The 1GR-FE...Octane...and Supercharging

Ryan F.

New member
Members,

Is the reason that the '10 4 Runner 1GR-FE takes a minimum of 87 Octane compared to previous versions of the 1GR needing 91 due to the dual VVTi compared to the intake VVTi? Is this the same reason that TRD does not produce a supercharger for the dual VVTi on the new 4 Runners? If a member sees this as a stupid question (I'm looking at you, Jed), humor me...I'm learning...
 
Register to hide this ad
Maybe it's me SeattleMike, but I did the search, and I didn't find anything that specifically answered my question(s).
 
Members,

Is the reason that the '10 4 Runner 1GR-FE takes a minimum of 87 Octane compared to previous versions of the 1GR needing 91 due to the dual VVTi compared to the intake VVTi? Is this the same reason that TRD does not produce a supercharger for the dual VVTi on the new 4 Runners? If a member sees this as a stupid question (I'm looking at you, Jed), humor me...I'm learning...

The 1GR-FE never required premium to operate. Some of the published performance pdfs gave numbers using 91 octane gas and premium was required to get that performance.
 
The 1GR-FE never required premium to operate. Some of the published performance pdfs gave numbers using 91 octane gas and premium was required to get that performance.

From: Toyota Help Faq


Our "current model" year vehicles have the following unleaded fuel octane rating recommendations:

MODEL OCTANE

4Runner 87

Avalon 87*

Camry 87

Corolla 87

FJ Cruiser 91

Highlander 87

Land Cruiser 87

Matrix 87

Prius 87

RAV4 87

Sequoia 87

Sienna 87

Tacoma 87

Tundra 87

Venza 87

Yaris 87


* For improved vehicle performance, the use of premium unleaded gasoline with an octane rating of 91 or higher is recommended.

I would love it if somebody knew the answer to my question, they answered it instead of this misguided redirection to searches and misinformation. Pretty please.
 
I would love it if somebody knew the answer to my question, they answered it instead of this misguided redirection to searches and misinformation. Pretty please.

Your failure to find the information doesn't make me misguided or indicate that the information isn't there. There are multiple threads discussing octane in the 5th gen section and I find them when I use the search function with no problem. The same with the discussion on lack of a supercharger from TRD. No offense, but maybe you aren't trying hard enough or maybe you would rather be lazy and have someone else type it all out for you.

Whatever... I'll answer your questions.

Members,

Is the reason that the '10 4 Runner 1GR-FE takes a minimum of 87 Octane compared to previous versions of the 1GR needing 91 due to the dual VVTi compared to the intake VVTi? Is this the same reason that TRD does not produce a supercharger for the dual VVTi on the new 4 Runners? If a member sees this as a stupid question (I'm looking at you, Jed), humor me...I'm learning...

The short version: No, and No.

The long version: Octane has nothing to do with valve timing, it reflects the compression requirements of the engine. Higher octane gas resists combustion at higher compression, preventing pre-ignition and the subsequent melted pistons that come with it. The reason people think there is benefit is because higher horsepower engines require 91 octane... but again that is due to the compression ratio of the engine which provides the higher horsepower, not the gas.

The 2010 FJ Cruisers use 87 Octane per their manual, as opposed to the 91 Octane in the earlier models, because they use the same engine now. Yes, you can use higher octane fuel and the on-board computer with adjust the spark and valve timing accordingly, but there isn't any measurable benefit from it. The same additives are in the 87 that are in the 89 and 91, it just costs more.

There is no supercharger for this engine for two very good reasons... TRD hasn't bothered to make one and there physically isn't any room under the hood. TRD makes nice stuff, but they have to do a cost/benefit analysis on everything just like the other aftermarket businesses. Sure they could build a super charger, rock rails, winch bumper, dual battery set-up, etc., ad infinitum, but if they don't sell, all those man-hours were spent in vain. I'm guessing that right now, they are watching to see which models sell, which don't, and planning their development accordingly.
 
Hey SeattleMike,

I'm not willing to get into the kind of *****y exchange that I have seen some members engage in. In re-reading my post, I accept that I started it, and so now I will finish it.
In regard to your search suggestion...I, in fact, read all of the posts returned by your search (during the course of my searching), but I didn't find anything that addressed: 1) Why an octane rating of 87 is acceptable now, but wasn't previously, and 2) The rationale behind the lack of a supercharger.
In regard to your answers...Has the compression ratio changed on the '10 version of the 1GR-FE? I understand now that the octane has to do with compression and not timing, so it would be reasonable to conclude that the pre-2010 version of the 1GR-FE had a higher compression ratio? I searched the web, but found conflicting information on that point. Some reported a pre-'10 ratio of 10.4:1 (which would be consistent with your explanation)while others had the 10:1 pre-'10 which is the same as our version (which would be confusing to me). Secondly, in terms of supercharging....I gather that this is simply a packaging issue. Interesting. That would be unfortunate as one would think that the lower compression ratio of the current 1GR-FE would be more supportive of a forced induction application. Your thoughts?
Thanks, Mike, for answering my questions, and again, please accept my apology for my *****y tone.
 
Hey SeattleMike,

I'm not willing to get into the kind of *****y exchange that I have seen some members engage in. In re-reading my post, I accept that I started it, and so now I will finish it.
In regard to your search suggestion...I, in fact, read all of the posts returned by your search (during the course of my searching), but I didn't find anything that addressed: 1) Why an octane rating of 87 is acceptable now, but wasn't previously, and 2) The rationale behind the lack of a supercharger.
In regard to your answers...Has the compression ratio changed on the '10 version of the 1GR-FE? I understand now that the octane has to do with compression and not timing, so it would be reasonable to conclude that the pre-2010 version of the 1GR-FE had a higher compression ratio? I searched the web, but found conflicting information on that point. Some reported a pre-'10 ratio of 10.4:1 (which would be consistent with your explanation)while others had the 10:1 pre-'10 which is the same as our version (which would be confusing to me). Secondly, in terms of supercharging....I gather that this is simply a packaging issue. Interesting. That would be unfortunate as one would think that the lower compression ratio of the current 1GR-FE would be more supportive of a forced induction application. Your thoughts?
Thanks, Mike, for answering my questions, and again, please accept my apology for my *****y tone.

We're cool. :reddance:

With regards to the change between 1GR-FE '09 and 1GR-FE '10, I know the current version is 10.4:1 but I can't confirm what the FJ Cruiser had last year. Without getting into tech speak, the addition of the second bank of variable valves to the exhaust enhances the ability of the engine to work on lower octane fuel. As much as I hate referencing wikipedia:
...
By adjusting the valve timing, engine start and stop occurs almost unnoticeably at minimum compression. In addition fast heating of the catalytic converter to its light-off temperature is possible thereby reducing hydrocarbon emissions considerably.
...

Honestly, I think the major manufacturers are squeezing the last possible erg of fuel-efficiency out of their respective engines. Since a supercharger crams more air into the combustion chamber, more fuel has to be added to take advantage of it and I honestly don't know if there is anyway to add on the SC without the emissions control system crapping the bed. Or, if it can, if the benefit is even worth it. 270HP out of a V6 is pretty impressive but how much more is there available in the block?
 
Thanks Mike for the acceptance of my apology, and please keep me posted about anything you stumble upon. I love learning about this stuff, and playing with ideas.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
278,309
Messages
3,554,071
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Trending content

Back
Top