2024 Land Cruiser require Premium Fuel?

[jnsplace]

It depends on what you value.
For me, I value the biggest bang for my buck. Always have. From my computers as a gamer, I get for the dollar the best I could, not the top of the line but something that is well rated, will last tech wise (reasonably) and give me what I want.
Do the same thing regardless of cars, appliances, or a house.

This car should be the last one I get prior to my retirement years. Knowing that I will soon be on a fixed income: the cost of the vehicle made me blink, but I'm still on the list because I can buy it. The sliding scale of gas makes me sigh, and I'm still on the list, for now. I am also looking at other cars. It just opens up the possibilities of what is out there because I want to be comfortable signing on that line.

 

[Paint]

I'm in roughly the same position as you. I could technically retire at any time, but eh. I like my work and my wife will likely work for another 10 years...So why would I leave Several vehicles on my list as well.

I'm talking mad smack for somebody that will probably balk at the price when it comes down to it...And just buy a used 4Runner because Toyota dealerships piss him off with the BS adds and markups

 

[German88]

Another perspective: My wife and I went out for a burger this weekend. Wasn’t that great and at $43 with tip I’ll get far more enjoyment from my premium fuel drinking LC than I did the overpriced burger.

 

[LC-120]

I've had my Jeep for 30 years. I've had my Tundra 11 years. I keep my stuff long enough that slightly more expensive fuel isn't much money compared to how much I save by not buying new cars every 2-5 years. I'm 100% fine with the premium hit. Even if I wanted to be upset about premium fuel, the fact that I've been driving at 12.9 MPG for 170,000 miles would reel me back in LOL. Almost anything I buy will be cheaper to drive than my Tundra. But that's my brain, y'all's is obviously wired a bit different

Is it luxury? Compared to a 2013 Tundra, I would say yes lol. Compared to a decked out Nissan Rogue? That's a steeper hill to climb. That Rogue has close to, if not more luxury than the FE LC will have. Cooled seats, HUD and everything else in that car and it costs mid 30s right now (mother in law just bought one) and there are piles of them on lots. Will that CVT last 10 years? Maybe. Will it be worth more than $8 and a half eaten snickers in 10 years? Very doubtful. But that is a nice a$$ car for now. I would NOT call that a luxury car. I guess it kind of depends on what your definition of luxury is

This is funny, I just visited Nissan and seen plenty of 2023 Rogue SV AWD at 28k. No luxury and nothing amazing about that car. It is just the best deal by far if you just need to move around in US...

 

[Paint]

This is funny, I just visited Nissan and seen plenty of 2023 Rogue SV AWD at 28k. No luxury and nothing amazing about that car. It is just the best deal by far if you just need to move around in US...

I don't know what she paid off the top of my head, but it was the highest trim with all the boxes checked and they got quite a bit off MSRP. It's got some very nice bits inside.

 

[mkg]

Hopefully Toyota or one of the media outlets can figure out why its premium fuel for one and not the other.. doesnt make sense as it currently sits.

 

[German88]

Hopefully Toyota or one of the media outlets can figure out why its premium fuel for one and not the other.. doesnt make sense as it currently sits.

It's been mentioned already on this thread but most likely this a simple matter of "tune" on the LC vs Tacoma etc. Might be something the aftermarket addresses with a 87 octane tune. Never know...

 

[mkg]

I saw that.. but a tune that doesnt actually change any performance data.. --that we know of-- If they have the same engine performance specs.. why does one require premium? I would get it if the LC had higher Hp or Tq.. but doesnt appear that it does.

 

[German88]

I saw that.. but a tune that doesnt actually change any performance data.. --that we know of-- If they have the same engine performance specs.. why does one require premium? I would get it if the LC had higher Hp or Tq.. but doesnt appear that it does.

Patience... It's still early days and we need to hang tight until these things are on the ground and in garages. Story will change a bit IMHO.

 

[German88]

Also been mentioned here that Mazda with the 2.5 liter going into the majority of thier cars, uses both grades and will adapt and provide sligtly more hp/tq figures on 91 vs 87.

 

[cipi Mtl]

This is funny, I just visited Nissan and seen plenty of 2023 Rogue SV AWD at 28k. No luxury and nothing amazing about that car. It is just the best deal by far if you just need to move around in US...

And in Canada is % interest for Rogue and Araya EV.
But 1.5 L ,3 cylinders turbo ! Is not gonna sell good !

This is funny, I just visited Nissan and seen plenty of 2023 Rogue SV AWD at 28k. No luxury and nothing amazing about that car. It is just the best deal by far if you just need to move around in US...

 

[LC-120]

Yes! 1.5 turbo. I drove both on long distance. The new model has more power and better efficiency compared to the old 2.5 (which is very efficient also).
They sold in US 271,400 Rogues in 2023 compared to 186,481 in 2022.

Back to the topic: where did Toyota indicate the LC 250 requires premium fuel ?

 

[Bronconomore]

Yes! 1.5 turbo. I drove both on long distance. The new model has more power and better efficiency compared to the old 2.5 (which is very efficient also).
They sold in US 271,400 Rogues in 2023 compared to 186,481 in 2022.

Back to the topic: where did Toyota indicate the LC 250 requires premium fuel ?

Seer OP Carpoor, post # 28 It's a page out of the LC owner’s manual

 

[LC-120]

I do not understand premium Gasoline is a must and I could not find any information regarding the gasoline compliance with ASTM D4814. Please clarify if you heard about the ASTM D4814 specifications.

 

[Bronconomore]

View attachment 1079

I do not understand premium Gasoline is a must and I could not find any information regarding the gasoline compliance with ASTM D4814. Please clarify if you heard about the ASTM D4814 specifications.

Under Fuel it states Octane 91 or higher...not sure what else to add. I could be just stupid as I have been told that before.

 

[LC-120]

... it is required "for optimum engine performance and fuel economy".

How do they say it in the GX550 user manual ?

 

[qberg]

It does have the caveat of "for optimum engine performance and fuel economy". I'm not a lawyer. I am an engineer, though. To me, that says that the engine performance and fuel economy will be better if premium is used. It isn't saying that you will or will not damage your engine by using 87 octane. We know that modern ECUs will protect the engine by changing variable valve timing and spark timing to protect the engine.

My theory: official fuel economy ratings are based on using the recommended fuel. It is very possible that Toyota would have to report 24mpg highway instead of 25mpg highway in an official capacity to the government for calculating Toyota's fleet average if they recommended regular over premium. These numbers matter because there are fines or credits based on how the manufacturer is meeting or not meeting the target. There are definitely heat soak situations where premium will perform better than regular despite the official lab conditions power rating being identical. Recommending premium means Toyota gets to advertise better fuel efficiency and/or input better numbers into their official fuel economy numbers to the government.

IMO, the 31" tire version (1958) also exists to help fuel efficiency numbers. Narrower tire, less ground clearance. Both of these are good for fuel economy testing. Now, you might ask yourself, why doesn't the Land Cruiser or the First Edition show lower numbers? There is basically wiggle room for official reporting when it comes to changing out tires and wheels. Ford got caught up in this a while back because they were reporting fuel economy numbers for the C-max using "general label rule" from a different vehicle all together.

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid - Autoblog

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board.

www.autoblog.com

Ford: We didn't overstate C-Max Hybrid mpg, low numbers were a surprise - Autoblog

There's kind of a lot to digest in the news about the 2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid EPA label change. In fact, as we tried to really understand how and why Ford <a href="http://green.autoblog.com/2013/08/15/ford-c-max-hybrid-rerated-at-43-mpg-o

www.autoblog.com

"Developed in 1977, EPA label regulations allow vehicles with the same engine, transmission and weight class to use the same fuel economy label value data, since, historically, such vehicle families achieve nearly identical fuel economy performance. Ford based the 2013 Ford C-Max label on testing of the related Ford Fusion hybrid, which has the same engine, transmission and test weight as allowed under EPA regulations. For the vast majority of vehicles this approach would have yielded an appropriate label value for the car, but these new vehicles are more sensitive to small design differences than conventional vehicles because advanced highly efficient vehicles use so little fuel. In this case, EPA's evaluation found that the C-Max's aerodynamic characteristics resulted in a significant difference in fuel economy from the Fusion hybrid."

Automakers can choose to test every iteration, but they often don't because it is costly and it hurts them from CAFE perspective. In order to not mislead or upset consumers, though, you'll often see two similar models get different ratings. The Tacoma TRD Off Road traditionally had lower ratings than the SR5 trucks because it lacks the air dam up front and has larger, wider tires. It is harder, with a straight face, to say that those two will be practically identical. I expect that, in real world, the 1958 will be the most efficient LC (lower rolling resistance) and the First Edition will be the least efficient LC (higher aero drag).

So, in my opinion, both the premium recommendation and the 31" wheel version exist for the government. They can recommend premium and use the 31" wheel for the official fuel economy ratings to mitigate fines from the government.

 

[LC-120]

I think for GX is a different story:

 

[fhb]

It does have the caveat of "for optimum engine performance and fuel economy". I'm not a lawyer. I am an engineer, though. To me, that says that the engine performance and fuel economy will be better if premium is used. It isn't saying that you will or will not damage your engine by using 87 octane. We know that modern ECUs will protect the engine by changing variable valve timing and spark timing to protect the engine.

My theory: official fuel economy ratings are based on using the recommended fuel. It is very possible that Toyota would have to report 24mpg highway instead of 25mpg highway in an official capacity to the government for calculating Toyota's fleet average if they recommended regular over premium. These numbers matter because there are fines or credits based on how the manufacturer is meeting or not meeting the target. There are definitely heat soak situations where premium will perform better than regular despite the official lab conditions power rating being identical. Recommending premium means Toyota gets to advertise better fuel efficiency and/or input better numbers into their official fuel economy numbers to the government.

IMO, the 31" tire version (1958) also exists to help fuel efficiency numbers. Narrower tire, less ground clearance. Both of these are good for fuel economy testing. Now, you might ask yourself, why doesn't the Land Cruiser or the First Edition show lower numbers? There is basically wiggle room for official reporting when it comes to changing out tires and wheels. Ford got caught up in this a while back because they were reporting fuel economy numbers for the C-max using "general label rule" from a different vehicle all together.

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid - Autoblog

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board.

www.autoblog.com

Ford: We didn't overstate C-Max Hybrid mpg, low numbers were a surprise - Autoblog

There's kind of a lot to digest in the news about the 2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid EPA label change. In fact, as we tried to really understand how and why Ford <a href="http://green.autoblog.com/2013/08/15/ford-c-max-hybrid-rerated-at-43-mpg-o

www.autoblog.com

"Developed in 1977, EPA label regulations allow vehicles with the same engine, transmission and weight class to use the same fuel economy label value data, since, historically, such vehicle families achieve nearly identical fuel economy performance. Ford based the 2013 Ford C-Max label on testing of the related Ford Fusion hybrid, which has the same engine, transmission and test weight as allowed under EPA regulations. For the vast majority of vehicles this approach would have yielded an appropriate label value for the car, but these new vehicles are more sensitive to small design differences than conventional vehicles because advanced highly efficient vehicles use so little fuel. In this case, EPA's evaluation found that the C-Max's aerodynamic characteristics resulted in a significant difference in fuel economy from the Fusion hybrid."

Automakers can choose to test every iteration, but they often don't because it is costly and it hurts them from CAFE perspective. In order to not mislead or upset consumers, though, you'll often see two similar models get different ratings. The Tacoma TRD Off Road traditionally had lower ratings than the SR5 trucks because it lacks the air dam up front and has larger, wider tires. It is harder, with a straight face, to say that those two will be practically identical. I expect that, in real world, the 1958 will be the most efficient LC (lower rolling resistance) and the First Edition will be the least efficient LC (higher aero drag).

So, in my opinion, both the premium recommendation and the 31" wheel version exist for the government. They can recommend premium and use the 31" wheel for the official fuel economy ratings to mitigate fines from the government.

Good points. FE will also have more curb weight with that roof rack and other things that will affect mpg.

 

[jnsplace]

I think for GX is a different story:

View attachment 1084

And I think that is exactly what we're waiting for when the cars actually on the lots. Recommend vs required piece.