Toyota FJ Cruiser Forum banner

Reply from Toyota on 91 octane fuel

55K views 41 replies 32 participants last post by  RomaBoy 
#1 ·
I have read the threads on the use of 87 octane vs 91 octane, including the supposed Toyota "bulletin". When I called my dealer and asked about the bulletin by number, they checked the computer for all FJC bulletins and could not find anything by that number, so I sent Toyota the following question:

I see the later model FJC can use 87 octane fuel. My (2009) model specifies 91 octane. I have seen copies of a bulletin PP06-VG6027 from Chris Pappas of Product Planning and Distribution stating that "the use of 87 octatne fuel is acceptable" in the earlier FJC.
Can I use 87 octane fuel in my 2009 stock FJC? Thanks, Terry Tubb


This is the answer I received:
Dear Terry Tubb,

We appreciate the opportunity to address your inquiry on the recommended fuel for your Toyota FJ Cruiser.

The 2009 FJ Cruiser requires unleaded gasoline with an Octane Rating of 91 or higher for optimum engine performance. If 91 octane cannot be obtained, you may use unleaded gasoline with an octane rating as low as 87. Use of unleaded gasoline with an octane rating lower than 91 may result in engine knocking. Persistent knocking can lead to engine damage and should be corrected by refueling with higher octane unleaded gasoline. Please refer to the section titled "Specifications" in your Owner’s Manual for further information. Additionally, this information can viewed on-line at www.toyota.com/t3Porta...c_6-1.pdf.

If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us at Toyota Help.

Sincerely,

Karen Leos
Toyota Customer Experience Center


So I guess I am right back where I started. Terry
 
See less See more
#2 ·
That's a false statement. Toyota made a mistake with the octane rating required for the FJ when it first came out. The 4runner and the Tacoma both with the same engine require only 87. Toyota put out a service bulletin on it a few years back saying it was not required but you would not get optimum performance. I've been running 87 for a few years now with no ill affects or knocking. I do however notice that when I run 91 it does feel like it responds a lot better.
 
#4 · (Edited)
Perhaps you should reread my post....It is discussed therein, including the bulletin number. My local dealership searched all current TSBs and informed me this was not a bulletin from Toyota. I note that the bulletin does not have Toyota on it in the copies I have seen.
My only reason for posting is to update what Toyota is putting out as "Official Response" to the question of fuel grade. I am with you on using 87 octane. T
 
#34 · (Edited)
You have misinterpreted what the manual is saying.

Here is what's printed on page 77 of the 2013 Owner's manual. Notice the parentheses and brackets:

"Fuel types
Use unleaded gasoline. (Octane rating 87 [Research Octane Number 91] or
higher)"


What the manual means is to use 87 octane fuel, as rated by the standard Anti Knock Index "(R+M)/2" test method, or 91 octane fuel, as rated by the Research test method.

BOTH OF THESE FUELS HAVE APPROXIMATELY THE SAME ANTI KNOCK CHARACTERISTICS.

There are two methods of determining the octane rating of gasoline:

1. The "Research" method, where the detonation point is determined by the use of a special single-cylinder engine that has variable compression ratio.

2. The "Motor" method, which also uses a special single-cylinder engine, but adds some additional stress conditions including higher engine speed, preheated fuel/air mixture, variable ignition timing, etc.

If you look at a typical gas pump in the US, the pump is marked "(R+M)/2".

The octane rating of the fuel is determined by testing the fuel using both the Research and Motor methods. The octane values from each test method are added together and then divided by 2, yielding an average octane value.

Other parts of the world may determine octane ratings using only the "Research" method.
 
#6 ·
That is so interesting. Thanks for getting and posting an 'official response'.
This has been basked on the forum for years; some say no to 87, others say it's fine no worries, etc. There was in fact a bulletin that was sent out, and I think I have the actual dealership printout as I was told to have it in the glove box in case I ever sell the vehicle.

There have been tons of anecdotal studies done on here whether 91 is any better or not, or whether the engine will knock or not. Fact is, even if it were to knock the anti knock sensor would pick it up, and retard the timing to prevent it. That is why the performance is at least a little better with 91: there is no ping/knock so no chocked back timing. I don't think you will hear the knock ever, as the engine has already curtailed it.

As far as I know, when I run Arco 87, I get CRAPOLA gas mileage and power. If I run Chevron 91, I get 300+ every time before the light comes on. Is it more $$$$? Yes, but time and again I end up only spending maybe $7 more per tank, but it has more power, smoother, and much better mpg. Actually, in the end it is cheaper.

Thanks for asking and posting the reply.:cheers:
 
  • Like
Reactions: FJoel
#11 ·
Talking about the Chevron fuel. I have changed many plugs in all kinds of engines over the years. When I would do it for the public I would always ask what kind of fuel they burned. The vehicles that ran Chevron regardless of grade were always noticeably cleaner.
But I always use Chevron super.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
 
  • Like
Reactions: RomaBoy and FJoel
#8 ·
I run 87 octane in my 2010 and still see 18+ MPG, it's been a long time since I've run 91-93 but I don't remember seeing a MPG difference or any loss of power.
 
#10 ·
I've used 91 since I bought the truck ... on the inside of the fuel door there's a "notice" or reminder to use 91 ... the odd time I'll run a tank of 94 through it ...
 
#12 ·
Last tank was 18.5 on 87 octane, which is what I typically use. Trying 93 from RaceTrac today. My only other option is typically 89. I'll run a few tanks of 93 and see what happens then report back.
 
#24 ·
Filled up today after running the tank full mentioned above. 19.18 MPG, driven about the same. Will run a handful of tanks and report back here.

Right now I'd say a small improvement but we'll see what it averages out to after 5 tanks.

Keep in mind, 2010 Auto trans, stock BFG Rugged Trails 265's, 2" Bilstein/Icon Spring lift, winch and mount, roof rack and sliders.
 
#13 · (Edited)
Toyota GR engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1GR-FE is the 4.0 L (3956 cc) version, designed for longitudinal mounting in RWD and 4WD pickup applications. It has a 94 mm bore and a stroke of 95 mm. Output is 236 hp (176 kW) at 5200 rpm with 266 lb·ft (361 N·m) of torque at 4000 rpm on 87 octane, and 239 hp (178 kW) at 5200 rpm with 278 lb·ft (377 N·m) at 3700 rpm on 91 octane. This engine features Toyota's VVT-i, variable valve timing system on the intake cam and a compression ratio of 10.0:1.

An updated version of this engine features Dual VVT-i, increasing output to 254 hp (189 kW) and 270 lb·ft (366 N·m) on 87 octane and 285 hp (213 kW) and 289 lb·ft (392 N·m) on 91 octane. Inside, the 1GR uses a "taper-squish" combustion chamber design with matching pistons to improve anti-knocking and engine performance, while also improving intake and fuel efficiency. Toyota adopted a siamese-type intake port, which reduces the surface area of the port walls and prevents fuel from adhering to such walls. This engine has special cast-iron cylinder liners cast into the block, which are a spiny type to improve adhesion between the liner and cylinder block. With these special thin liners it is impossible to bore the block. In the event of cylinder wall damage (scoring, deep protrusions, etc.), the entire cylinder block must be replaced. For increased block rigidity, the 1GR also receives a high temperature plastic insulator/protector, which fills the empty space between the outer portion of the cylinders and block material common to open deck engines. For increased cooling efficiency, the 1GR employs water passages between the bores of the engine. There are two such passages for each bank for a total of four. This reduces cylinder hot-spotting and keeps combustion chamber temperatures more uniform.


If I am reading this correctly...

The VVT-i engine (2007-2009) gets +3 HP (1.2%) using 91 octane.
The Dual VVT-i engine (2010-2013) gets +31 HP (12.2%) using 91 octane.

That's a huge difference!

I'm running 91 octane in my 2013, and I do notice an improvement in performance, but not that much.
 
#28 ·
If I am reading this correctly...

The Dual VVT-i engine (2010-2013) gets +31 HP (12.2%) using 91 octane.

That's a huge difference!

I'm running 91 octane in my 2013, and I do notice an improvement in performance, but not that much.
Yeah, I made that same observation about the wiki article in an earlier thread on this topic. If we could get +31 hp with 91 it would be worth the money...but I highly doubt that is the case. Maybe they slipped a decimal point, because 3.1 hp would a plausible gain.
 
#16 ·
I know there are a lot of variables, but in my 2012 I've seen no difference in HP or mileage using 93 octane gas. I have a pretty equal mixture of surface streets/highway every day and it hasn't made any difference for me - at least according to the Ultra-gauge. I'll calculate the mileage manually at the end of the tank, but so far, I think I'll be sticking to the 87. The HP reads pretty much the same though.

It was worth the test, I just haven't seen a difference yet. Perhaps some others have seen it, but my understanding is that typically normal cars use a higher octane to reduce knocks, and most cars after 1997 have changed to eliminate pre-ignition from lower octane gas. I realize that knocking and pre-ignition are not the same thing, but usually pre-ignition leads to the knocking. My old 1976 Grand Prix knocked when I didn't put higher octane in it, and I'm pretty sure it was pre-ignition that caused the problem. Of course, back then gas was less than $1.50/gallon.

Anywhoo - may not be relevant, but thought I'd reply all the same.
 
#18 ·
I just purchased my 2012 FJ a couple of months ago and have been running 87 since, as I have no need for more power in my current daily driving. So take what I say next with a grain of salt.

In most circumstances you will see absolutely no difference when switching between 87 and 91/93 in a single, or even couple, tanks of gas. The computer is overly conservative in nature and will not start to adjust the timing for a variable amount of time, depending on how much WOT driving you do. The only way to bypass this is by a CPU reset on your new tank of 91/93 to reset the knock sensor. Then you can get a better idea of performance increase/decrease.

In other words, if you currently fill with 87, you will need a CPU reset or a few tanks of gas to notice an increase. If you currently fill with premium you may immediately notice a loss of power when filling with 87.

I am sure this is info you guys already know, just throwing it out there just in case. :cheers:
 
#19 ·
It's news to me - thanks! :cheers:
 
#20 ·
Speaking strictly from personal expierence:

My 07 - old engine - there is a noticable difference between 91 and 87. I even notice it when between ethonal blended and ethonal free gas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FJoel
#21 ·
Straight 91 Octane for both the FJ and the Tundra. Both have superchargers. Even if the pump states that gasoline contains ethanol, most premium (91 octane) blends do not contain ethanol. I have seen 93 octane that does contain ethanol, but that station offers 91 octane without ethanol (which I use).
 
#22 ·
I have used 91 since I bought the 07. Did not like the performance on the 87.
 
#23 ·
Never noticed a difference between 87 and 91 in my '07. I do however notice the difference with the ethanol blends.
 
#25 ·
From fillup to gas light, I will get about 280 per tank on premium 91+. Same scenario on low grade 87, 240 or less per tank.

We did a recent 2k mile road trip to Mobile, AL and back, the GF put in 87 on way up, I used 91+ on way home, took an extra stop on way up, with less miles driven.

Like others I also notice performance gains, although subtle they're there. Maybe this is just a placebo effect and Im just seeing what I want to see to justify spending more, but I have always tried to put the best gas in every vehicle I own, and definitely noticed lax performance in the BMW, much more drastic than the FJ. It also seems I get better mileage using gas from Shell, BP, & Race Track over fuel products from places like 7-11, Chevron, Marathon, and rinkydink podunk maw-paws.
 
#26 ·
This thread is very informative. I just got my FJ for about a week now and read the manual that I have to put a 95 octane rating and the manual specifically stated that use only 91 octane rating temporarily. I guess I can put 91 octane rating during my everyday drive.
 
#27 ·
When I filled up today, 91 was 10.7% more expensive than 87. I doubt my mpg would increase by that much (BTW all grades of gasoline in MN have ethanol) by going to 91, but I'd be interested to find out real-world results.
 
#29 ·
One of main reasons Toyota re-engineered the 2007-2009 engines to 2010-2014 specs is that customers were howling about manual recommended use of premium 91/93 over 87 regular! I was contemplating buying a used 07-09 FJ in 2011 and finally ran down an engineer in Ca. on subject. He said 07-09 will retard timing on 07-09, so there is no discernible knocking: but will run smoother and have a little better throttle response on 91/93. So I bought a new 11 substantially for that reason; but really wanted that AGTT, I purchased! Don't know if you've noticed; but 2-3 years ago midgrade 89 was 10c more per gal and premium 91/93 was 20, then premium went to 30c more and now is 40c+ more? Difference is not justified! Those with long memories may remember that when oil was in low 40's per barrel, gas was less than $2 a gallon and it's there again; but no corresponding price drop?
Of course I'm glad it's dropped: but we're still getting ripped!
 
#31 ·
I definitely notice a difference between crap gas, good gas, 87, and 94 octane.

I usually use Chevron 94. The only time I don't is when it isn't available in the town I'm in. Then, usually it is some 91.

I too have seen cleaner spark plugs and internals from using higher quality gasoline.

The best test I can think of, is to fill up at sea level with some crap gas, then drive up a mountain. A real mountain. In BC, that's easy to do.

My ECU is used to 94, but holy crap is the FJ ever doggy with 87 if you try to climb a mountain.

Same story with 94, and it just feels like it's breathing better all together, with more throttle response and passing power.

If I wanted to skimp on gas, I would've bought a Prius.

Besides... pump gas is cheap! Try buying 100LL on a trip from the 49th to Yellowknife (last summer) and from Vancouver Island to Toronto (this summer). Car gas is cheap. Airplane gas is not, and crap gas is kept out of airplane gas tanks for a reason as well.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top