Vivid Racing VR Tune 4Runner Results

Posting this to get others to share their VR Tune experience. Installed the Stage 1 VR Tune on my stock 2018 4Runner Limited. This post is to share VR Tune results, not to talk about other unrelated upgrades or folks having a negative opinion without trying. Installed my Stage 1 VRTune a couple of months back and have about 1,000 miles of highway and 500 miles of city driving experience. Here are my subjective findings based on my previous experiences driving a 2007 V8 Triton Ford Explorer and our 2015 Lexus Gx V8.

The 4Runner factory lacks pedal response and in addition once you step it down you hear a lot of noise but there is no power band beyond 2,500 RPMs and it continues to show a lack power through shifts to redline. My first attempt at addressing this was a Pedal Commander which essentially adjusts the sensitivity of the gas pedal, loved it by the way. I found a new sense of confidence however the +2,500 RPM continued to lack as expected. After running the Pedal Commander I decided to give the VR Tune a try.

Contacted them and the process was easy. They shipped a DIM Sport tuner to pull the ID file in which I used their website to request a tune of “more power please”. They provided a new file and with their instructions 20 minutes (slow and careful) I had the tune installed. After 1,500 miles of combined highway and city here are my observations.

1. Lack of pedal sensitivity not as apparent as there is more power; as much I sold my Pedal Commander on eBay

2. Shifts remain sound and acceleration without as many downshifts; overall more driving confidence, enough to say I can actually accelerate to 60 MPH slowly with the ECO light on (could never before unless you had 5 minutes)

3. 2nd and 3rd gear from normal driving through redline pulls much better, thumbs up!

4. Overall in town drivability much better, more comparable to the Lexus Gx

5. Highway has about 50% less down shifts on minor hills and when downshifting it goes back into final drive sooner

6. Overall City and Highway gas mileage is about .5 MPG better, of course if your are hard on the brakes and/or WOT you will use more gas with a Tune; here is what I am seeing in my Limited stock:

-230 miles highway 77 MPH; 45 degrees, rain and 25 MPH head wind – 17 MPG
-230 miles highway 77 MPH; 60 degrees, no wind – 19.8 MPG
-230 miles highway 77 MPH; 90 degrees 30 MPH cross wind/some tail – 20 MPG
-230 miles highway 77 some 80 MPH; 70 degrees 15 MPH tail wind – 21.8 MPG
-Overall city < 10 mile trips overall – 16 MPG

The tradeoff is cost; the cost for the tuner, the tune, and the requirement for 91 octane. Out of the gate $700 and on-going an extra $25 cents a gallon for gas (slight offset with 2.5% better mileage). Not looking back at the costs, as someone whom has 150,000 miles of body on frame V8 driving experience the 4Runner now has an acceptable level of acceleration and confidence.

Thank you for sharing your experience, the real question is.... would you recommend it to others?
 
Free country if one can afford it! Hundreds of miles of open road. If I need to I want the option. Nothing more nothing less. Or can only LEO's have such grand skill to navigate over 70 mph when needed?


Limits are in place for a reason. You may find this hard to believe, but it's not just to limit your fun. You are not special. Stop thinking that just because you can, you should.
 
Thank you for sharing your experience, the real question is.... would you recommend it to others?

I absolutely recommend the VR Tune based on my experience. No matter how your drive slow or fast; the VR Tune makes the Runner an easier drive.

At some point I will put up some screen shots for the AFR, Timing Advance, TPS, and MF Air Sensor read-only data I can see on my Kenwood with iMaestro OBD2 integration. Comparing stock versus tune. Of course what matters is how it drives, and in my experience much better!
 
I've posted this in other related threads before, but there's an unconfirmed and uncited rumor that these engines adjust to fuel octane and actually make more power with higher octane fuels (as compared to a normal car, which simply wouldn't). So before I would spend the money, I would need to see dynos and proof of three things.

1. Change in drivability isn't just remapped throttle (less roundabout way of doing what a pedal commander does)
2. Change in power/torque is from a tune, and not just running higher octane fuel
3. A real A to B dyno from multiple vehicles, not some unrealistic cartoon looking thing on the vendor's site
 
Eager to see afr, advance, max knock degrees, stuff like that!

But guys, as a definitive statement, there are all sorts of "counter-intuitive" things about engines and operation. Things such as...

-Engines actually often wearing LESS at full operating temp (190F coolant) than while cruising lower.
-Engines actually wearing LESS when the oil is getting "up there" toward the end of it's 10,000 mile change. This is because of the rate at which some additives added to the oil tend to come out of solution and do their jobs inside the engine. So for instance, one additive might work sooner after oil change as a solvent, to clean the engine, and then slowly fade out of the system as the anti-wear additive takes over and bonds to the engine and piston/surface walls. And if ur constantly over-changing your oil, it's always hitting the internals hard with the initial, strong-biting solvent stuff, and never giving the anti-wear stuff (like ZDDP) time to do its thing.
That's just a simple example. There are a lot of other more complex chemistry things going on, too.
-Engines running at higher rpm, toward peak power and stoichometric, running less rich, and having less fouling-impact on the downstream exhaust and catalytic system.

So all in all, there's really no correlation between rpms and engine durability, unless you're into the redline or running at extreme load all the time. 2,000rpm and highway load (top gear) is probably thus a little worse than 3,000rpm and highway load (top gear), as the effective load at 2,000rpm is worse and knock is more likely as the engine is closer to lugging more often. But either way, the 1GR-FE is "fine" at both operating levels.

So focus on how the tune impacts the AFR, knock, and overall power, not minor RPM differences lol
 
I've posted this in other related threads before, but there's an unconfirmed and uncited rumor that these engines adjust to fuel octane and actually make more power with higher octane fuels (as compared to a normal car, which simply wouldn't). So before I would spend the money, I would need to see dynos and proof of three things.

1. Change in drivability isn't just remapped throttle (less roundabout way of doing what a pedal commander does)
2. Change in power/torque is from a tune, and not just running higher octane fuel
3. A real A to B dyno from multiple vehicles, not some unrealistic cartoon looking thing on the vendor's site

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
I've posted this in other related threads before, but there's an unconfirmed and uncited rumor that these engines adjust to fuel octane and actually make more power with higher octane fuels (as compared to a normal car, which simply wouldn't). So before I would spend the money, I would need to see dynos and proof of three things.

1. Change in drivability isn't just remapped throttle (less roundabout way of doing what a pedal commander does)
2. Change in power/torque is from a tune, and not just running higher octane fuel
3. A real A to B dyno from multiple vehicles, not some unrealistic cartoon looking thing on the vendor's site

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
 
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.

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?
 
Why would you not want the option of going over 114? The 4runner is easy to drive, even at speed. Likes to cruise at 95 on the long haul if your not careful. Never drive faster then you can see. If I need to drive 150 mph I want that option and could care less what a coffee shop hipster has to say about it, because if I'm driving that fast it's for a reason.

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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.
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 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!

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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Last edited:
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?

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
:wtf:
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
278,316
Messages
3,554,112
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Trending content

Back
Top