmission fluid is for "life?" It's not. Why would they do that? I'm not going to doubt a theory because I do not know the answer to why Toyota would or would not do something. Enough people are saying premium makes a difference to give me pause. It's a very large minority of people and they can't all be stupid or unreasonable (not saying you are accusing them of being stupid or unreasonable). I will try 91 for a while. I will feel a difference if there is one. I'm pretty in-tune with the vehicles I drive regularly.
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
05-24-2022, 09:49 PM
|
#99
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 698
|
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 698
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by badattitude
I use premium exclusively, 91 pure gas. I believe the Dual VVT does adjust the timing. To protect the engine it takes about 1000 miles of consistent premium gas for the ECM to make the full adjustment. If you use one tank of of 87 octane the ECM adjusts back (retards) the timing immediately and you'd need another 1000 miles of premium to regain the ecm timing adjustment. Im not sure this is 100% accurate but it is what I've pieced together. My truck is fast! I'm getting 18.9 MPGs all summer.
|
There's not truth to this
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
05-24-2022, 10:42 PM
|
#100
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: OC, Derpifornia
Age: 40
Posts: 1,244
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: OC, Derpifornia
Age: 40
Posts: 1,244
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Something_Awesome
I agree with you, but manufacturers do things like that. They sometimes opt to be stealth with respect to certain features/benefits/functions. For example, VW always understates its 0-60 times. In the 2022 Golf R, they say the 0-60 is 4.7 seconds. Literally every reviewer, be it Canada, US, UK, is achieving about 4.2. That is a big difference.
And does Toyota not say their transmission fluid is for "life?" It's not. Why would they do that? I'm not going to doubt a theory because I do not know the answer to why Toyota would or would not do something. Enough people are saying premium makes a difference to give me pause. It's a very large minority of people and they can't all be stupid or unreasonable (not saying you are accusing them of being stupid or unreasonable). I will try 91 for a while. I will feel a difference if there is one. I'm pretty in-tune with the vehicles I drive regularly.
|
Toyota has since modified the maintenance interval with the trans fluid. Also Toyota doesn't underrate their modern engines. There's no need because people buy their product anyway. The ECU cannot see octane since there's no sensor for it. No the knock sensors do not see octane, they see knock and if there is none then all is good. This doesn't put the ECU into "make more power because this guy put in the good stuff" mode.
Don't feel anything, get it scientifically proven with a dyno.
__________________
2019 Runner TRD Offroad Premium w/KDSS
Last edited by Whippersnapper02; 05-24-2022 at 10:46 PM.
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
05-25-2022, 12:15 AM
|
#101
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 170
|
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 170
|
I decided to go back to the manual. I actually went back and looked at the manuals for all naturally aspirated vehicles I have owned. None of them actually state, explicitly, that 87 is recommended. All the manuals state to use 87 or higher.
This can mean a couple things:
(1) Use 87, but if 87 is unavailable at your station, then there is no problem using 89 or 91; or, (2) While 91 will be best, your vehicle still accepts 87.
The thing is, when it comes to disclosures and things of this sort, and they become sort of boiler-plate or standardized, companies won't change them. It makes zero sense to, even if there is useful information (like 91 may increase performance/MPG/longevity) being withheld from the end user. I'm going to take the fuel in my tank down to a point where I have like 3 miles left before empty, and fill it with 91. I want as little "taint" as possible in my tank filled with 91 lol. Can't wait to try this. Too bad I don't drive the 4Runner much. Could be a week or 2.
What's more is that all the 91 users claim better MPG. Like in the 19-21 range. That makes no sense. The standard Toyota uses to measure MPG means, in theory, you should not average anything above 18.999999 MPG (unless you're violating traffic laws).
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
05-25-2022, 02:07 AM
|
#102
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: OC, Derpifornia
Age: 40
Posts: 1,244
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: OC, Derpifornia
Age: 40
Posts: 1,244
|
Some states do bot use ethanol in their 91 or higher grades. That would increase mileage.
__________________
2019 Runner TRD Offroad Premium w/KDSS
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|