4th Gen Tacoma (2024+)

BMW also told owners to change the oil every 10k miles, how did that turn out?

Same displacement 3.5L engine 278hp from NA, 358hp from twin turbo, where did that extra 80hp come from? More Air and Fuel have to fit in the same displacement.
Detonation is a real thing.

 

It doesn't work that way, more air and more fuel doesn't have any bearing on whether detonation happens or not. What does cause detonation is heat; if the intake charge is hotter due to compression, then yes, detonation is more likely, however, virtually all modern turbocharged have an intercooler to cool the intake charge back down to ambient temperature (or very nearly so).

 

A fuel’s octane rating is literally based on its resistance to detonation. You’re a moron if you run anything less than 91 in a forced induction or high compression motor. The ECU can add fuel and pull timing but still going to detonate under high load.

 

Ummm, sorry, it doesn't work that way.

 

I had a 1980 Scirocco too, it also had cat.

 

+1 for '80 Scirocco...mine was Mars Red (marsrot). Loved that car, was a ton of fun. I eventually drove it in to the ground and traded it for a set of golf clubs. LOL

 

He's actually correct.

 

Mine was also a red one, lol

 

In theory, Direct injection introduces fuel at a later time compare to port injection. Sure when everything is brand new, all the injectors and timing component are perfectly in sync to the millisecond, it should work. But after some miles and things start to wear, stretch, detonation will happen. For a small displacement truck engine, it still needs to make power at lower RPM before the boost kicks in, so lower compression ratio isn't ideal.

Most of the NA Toyota engines under the Lexus line do require premium fuel.

 

I wasn't arguing the point about the AKI ratings; it was the rest of the statement which was totally incorrect.

 

There is so much disinformation in this thread regarding detonation it is scary; this is just another one. Engine age and wear have nothing to do with detonation (unless the engine has physical damage).

 

Enlighten me.

 

The post I was arguing against was the following:

Modern forced induction engines almost universally have an intercooler to reduce the intake charge down to ambient temperatures (or close to), compressing one pound of air and fuel at a ratio of say, 10:1 doesn't create any higher temperatures than an otherwise identical engine with forced induction which would compress say, a pound and a half of air and fuel at the same ratio. What causes detonation is when small pockets of end gas spontaneously combust when the heat of the chamber gets too high; just because an engine has forced induction in and of itself, does not cause higher temperatures.

Now, if you were to dial back the clock nearly 40 years and look at one of the original 2.2 liter Chrysler Turbo I engines (rated at 150hp for something like 10 seconds and then 140hp continuous), those engines did not have an intercooler of any sort, and as a result, the high AKI fuels were an absolute requirement as the heat in the combustion chamber could easily exceed the detonation resistance of lower AKI fuels. The other part of your post referenced a "high compression" motor; we have a 2016 Mazda3 s GT which has Mazda's 2.5 liter Skyactiv-G engine, this is an engine which features a 13:1 compression ratio, which by anybody's measure is considered "high compression", however, the fuel requirements for this engine is Regular 87 AKI fuel.

 

Are there any advantages that the TNGA-F platform offer over the existing platform?

 

And I'm sure the Toyota corporate guys on here love hearing about a breach of contract
Get ready for a letter!

 

All these pages about octane ratings… I was hoping for newer official ”leaked” spy shots on the new taco.

 

Supposed to be stronger and some other jazz, but ultimately it is cheaper for the manufacturer to produce, so everything else is really just PR speak and sales pitch.

 

Yeah most likely better for Toyota production costs.

I saw a video on the new Tundra and everything under the truck was tucked in between the frame rail rails. The space in between the rails looked rather narrow. The fuel tank occupies most of the passenger side and the exhaust runs down the driver side, as there isn't room anywhere else for it.

IDK if that design or other TNGA-F trucks are any better or worse than their predecessor, as far as frame design goes.

 

If it’s a mini-Tundra like the new Tundra? I’m out. Ugly. That front grille on the new Tundra couldn’t get a date on a Saturday night with a drunk sailor.