For Previous 80 owners

[OregonLC]

My basic understanding is most engines have a knock sensor and when it senses pre-ignition, the computer will retard the timing. From the engine's I've tinkered with, full advanced timing comes on way before WOT so I'm guessing at even half throttle, there should be a difference.

But I agree, my butt dyno is having a hard time telling if there is a difference between regular and premium unleaded, power wise. There's just too much weight and slush in the system.

Even if full advance timing comes before WOT, timing alone isn't the only causation of knock. Heat and pressure also come into play. So in a cooler climate with an 'economically' driven LC I would assume that knock could be avoided even with optimized timing.

So if your driving habits and environment don't ever introduce knock then your engine should be optimized on 87 without any benefit from 92 (except to fuel vendor).

It would be interesting to watch a dyno run with an engine monitor showing what the ECU was doing to timing across the curve and in response to various throttle inputs.

In all honesty, I tend to hedge the debate right in the middle with 89. Again, no data just personal preference. The one thing I would absolutely argue is the benefit of using quality gas (i.e. Chevron, Shell, etc). I never use the cheap stuff.

 

[dclee]

The one thing I would absolutely argue is the benefit of using quality gas (i.e. Chevron, Shell, etc). I never use the cheap stuff.

x2, at least if you are planning to keep your truck for a while.

As far as knock, I think in most situations this is not an issue. I can run 87 fine in my 2004. However, what I have found in experiments is that gas mileage definitely takes a hit running 87 over 92 (all we get in California). In fact, if I calculate dollar per mile, it is actually higher running 87 octane, at least in my truck. So I run 92 because it is actually cheaper to do so in my particular truck.

 

[spressomon]

x2, at least if you are planning to keep your truck for a while.

As far as knock, I think in most situations this is not an issue. I can run 87 fine in my 2004. However, what I have found in experiments is that gas mileage definitely takes a hit running 87 over 92 (all we get in California). In fact, if I calculate dollar per mile, it is actually higher running 87 octane, at least in my truck. So I run 92 because it is actually cheaper to do so in my particular truck.

I can believe this especially at or near sea level.

 

[OregonLC]

I can believe this especially at or near sea level.

which part? the no knock or the mileage hit?

 

[spressomon]

which part? the no knock or the mileage hit?

Needing higher octane.

 

[OregonLC]

Needing higher octane.

If higher Octane is needed, wouldn't sea level be the most certain need? I thought places like Denver had premium that was only 89.

 

[SR.GRINGO]

Smoke, I used to run a 94 locked cruiser....for me a much different animal. The 94 would go up, down, or through pretty much anything. I think with lockers the 100 could go places but it is big. On the other hand I accidently jumped the 100 in the city the other day and upon landing it was silky smooth I usually have the PWR button depressed...it is fun but more like driving a Lexus.

If I were you keep the 95, and purchase either an 03+, or a 06+.

*****The Idaho Doug of the 100 series is spresso(Dan)

 

[TheFuzz]

If higher Octane is needed, wouldn't sea level be the most certain need? I thought places like Denver had premium that was only 89.

91 is premium here. The difference is mid grade is 87 (instead of 89), and regular is 85 (instead of 87). Your theory is correct though. Higher altitude = less O2/lower atmospheric pressure = reduced absolute compression in the cylinder = lower octane requirements. Of course, that doesn't keep them from charging us the same price as the higher octanes.

At sea level you would see the biggest improvent using higher octane fuels...and correspondingly, you'd see the biggest hit from using lower octane.

 

[jdlsantos]

Swapping my 80 for a 100, I can still be happy?

I am running a LX450 97's, very nice rig, off road not complaint at all, but for the long trip (cross-country or out US) it is not so comfortable and have to stop each 200 miles to put gas.
If i understand this post the 100's could be perfect, but not to hard core off road, but what do you think if can run a 100’s over solid axle on front?
I am talking about to fit 80's axles to a 100, front and rear.
But still the problem of the low gas efficient, how I can solve that? With diesel engine!

Thanks
Jonathan

 

[LandCruiserPhil]

I am running a LX450 97's, very nice rig, off road not complaint at all, but for the long trip (cross-country or out US) it is not so comfortable and have to stop each 200 miles to put gas.
If i understand this post the 100's could be perfect, but not to hard core off road, but what do you think if can run a 100’s over solid axle on front?
I am talking about to fit 80's axles to a 100, front and rear.
But still the problem of the low gas efficient, how I can solve that? With diesel engine!

Thanks
Jonathan

Swapping the axle you end up with a 100 that rides like an 80. The best part about the upgrade is the overall ride and handling of a 100 series.

 

[jdlsantos]

Swapping the axle you end up with a 100 that rides like an 80. The best part about the upgrade is the overall ride and handling of a 100 series.

This project is in my mind, but I am asking me, if is so much trouble to do that, because is not usual to see this modification.

 

[re_guderian]

This project is in my mind, but I am asking me, if is so much trouble to do that, because is not usual to see this modification.

For less $ than doing a SAS and diesel implant, buy an 80 and a 100 and have the best of both worlds... In fact, you could probably buy a used prius too and still be $ ahead. Forget the dream of a fuel efficient cruiser. Physics are working against you...

 

[dclee]

At sea level you would see the biggest improvent using higher octane fuels...and correspondingly, you'd see the biggest hit from using lower octane.

That matches my results, which are all basically at sea level. At lower octane, I think the engine has to work harder, i.e. less efficiently, therefore worse gas mileage.

 

[agomez]

I like the v8 more power....

 

[scottm]

The 80 had simplicity on it's side. The 100 is great, but hard to feel completely confident about so many things I can't fix on the side of the road. Of course there are things I can't fix on the 80, age and miles were making those problems more likely, so I switched.

 

[re_guderian]

Really? What systems on the 100 are so much more complex than on the 80? both have many, many systems that are beyond the side-of-the-road repair level...

 

[dclee]

Really? What systems on the 100 are so much more complex than on the 80? both have many, many systems that are beyond the side-of-the-road repair level...

In general I would agree for the 98-99 trucks. But you must still contend with an over-complicated IFS front end that is much harder to deal with than an 80's live axle, a steering rack that is unrepairable in the field, semi-floating rear axles with non-serviceable wheel bearings, no way to run the truck if you snap a rear axle shaft, etc.

After 1999 you start getting into the electronics (with their requisite computers, wiring harnesses, relays, etc.), such as roll-sensing airbags, ATRAC, VSC, ESP, EBD, etc. (though none of those should stop you on the trail). And then you get that wonderful combined nav / climate control / stereo on virtually all trucks after 2002. I'm dealing with that one right now, but luckily I purchased a Toyota Platinum extended warranty (with the Nav unit specifically in mind when I bought it), and that is being taken care of by Toyota right now. But I would have preferred to not have had to deal with it in the first place. I will never buy another vehicle with a built-in nav system again. Not when Google Maps w/ Navigation is so convenient on my Droid phone!

 

[TheFuzz]

Not when Google Maps w/ Navigation is so convenient on my Droid phone!

[offtopic]

This is one of the several reasons that Verizon getting the iPhone just isnt' all that exciting for me. I love me some Android w/ Google Nav!

[/offtopic]

 

[SATXTLC99]

Had a 95; have a 99 and love the size, power, and comfort of the 100. Although the 80 series is beautiful IMO, I like the 100 series more. Toyota... could you bring back the 80 series body style with the 100 series V8, ride and comfort? I'd buy ONE!!

 

[dnp]

Other than the 100 being quieter, safer, much more powerful, better handling, having better brakes, more comfortable, having more room, getting better fuel mileage, having better ergonomics, and being all-around better driving, there's really no difference between the two..........