87 octane gas

I would bet the engine control software between the Tundra and LX600 are different. Tundra won’t necessarily make any more power if you use 91 vs 87 octane with ideal conditions. My guess is if Toyota wanted, they could sell you a 91 tune copied from LX600. Ford does something similar with Ranger.

 

Is there a cheap way to monitor the timing advance to see if it changes running 87 vs 91? Will scan tools show actual advance while driving?

 

An inexpensive Bluetooth or WiFi OBDII dongle and the DashCommand or Torque app will allow you to view it on your phone. I purchased an inexpensive one several years ago (Veepeak or something) to read codes if needed; I use DashCommand and it shows live data including timing.

My Pioneer Heady it also interfaces with the OBDII port via iDatalink Maestro and will display timing info as well.

 

I do the same thing. I never let it go below half tank, and I alternate filling by tank with Chevron premium 93 , then mid grade 89.

 

They should show the total spark, but it might be tough to compare from one day to the next. My guess is that there are 20 variables that can affect spark advance aside from octane. Its not like they just have one spark table in the tune and its always that.

I believe Toyota has some kind of octane PID that indicates how well the engine is responding to the fuel, there is on my Lexus GX, but I forget what they call it. On Ford Ecoboost motors its called the Octane adjust ratio and it gives you an indication of how happy the PCM is with the fuel. It goes from +1 to -1. My dads Expedition on 87 octane was at -0.07 whereas my F150 on 91 octane will sit at -0.9. When I bump to 94 octane it will peg at -1. Being at a -1 mean it is adding 5* of timing globally over the base timing tables and can also add some additional boost. I imagine Toyota does something similar.

 

At higher elevations a lower octane can be used. I still try to run 87+ especially if towing and such. Modern cars will adjust the timing and such if a knock happens. You may loose a little hp if you’re ringing the engines neck out on a lower octane.

 

It's been done by tuners and they have reported that the truck retards timing on 87, but will meet emissions. They say it'll run best on 91.

 

Does it actually say that in the manual?

Problem with the 3rd gen engine is that its turbo'd and so it will continue to make the same cylinder pressures as it does at sea level. It will also generate more heat since the turbos are having to work harder to create a higher pressure ratio due to the lower ambient pressure. So I don't know that I would run lower octane like someone might do with a non-turbo engine.

 

87 is the minimum regardless of elevation. It's generally only found at higher elevations as lower elevations will have the 88 octane.

 

True. Point being lower octane won’t hurt the engine, but you may lower the hp output. If you want the most hp buy non ethanol and you gain a few ponies. But for 99% of people you won’t notice a difference in performance with this engine and difference gas blends.

 

My vehicles run on burning liquid dinosaurs. Corn doesn't belong in them. People will usually notice the MPG drop that ethanol brings.

 

Yep,...lots of feelings.

 

Because ECU is not tuned for 108 octane fuel. Or the engine is not turbo. With good octane fuel the max boost can raise significantly. In my slightly tuned turbo Volvo I get 12-13 PSI on 93 and only 3-4 on 87. The boost is limited by the tune, it can go up even further with 93.

 

Again, my vehicles run on burning liquid dinosaurs. Corn doesn't belong in them. People will usually notice the MPG drop that ethanol brings.

 

to piggy back on this post per the owner manual

 

So difficult to do a back to back comparison of regular (87) and premium (91/93). You need same load, same intake temps, same manifold temps, etc. otherwise spark timing and spark retard/advance will be completely different.

 

Pure gas is $6+ if you dare to find it in MA. 87 with 10% ethanol is $3.30. About full $3 less per gallon. 30 gallons would be $90. That's a lot of beer!

 

Interesting. It is virtually the same price here... maybe.05 cents more.

 

Vote with your feet.

 

Pic of 22 Tundra Gas Cap

 

Ford 3.5 ecoboost twin turbo has always been 87 octane also

 

I remember when all the ethanol plants started popping up in Ohio. Iv worked at several of them over the years with my construction job. Semi trucks lined up all day long dumping corn (a food source) to supplement fuel. Just never have and never will agree with that…

 

the farmers love it cause govt subsidies, but in actuality its a negative gain across the board. the amount of waste to farm corn, transport it, process it and distro it wastes more money/time/cost/roi than if you just use gas. you get less energy output then you input to make it.

 

I hope they switch to water/hydrogen fuel in my lifetime.
Those conversations will be a hoot.
"I only run reverse osmosis filtered, extra alkaline water. Only the best for my truck and I can feel the difference."
"I've been running my truck on straight tap water for 3 years and no issues."

 

need a "Mr. Fusion"

 

Get rid of ethanol and just start making 96 or 98 octane gas.

 

Very well explained..!! The whole concept is complete bull#&@% ! as far as I’m concerned

 

Not to mention, the whole selling point was that it would reduce carbon emissions. Not only does it NOT reduce carbon emissions, but just the act of clearing land for farming and tilling the land, which releases all the carbon trapped in the soil, alone, completely erases any gains in carbon reduction. Add everything else in and it ends up being somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% worse for the environment than if we only used gasoline. The studies done back whenever they started this whole thing predicted a 20% decrease in carbon emissions. New studies show the opposite.
Doesn't matter though. I whole industry was created for it, so it makes money and it's not going away.
There's other plants that would net better gains than corn, but,....