When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I recommend using the grade of gasoline that the vehicle was designed and engineered to run on. There are fail safes systems in place should get you to the next gas station in an emergency that has the correct fuel type. These systems should be used as a last resort. Detonation might not happen frequently but using the wrong grade of gasoline over a long period of time will increase the possibility of damage. It's a gamble and a few cents a gallon should be weighed with the possibility of having to replace an engine. Is it worth saving a couple bucks a tank that doesn't even get as good as gas mileage and also having the possibility of a $10,000 repair bill?
As for other vehicles. There are vehicles that have different technology and use a sensor to adjust timing and allows the engine to run on multiple types of fuel. Some future technology is in development that will allow an internal combustion engine to run of diesel, regular gas and premium fuel.
All those sources you have been reading for the last 50 years are wrong. It's an old myth. The full FAQ is attached if you want to learn more than you ever imagined about gasoline and hydrocarbon fuels. It's worth the time investment if you really want to answer the question "What fuel should I run in my car?" with the support of science. Also, FWIW, I have a turbo sizing spreadsheet that includes specifying what octane fuel you plan to use because it needs to know how much boost you can tolerate before autoignition becomes a problem (and hence detonation). More boost, more temperature in the combustion chamber from compressing the A/F mixture which also leads to why Direct Injection engines can tolerate higher static compression - fuel vaporization happens in the combustion chamber, not at the nozzle of an injector in a port or in the throttlebody of a carburetor, so the fuel's heat of vaporization allows for higher static and dynamic compression ratios with DI.
I'm done debating it because I don't have the knowledge to either believe or not believe what you have provided.
But i I do like the last line of your signature. I have put my knee on the track at 120. I Road raced motorcycles about 35 years ago and at nearly 65 years old I still ride hard - I'm fortunate enough to have a few good roads that I can safely (for others at least) run very hard early Sunday mornings. Still doesn't make me an expert on engines, but it's sort of like the old bear joke. I don't have to outrun the bear, just the other guy I'm with
Science is not a consensus sport. How many of those sources are petroleum engineers?
Just had to laugh a bit at this...You realize scientific method is an iterative process of hypotheses and data. The hypotheses are continuously being changed, refined, invalidated, etc. Sir Isaac Newton used to take published theories from his counter parts and try to "prove" them wrong. There are no facts in science, what we consider the truth is simply based on a degree of belief (hopefully based on data). Newtons "laws" were substantially modified due to Einstein..."Einsteinian" physics were substantially challenged when Heisenberg presented his theories on quantum, etc.
Just had to laugh a bit at this...You realize scientific method is an iterative process of hypotheses and data. The hypotheses are continuously being changed, refined, invalidated, etc. Sir Isaac Newton used to take published theories from his counter parts and try to "prove" them wrong. There are no facts in science, what we consider the truth is simply based on a degree of belief (hopefully based on data). Newtons "laws" were substantially modified due to Einstein..."Einsteinian" physics were substantially challenged when Heisenberg presented his theories on quantum, etc.
My point exactly. If science were a consensus sport, the earth would still be quite flat. Ask the entire body of esteemed "scientists" from the early 1400's. It takes a maverick who is willing to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune to change "science" for the good. It's not about how many people agree with you, it's about how you can show repeatedly that the naysayers are wrong until the naysayers finally capitulate.
You would not believe the number of times I have debated the "too much backpressure" issue with morons who have no understanding of gas physics, and believe small diameter tubes are responsible for "too much backpressure" when the exact opposite is true.
The biggest problem with the Internet is, every moron with an ill formed opinion believes his/her input is valuable. No knowledge, no experience, nothing but a feeling and it is supposed to outweigh the input from people in the field with direct experience for years. I could go on, but the reality is, so much of what is out there has no root in fact, and so much of it is passed on as gospel that it amazes me anyone can separate the wheat from the chaff.
The biggest problem with the Internet is, every moron with an ill formed opinion believes his/her input is valuable. No knowledge, no experience, nothing but a feeling and it is supposed to outweigh the input from people in the field with direct experience for years. I could go on, but the reality is, so much of what is out there has no root in fact, and so much of it is passed on as gospel that it amazes me anyone can separate the wheat from the chaff.
So with this opinion of the internet (and its affiliated morons), why do you spend any time here? Scientific method is not consensus, but getting your theories to be accepted and used is. By the way there are NO facts in science...only theories with a substantial enough empirical evidence to provide a high degree of confidence in them.
What is interesting is when someone tells you not to believe everything you read on the internet and that everything you have read the past 50 years is wrong, but then they want you to believe them.
While this is obviously in response to your posts lobuxracer, I'm sincere when I tell you that I don't mean it as a knock on you. Your information may we'll be correct. But hopefully you can see the conundrum!
So with this opinion of the internet (and its affiliated morons), why do you spend any time here? Scientific method is not consensus, but getting your theories to be accepted and used is. By the way there are NO facts in science...only theories with a substantial enough empirical evidence to provide a high degree of confidence in them.
And people look at me with slack jaws when I suggest there is little difference between religion and science. Both are based on faith in different ways, but faith none the less.
Why am I here? Because I want to be. If I didn't I would leave and not care.
What is interesting is when someone tells you not to believe everything you read on the internet and that everything you have read the past 50 years is wrong, but then they want you to believe them.
While this is obviously in response to your posts lobuxracer, I'm sincere when I tell you that I don't mean it as a knock on you. Your information may we'll be correct. But hopefully you can see the conundrum!
I am not asking you to believe me. I posted someone else's work to believe. Someone who knows far more than I do. But it's up to you to decide what you want to do and whom you choose to believe.
I tend to believe the people who have demonstrated results. But that's just me, and right now, you don't know me from Adam, and I'm not about to waste a bunch of space on my credentials because they're meaningless in this context. I have similar "discussions" about brakes and braking, but I always refer to work done by the giants in the industry when it comes down to answering the why. I am no giant. I've just done a lot of stuff and listened to a lot of giants.
In this case we'll have to refer to design specs. for both vehicles and compare, LOL!
Seriously look up as much as you can on the 4.6L 1UR-FE in both the GX and the Tundra. Everything I can find says they're the same engine, and the Tundra somehow makes 8 more horsepower on regular gas. Two less torques though.
Originally Posted by cruzinZ
It's a gamble and a few cents a gallon should be weighed with the possibility of having to replace an engine. Is it worth saving a couple bucks a tank that doesn't even get as good as gas mileage and also having the possibility of a $10,000 repair bill?
That's the thing, around here, it's anywhere from about $8.00 to $20.00 extra per fillup, I'd guess about 80 cents/gallon difference at most stations. I don't know about you, but saving $14 or $15 every fillup is significant to me, might be $400, $500 a year or more. If you drive a lot, that could easily be over a thousand dollars a year. If it was just 10c more per gallon for premium, then sure.
Also, I've never heard of someone needing an engine repair from putting the wrong octane gas in. Plenty of horror stories from people accidentally putting diesel in, so there should be at least a few stories out there from people paying big repair bills for trying to run regular.
"Intake and exhaust routing are different from the Tundra’s, as is lubrication, and in the GX it puts out 301 horsepower and 329 pound-feet of torque (310/327 in the Tundra)."
Until one throws the two on a dyno we may never know for certain
I know this topic has been through discussions really often and most common and usual debates. However, I'm still curious to know if someone is driving his/ her GX460 on regular without any issues.
I'm taking the delivery of my 2018 GX next week for which I'm really excited. I met a gentleman who's a huge fan of this truck and currently driving his 4th GX and as per him he has never used Premium with no issues even after 200K miles on one of his previous ones.
Has anyone else tried this with a success? Will appreciate some feedback please.
I'm not sure what you mean by success? Will the car still run...likely yes. Will the ECU pull timing to ensure detonation will not harm the internals...probably. Will you have all of the power and efficiency of the car programmed for higher octane...probably not. YMMV.
I'm not sure what you mean by success? Will the car still run...likely yes. Will the ECU pull timing to ensure detonation will not harm the internals...probably. Will you have all of the power and efficiency of the car programmed for higher octane...probably not. YMMV.
Yes - you're right with the success expectations in long term. When you say YMMV - do you mean negligible 1-2 miles/gl or significantly, considering I'm a light foot driver with average speed of 60-70's?
If you can afford a $55K+ truck with an engine designed for premium fuel, I'd fill it with high test...not worth the hassle of possibly damaging something not to mention that if something goes wrong and it's obvious regular fuel was used when premium was specified on the fuel door and in the manual, you could open up a can of worms of 'whose fault was it' for warranty work. I may be paranoid but warranty is a big plus in buying a new car, and following recommended procedures from the company that designed the car is generally a good idea.
09-16-17, 09:24 AM
Two less torques though. 
