Do you use premium gas?

It's not your imagination. I've had several fillups with premium and it does run better, sound better and my mileage has improved steadily by a few mpg. I'd tell you what my last few mpg's averages are but I'd be called a liar by the 3rd gen fan boys.

 

I run 90 octane no ethanol in my boats and Sea Doos and all my lawn equipment. They can all handle 87 ethanol gas. The manuals say so. What the manuals don't tell you is that if the engine is used infrequently, 87 octane ethanol gas may not be the best choice. My experience with watercraft that sit for extended periods is if you want issues use 87 octane. If you don't want to deal with issues, run 90 octane no ethanol. Since I took possession at 17 miles, and other than the dealer initial fill up, I have only used 90 octane no-ethanol gas. After 2 months I just turned 1000 miles. My mpg is 18.8 but the truck isn't even broken in yet. I expect mileage to improve. I can say the three times I have towed with it, about 4Kish, it has plenty of power. Hardly could tell I was pulling that much.

 

That's related to the ethanol rather than the octane. Ethanol is hygoscopic - it tends to absorb moisture from the air. If left long enough for the ethanol to absorb enough water, it can separate from the fuel and you end up with a layer of ethanol-rich water at the bottom of the fuel tank.

Around here, near a lake, ethanol free gas is available in both 87 and 90 octane

 

Here's my results of late. When new the miles to empty (MTE) was 330. Now after engine broke in and using premium the past month and a half my MTE upon fill up is right around 400. Excellent mileage can be had under the right conditions. I drive this truck the same loop each day. Same route there and back. It consists of 20% @ 65mph highway, 50% @ 55mph highway and 30% city. This reading is after a fill up and then a 65 mile drive on that loop. And to the naysayers, yes, I check my mileage by hand calculation and verified by a mileage app. on my phone.

 

Is that 2wd?

 

Yes 2WD short bed.

 

I gotta drive more smoothly

 

I like to haul ass.

 

Yes. Because this Tacoma is driven infrequently I use no ethanol gas. I’m near Lake Ontario. I only see 90 octane no ethanol gas here. I would certainly use 87 octane no ethanol if it were available.

 

My first tank of fuel from the dealer was regular. After that I've been running premium. Haven't noticed any benefits as I'm still breaking in the motor . This weekend I'm changing my oil I'm past 1,000 miles .

 

Not sure if it was already mentioned, but my buddy with a new Land Cruiser told me his requires 91. Thought it was odd since it's the same powertrain as my Pro. Obviously different tuning was used on the LC?

 

I've wondered the same thing. One would think that they used the same tune since the output figures are exactly the same. If they decided to use a spicier tune on the LC, I would have figured it'd make more power. Since, as the great Carrol Shelby said (in part) "horsepower sell cars," it'd make sense for Toyota to quote a higher power figure if they got it. As such, I'm left with two theories:

1. There's some mechanical difference — something in the induction or exhaust system most likely — that strangles the engine a bit more, so they had to use a spicier tune to get the same output. That tune may not quite be within Toyota's margins for 87, so they bumped the requirement up to 91. There's definitely instances of other, different vehicles with the same engine and tune making different outputs. First thing that comes to mind is the BMW Z4 M Coupe and Roadster. They both use the same drivetrain as the M3, but the Z4 makes slightly less power and torque due to differences in the exhaust.
2. The Land Cruiser is a halo vehicle aimed at more affluent buyers, where the Tacoma is more "blue collar." A requirement to run 91 makes the LC seem more "premium." It certainly wouldn't hurt anything besides the owners' wallets and we presume they can afford it since they're more affluent. "Better" gas would at best provide better performance and at worst do nothing at all.

 

LC/Taco/4R have the same engine, same tune. Engine is designed to run 87 octane. The harmless knock/roughness allows max power with the fuel the masses prefer to use. LC buyers expect a smoother engine and are accustomed to using premium fuel. The higher octane reduces knock and makes the engine run smoother.

 

So, you're saying it's #2. Honestly, I tend to agree, though I can't say as I'd describe the engine as "not smooth" nor have I ever actually heard a knock on 87. Really, I just wish the direct injectors and the injection pump weren't so damned loud. Makes the thing sound like a tractor...

 

lol…my “miles to empty” after fill up is 234!!! I got no complaints though. I think I get more miles than that…just don’t pay attention.

 

Yep, I’d bet it’s a noise/vibration/harshness thing above all

 

That's because Toyota's miles to empty actually means miles until you have four or five gallons left.

 

My truck is similar, but because the frequent trailer towing confuses the calculation.


I got the car because I like to drive like an asshole. It's pretty nice to launch off the line like a cat that's been lit on fire, and still average 35 mpg.

 

Top tier 87 octane.

 

No such thing as “harmless knock”………..knocking IS Loss of Power
And 87 isn’t “recommended” by Toyota, it’s “approved fuel” in the Manual….

just too easy to put 91 in the truck……..you will not notice the cost at end of month…..