Super Confused in Fuel needed for 2024 Land Cruiser.

[Trailman]

And the door to fuel fill which says”Premium fuel only”? Just a sticker to confuse the owner?
P.S. Could you show me the page in the owners manual where it says “minimum rating 87? 91 recommended? Only manual I found states minimum 91 or higher.
You have to stop saying what the Tacoma fuel rating is. The manual is there for the owner,it is what it is. You are not doing anyone any favours by confusing people it is a disservice and helps no one.

The manual for the Land Cruiser states 91 octane "for optimal performance and fuel economy". They both start out by saying you must run unleaded fuel and end by stating the minimum fuel requirement is the same. The Tacoma goes further stating running less than 87 may cause engine knocking. I don't think it's that confusing. Showing both manuals side by side and letting people read them is the definition of bringing clarity to this conversation. This shouldn't be an argument. People are asking questions on the difference between the two vehicles with the same engine and I'm doing my best to show them. I want clarity too.

It's pretty apparent Toyota tuned the Land Cruiser for optimal performance and is encouraging people to use 91 octane to achieve the stated MPG and performance they have listed. It may not be clear but it appears the Land Cruiser should operate fine on 87, just at reduced performance but we don't have real world examples to show people. For me, if I'm out in a remote location and can only find the equivalent of 87 octane (RON 91 internationally) the user manuals (I think) make it sound like you should be okay in both vehicles. It's the same engine, just tuned differently for optimal performance. The average person buying a Tacoma is doing it for different reasons than a Land Cruiser purchaser and I think Toyota made the decision that a Land Cruiser consumer is probably okay paying for premium gas if it brings increased performance numbers. What's interesting is the Tacoma is listed at averaging 24 MPG combined and the LC 23 MPG combined with some of the Tacoma trucks weighing more. Figure that one out... Maybe running 87 octane will boost our LC numbers .

 

[fhb]

Would love for a Toyota engineer/technician to speak up on the differences between the vehicles in question with the identical engines and how they are set up differently between the vehicles. Clearly there are differences but they aren’t apparent other than performance related.

I thought the "performance related specs" for the hybrid Taco and hybrid 4R are the exact same as the LC (ie. 326hp, 465 ft/lbs torque, 6000lbs towing etc)??

 

[Trailman]

I thought the "performance related specs" for the hybrid Taco and hybrid 4R are the exact same as the LC (ie. 326hp, 465 ft/lbs torque, 6000lbs towing etc)??

Tacoma gets a boost in towing with 6500, same HP and torque. It just adds to the confusion and is why people are curious.

 

[EOD Guy]

To each their own, but for those that 100%, absolutely believe in stickers, should never, ever under any circumstances put anything other than 91 octane in their ride. Should they ever run out of fuel, they should never rely on road assistance to bring them fuel (how could they possibly know it's 91), they should have it towed to the nearest gas station. After all a sticker specified 91. As implied by others ..... if you can afford the ride, you can afford the tow.

All the above should be taken in jest, purely Satire here.........

 

[fhb]

Tacoma gets a boost in towing with 6500, same HP and torque. It just adds to the confusion and is why people are curious.

Pretty sure its the non-hybrid Taco that gets 6500 towing.

 

[Trailman]

Pretty sure its the non-hybrid Taco that gets 6500 towing.

You're right. Identical numbers. Either the HP and torque numbers are different than Toyota is stating between the two vehicles when running on different octane fuel, the Taco should be running on 91 octane but Toyota lowered the number to 87 to increase sales but didn't adjust the HP and torque numbers accordingly, or... I don't know, I give up. Can't see an argument based on the identical powertrains as to why they would run different fuel recommendations. The more you dig, the less clarity it brings.

 

[Roonie]

My plan is to read the owners manual and take what it says. Do the minimum and maybe even better.
Again apples to oranges……Ford said not to do the 91… so you agree… but Toyota is telling to use 91 but you disagree?

I am a rebel like that.

 

[Roonie]

You're right. Identical numbers. Either the HP and torque numbers are different than Toyota is stating between the two vehicles when running on different octane fuel, the Taco should be running on 91 octane but Toyota lowered the number to 87 to increase sales but didn't adjust the HP and torque numbers accordingly, or... I don't know, I give up. Can't see an argument based on the identical powertrains as to why they would run different fuel recommendations. The more you dig, the less clarity it brings.

exactly. Same powertrain yet different numbers. If Ford can figure it out with twin turbos back in 2009 to run on 87. I am surprised Toyota can't do it with single turbo in 2024.

 

[Bronconomore]

I am a rebel like

 

[Bronconomore]

Sounds like a idiot like that

Words of advice sometimes it is better to say nothing and let people think your a fool than open you mouth and remove all doubt.

 

[Roonie]

Words of advice sometimes it is better to say nothing and let people think your a fool than open you mouth and remove all doubt.

damn the hate.... Don't know why your personally attacking me? Who cares what octane I personally use? Apparently you do.

 

[Bronconomore]

exactly. Same powertrain yet different numbers. If Ford can figure it out with twin turbos back in 2009 to run on 87. I am surprised Toyota can't do it with single turbo in 2024.

Maybe you should go to work for Toyota and show them the way

 

[Bronconomore]

damn the hate.... Don't know why you’re personally attacking me? Who cares what octane I personally use? Apparently you do.

You made the nasty to me , I just defend myself and position I take

 

[Bronconomore]

I am a rebel like that.

No need to be snarky

 

[tbounds02]

Read where the gas opening says premium only yet I’ve also read this is preferred not required. Any definitive answer?
Thanks

definite answer it says 91 octane . do you have to use it no , but it does say to use it . It is required to perform as advertised . Less octane would me it doesn't reach numbers as advertised . Personally unless i plan on towing I will mix 87/93/91 fuels fill up at half tank

 

[EOD Guy]

definite answer it says 91 octane . do you have to use it no , but it does say to use it . It is required to perform as advertised . Less octane would me it doesn't reach numbers as advertised . Personally unless i plan on towing I will mix 87/93/91 fuels fill up at half tank

You are walking a tightrope........ you are differing from other people's opinion and some don't like that.........(again satire)

 

[Trailman]

exactly. Same powertrain yet different numbers. If Ford can figure it out with twin turbos back in 2009 to run on 87. I am surprised Toyota can't do it with single turbo in 2024.

They don’t even have different numbers. Just different specced fuel recommendations. Same stated output which makes no sense if they tuned them differently. Numbers don’t add up either on the fuel or the stated output.

This is exactly why people are confused and a good argument for 87 being just fine to run without consequences. Even the estimated efficiency of the engine goes up with a heavier vehicle in the Tacoma running 87 octane. Actually not surprising given the issues with Toyota being called out this year on falsified output numbers for several vehicles. Looks like we’ve uncovered something to the same effect.

 

[EOD Guy]

They don’t even have different numbers. Just different specced fuel recommendations. Same stated output which makes no sense if they tuned them differently. Numbers don’t add up either on the fuel or the stated output.

This is exactly why people are confused and a good argument for 87 being just fine to run without consequences. Even the estimated efficiency of the engine goes up with a heavier vehicle in the Tacoma running 87 octane. Actually not surprising given the issues with Toyota being called out this year on falsified output numbers for several vehicles. Looks like we’ve uncovered something to the same effect.

Ahhhh, I never looked at it like that. Specifying a higher octane to reach or exceed the inflated testing results at the lower octane........hmmmmm makes one think a bit.

 

[CaptMilks]

If we were talking about a performance car I would understand using 91. Now maybe Toyota is considering the LC a performance car, but I would think the general public does not. That is what Lexus is for right? Look at the competition and see that they are NOT using 91 and have 4 and 6 cylinder turbos. I know the argument could be made that Toyota may have done that for reliability. OK I get it. So if that was true then your telling me that my cost for ownership has gone up if I purchase a LC. Now Ford has had their 6 cylinder twin turbo be pretty reliable running on regular. Jeep hasn't had any major problems running regular on their 4 cylinder turbo's. Not to mention next year when Jeep will be installing the straight 6 twin turbo using regular. It wont stop me from purchasing a LC and using 91 but will go into the decision making process.

 

[EOD Guy]

If we were talking about a performance car I would understand using 91. Now maybe Toyota is considering the LC a performance car, but I would think the general public does not. That is what Lexus is for right? Look at the competition and see that they are NOT using 91 and have 4 and 6 cylinder turbos. I know the argument could be made that Toyota may have done that for reliability. OK I get it. So if that was true then your telling me that my cost for ownership has gone up if I purchase a LC. Now Ford has had their 6 cylinder twin turbo be pretty reliable running on regular. Jeep hasn't had any major problems running regular on their 4 cylinder turbo's. Not to mention next year when Jeep will be installing the straight 6 twin turbo using regular. It wont stop me from purchasing a LC and using 91 but will go into the decision making process.

It's been beaten to death in this thread......

Bottom Line: Toyota specifies 91 octane in the owners manual. I along with others are under the opinion, that it's grey......... I plan on running the low octane unless it starts knocking, then I'll move up a grade. I'm sure others will chime in again, but at the end of the day it's your money, your decision.