Why does the '24 Landcruiser with the same engine as the '24 Tacoma require premium gas?

They even claim the same HP and torque. Seems odd but maybe someone has an explanation...

 

The engine mapping is possibly slightly different.

But truly, I pay no attention when Toyota/Lexus specify premium fuel. My 2008 RX 350 (2GR-FE) drove off the lot sixteen years ago and has never had a drop above 87 Octane (R+M)/2. It runs perfectly, has all the power I need, and gets great economy.

My strong belief is that Toyota knows we owners aren't gonna live by a dictum like "premium fuel only" and they've protected the car from our noncompliant choices. I'd bet good money a new LC will know how to adjust to less-than-premium fuel.

My 1985 Saab Turbo, fer cryin' out loud, knew how to modulate boost pressure based on an early application of knock sensor as a way of adjusting to fuel detonation differences. Sensor and control tech hasn't gotten worse since then...

 

The Tacoma chief engineer discussed this in a recent TRD Jon YouTube interview basically saying it fit or matched prior generation models being premium products that required premium fuel.

 

"Anyone buying this thing expects to pay more as part of the experience."

 

Here’s the most plausible reasons:

1.) Sheldon Brown and his team are entertained by watching LC owners endlessly debate whether they really need premium, or can just make do with 87.

2.) Sheldon Brown and his team also enjoy watching Tacoma owners endlessly debate whether 87 is adequate, or that they might be better off running premium, like the LC drivers.

3.) Magic dust is sprinkled on the Tacoma engines at the factory, which allows Toyota to recommend 87 octane.

 

- The LC may have a more restrictive intake/exhaust due to packaging constraints.
- The electric motor may be putting out less torque in the LC, so the gas engine has to do more to achieve the same total output.
- 91 may be needed to achieve the advertised mpg numbers, as the LC is heavier, has full-time 4WD, and is less aerodynamic.

Except the LC200 was specified for regular fuel.

 

Premium vehicle = Premium fuel.

Toyota and Lexus has done this for years. Earliest examples were the 4.7L V8.

Tundra - Regular
Sequoia - Premium
GX470 - Premium
LC100 - Premium.

I can’t speak to the other models but Lexus blames the engine mapping on the GX to require premium. I run both at random times of the year and I will say she runs a tad bit better on 93.

 

Some interesting and plausible answers; thanks! I'm also reminded, while reading the responses, that what constitutes premium gas is not even a constant in the US: in some states, 91 is sold as premium and in others it's 93 octane.

 

They figure if you can afford a LC than you can afford the fuel bill

 

Most cars that run on premium specify 91 AKI as their minimum octane rating. Rarely, some high performance European cars (like some RS Audis) specify 93 as the minimum.

 

They did the same thing back in '07 with the FJ Cruiser, 4.0L V6. Turns out it was just a suggestion, not at all necessary.

 

^The 2007 FJ was advertised with 239 hp / 278 lb-ft on 91 vs. the Tacoma's 236 hp / 265 lb-ft on 87 at the time, so a loss 13 lb-ft on 87.

 

Did he really say that haha. Thats a pretty bad look.

 

I've tried high-test and straight gasoline on my FJ and I can't tell any noticeable difference in power or mileage.

 

Try 100LL next...

*FLEE*

 

During winter I have a free source of "drip gas" from some gas systems I operate. But it tends to have pre-ignition tendencies and isn't pure enough to keep filters clean. Old-timers used it in old rattle traps, but usually not in anything they cared about. Aviation gas would be interesting, but I've heard it's a bit pricy.

 

The 4.7L is prehistoric. Meanwhile Toyota "station wagon" SUVs over the past 16 years:
3rd gen Sequoia - Regular
2nd gen Sequoia - Regular
LC200 - Regular

 

13 lb-ft isn't noticeable, but it's a bigger difference than any "cold air intake" or "high flow exhaust" could muster.

 

It would be a tough sell to say a Tacoma requires 91+ octane even if it might benefit from it—and I am not talking peak output but power under the curve, where a little better responsiveness, less chance of slight ping/knock, and less shifting may be worth it in a premium vehicle. This is the same conversation that has been had with the GX460 vs. the Tundra 4.6, which required 87, not 91—which makes sense for its target market.

 

We just added a 22’ GX and agree. Our RX feels no different with premium, but the GX does.