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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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