Higher octane fuel ,is it worth the exfra running cost?

Submitted: Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 19:12
ThreadID: 70502 Views:2833 Replies:6 FollowUps:7
This Thread has been Archived
Have been running the Toyota 4.7L V8 petrol on the lower octane unleaded fuel for the last few weeks and really can't pick any difference in performance or economy over the higher octane fuel, Toyota recommend the higher grade but there not paying the bill!..lol. As long as its not doing damage its hard to justify the extra cost, anyone up on this ?


Cheers Axle.
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Madfisher - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 20:25

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 20:25
Gooday Axle,
Every vehicle is diff,I reckon I get an extra 80ks per tank using premium(98 gives better value for money then 95) It also keeps the motor a lot cleaner. Need to try a lest 3 tanks of ea to work out fig. Takes a while for the ecu to reset.
Have you tried the lcool website for info. Know Pajs do a lot better on premium also.
Cheers Pete
AnswerID: 373672

Follow Up By: DesF - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 17:12

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 17:12
Hi, I have found the same thing on my NF Pajero V6, it runs and starts better on PULP, especially when towing the van, it holds on longer and I find I get extra Ks for each litre which works out about the same cost but it seems to do it so much easier, a couple of years ago we went to the west with the van ( headwind as usual) and I had to push it all the way to Ceduna, so I filled up with PULP, and by Nullabour I was noticing the difference in the performance, so I did the fuel checks and decided that was the way to go, and have been using it ever since then.
Off for a month with van to QLD in 3 weeks time and will be on PULP.
Cheers Des.
0
FollowupID: 640924

Reply By: blackmax11 - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 20:33

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 20:33
If standard unleaded without ethanol (E10) you wont really gain anything. If E10 you will use more fuel to go the same distance (driven the same). Approx 3% to 4% more as E10 has less power per litre than standard unleaded but slightly higher octane.
The other potential problem with E10 is it is hydroscopic, that is it absorbs water, not such an issue if using the vehicle constantly but a big problem if left unused for any time.Huge problem for boats.
Standard unleaded is the go and better value than E10, even though E10 is generally 3 cents a litre less. It would need to be about 5 to 6 cents a litre to be equal value.
AnswerID: 373674

Reply By: Bushtrek - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 20:54

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 20:54
Always thought Toyota specified 91 RON fuel for the 2UZ engine.
AnswerID: 373675

Follow Up By: Member - Axle - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 09:01

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 09:01
Just found the handbook, Lol.. 91 or higher is Toyotas spec.


So its running beautiful on the 95, so it can stay on it.


Cheers Axle.
0
FollowupID: 640852

Reply By: newhue - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 21:05

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 21:05
The wife ran E10 for a few months in her car accompanied with shopper dockets to save some bucks. When I drove it last I could not believe how un-responsive it had become. So some injector cleaner and a change in thinking to 98 octane and its nice to drive again.
My mate at BP reckons their Ultimate is 7% more efficient than 91 octane. I guess the maths between 91 and 98 octane prices will show which is better on paper. I only use 98 now but utilise the weekly fuel price cycle to fill up when its low.

cheers
AnswerID: 373676

Reply By: Robin Miller - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 21:25

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 21:25
Hi Axle

Been plenty of studies that show it is uneconomic to run fuels of higher octane than the car requires.
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 373680

Follow Up By: Best Off Road - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 21:36

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 21:36
Very true,

Barry Lake (former editor of "Motor") wrote a well educated article about this a few years back. Summary was that if the engine is not designed for it, it won't make a scrap of difference. It may however cost you money.

0
FollowupID: 640812

Follow Up By: Member - joc45 (WA) - Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 22:35

Wednesday, Jul 08, 2009 at 22:35
I know this is getting off the topic with relation to today's engine and fuel technologies, but up to about 35 years ago, the Govt and most of its departments' fleets used to buy special-build Holdens and Falcons with low compression heads so they could run on Standard (low-octane), rather than Super petrol.
These vehicles were usually down-specced in other areas as well, such as tyres, paint, brakes, etc. The rationale behind the low-comp heads was that Standard fuel was cheaper.
In practice, the fuel economy and performance was woeful, and any saving in cost was well outweighed by the poorer economy.
By the mid-70's, the Luddites had moved on or the Govt buyers woke up to themselves and started ordering off-the-floor cars, which worked out cheaper for running costs and also for resale.
Different these days, where the ECU can take care of shifts in RON rating of fuel.
0
FollowupID: 640824

Reply By: Ozboc - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 09:36

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 09:36
for low revving motor ----- not that important -- save your $$
AnswerID: 373724

Follow Up By: Madfisher - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 20:16

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 20:16
Low reving motor, we are not talking about the old 3f, but a dohc 24 valve motor, with a redline(testing memory now) arround 6000rpm. Is that right Axle?
Cheers Pete
0
FollowupID: 640977

Follow Up By: Member - Axle - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 20:44

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 20:44
Close enough Pete!, Thinking now the 98 RON is probably better for the fuel system overall, although as first stated i can't feel one bit of difference between the two. The next long run with the van on i'm going to split the distance with the two fuels, Do the maths and see what the result is.


Cheers Axle.
0
FollowupID: 640992

Follow Up By: Ozboc - Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 22:47

Thursday, Jul 09, 2009 at 22:47
6000 rpm is still considered a low revving motor - on my road bike i often do not change gear till i hit 4000 - 6000 RPM - then can go out to about 12 - 13 000 RPM - on the bike i can feel the difference between the 2 fuels - but that's at the far end of the rev range and WELL beyond any legal speeds ( only get to red line on track days - 1st gear can hit 100 in just over 2.5 sec )

fuels will always be an argument - whether it be brand type - octane rating or what ever - in my experience i have found no REAL difference UNLESS you run your motor HARD. in general commuting - the difference is minimal -

Boc
0
FollowupID: 641038

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (14)