Quick Poll: LC 200-What Octane Do You Use?

[Romer]

Thanks for the info on mid grade being a waste of money.

It use to make a difference with cleaners, but that seems to have changed. I also ran mid grade as an experiment in my BMW Z4 and it started knocking badly, premium was recommended. That is a high pressure performance engine though

Old age and experience in the 70's and 80's has colored my thoughts here. I guess it isn't to late to teach an old dog new tricks

 

[T4Runner]

After filling up on premium today at $2.47/gal, I contacted Shell USA (being that I'm a loyal customer and user of V-Power Nitro+ as stated in my first post in this thread). I paraphrased their lengthy response to my query.

Top Tier gasoline is a certification program implemented by multiple auto manufactures (including Toyota) and not by the gas companies. It equates to fuel with detergents that exceed EPA mandates. These fuels are intended to keep engines cleaner and running more efficiently, which in turn means they will require less maintenance due to things like dirty plugs, valves, etc.

As has been discussed previously in this thread, octane ratings vary by region. Shell uses the Anti Knock Index (AKI). The formula for AKI is RON+MON/2 (see previous posting on RON and MON for more info). Shell octane ratings range from 85 to 93. "V-Power Nitro+" is their premium level (depending upon locale, 91-93).

Shell states: "Using premium fuel (91 to 93 AKI) burned in an engine that only requires 87 or 89 octane fuel will not produce more power or better fuel economy (even though there is an “expectation” of better fuel mileage when using a 93 octane fuel in an engine that only requires an 87 or 89)." They go on to emphasize that if it is recommended to run on premium, then you should not use a lower grade.

All Shell grades use their "patented nitrogen enriched detergent package." V-Power Nitro+ Premium has "7 times the detergent required by the EPA." Their lowest grade has 50% and their middle grade has 75% of the detergents present in their premium grade product.

I'm going to stay the course as I outlined earlier...

 

[Hothonda]

Engines in the Lexus & Land Cruiser are identical specification...yes-no?

 

[Markuson]

After filling up on premium today at $2.47/gal, I contacted Shell USA (being that I'm a loyal customer and user of V-Power Nitro+ as stated in my first post in this thread). I paraphrased their lengthy response to my query.

Top Tier gasoline is a certification program implemented by multiple auto manufactures (including Toyota) and not by the gas companies. It equates to fuel with detergents that exceed EPA mandates. These fuels are intended to keep engines cleaner and running more efficiently, which in turn means they will require less maintenance due to things like dirty plugs, valves, etc.

As has been discussed previously in this thread, octane ratings vary by region. Shell uses the Anti Knock Index (AKI). The formula for AKI is RON+MON/2 (see previous posting on RON and MON for more info). Shell octane ratings range from 85 to 93. "V-Power Nitro+" is their premium level (depending upon locale, 91-93).

Shell states: "Using premium fuel (91 to 93 AKI) burned in an engine that only requires 87 or 89 octane fuel will not produce more power or better fuel economy (even though there is an “expectation” of better fuel mileage when using a 93 octane fuel in an engine that only requires an 87 or 89)." They go on to emphasize that if it is recommended to run on premium, then you should not use a lower grade.

All Shell grades use their "patented nitrogen enriched detergent package." V-Power Nitro+ Premium has "7 times the detergent required by the EPA." Their lowest grade has 50% and their middle grade has 75% of the detergents present in their premium grade product.

I'm going to stay the course as I outlined earlier...

So according to Shell, even their low grade has 3.5 times the required detergent (if VPower has 7 times, and 87 has half that...then 87 has 350% or 3.5x the requirement). Sounds pretty dang adequate to me.

Kudos to your Shell guy for at least having a plausible explanation.

 

[gaijin]

Engines in the Lexus & Land Cruiser are identical specification...yes-no?

No

 

[Markuson]

No

I haven't been able to find any discernible difference between the Lexus 5.7 and the LC 5.7.
But I'm no mechanic or engineer...
Can you explain the difference (other than the Lexus manual calling for 91 (but 87 is OK)...and the LC manual calling for 87?

 

[gaijin]

I haven't been able to find any discernible difference between the Lexus 5.7 and the LC 5.7.
But I'm no mechanic or engineer...
Can you explain the difference (other than the Lexus manual calling for 91 (but 87 is OK)...and the LC manual calling for 87?

You didn't look very hard ... but then it is not a big difference.

LC engine is spec'd at 381 hp @ 5600 rpm and 401 lb.-ft. of torque @ 3600 rpm (2016 Toyota Land Cruiser | The timeless icon. )

LX engine is spec'd at 383 hp @ 5600 rpm and 403 lb.-ft. of torque @ 3600 rpm (Larry H. Miller Lexus Murray Is Your Lexus Dealer in Greater Salt Lake City )

The question I was answering was:

Engines in the Lexus & Land Cruiser are identical specification...yes-no?

And I have shown you the difference in the specifications ... so, no, the LX and LC engines are not identical specifications.

Those are facts.

My opinion, however, is that both engines are identical. It is my further opinion that Toyota feel the only way they can guarantee the additional 2 hp and 2 lb.-ft. of torque for the LX is to recommend 91 octane fuel. It is my even further opinion that if we run our LC engines on 91 octane, we will realize the same hp and torque as the LX engine; and, conversely, anyone running their LX on 87 octane will realize the same hp and torque as the LC engine.

Will anyone ever actually feel those "extra" hp and torque figures? Highly doubtful.

So, the ultimate conclusion could be that for marketing reasons Toyota wanted to put "better" specs, no matter how small or insignificant, on the LX compared to the LC. Engineering then probably told marketing that a 91 octane recommendation would be required to guarantee those "better" specs. Marketing probably responded with something like, "Great! Asking people to pay more to feed a luxury version just makes sense and supports the concept of a "better" spec - even if nobody will ever feel it."

Frankly, it's much ado about nothing.

HTH

 

[dukmon]

What gaijin said. Period.

 

[Hothonda]

You didn't look very hard ... but then it is not a big difference.

LC engine is spec'd at 381 hp @ 5600 rpm and 401 lb.-ft. of torque @ 3600 rpm (2016 Toyota Land Cruiser | The timeless icon. )

LX engine is spec'd at 383 hp @ 5600 rpm and 403 lb.-ft. of torque @ 3600 rpm (Larry H. Miller Lexus Murray Is Your Lexus Dealer in Greater Salt Lake City )

The question I was answering was:



And I have shown you the difference in the specifications ... so, no, the LX and LC engines are not identical specifications.

Those are facts.

My opinion, however, is that both engines are identical. It is my further opinion that Toyota feel the only way they can guarantee the additional 2 hp and 2 lb.-ft. of torque for the LX is to recommend 91 octane fuel. It is my even further opinion that if we run our LC engines on 91 octane, we will realize the same hp and torque as the LX engine; and, conversely, anyone running their LX on 87 octane will realize the same hp and torque as the LC engine.

Will anyone ever actually feel those "extra" hp and torque figures? Highly doubtful.

So, the ultimate conclusion could be that for marketing reasons Toyota wanted to put "better" specs, no matter how small or insignificant, on the LX compared to the LC. Engineering then probably told marketing that a 91 octane recommendation would be required to guarantee those "better" specs. Marketing probably responded with something like, "Great! Asking people to pay more to feed a luxury version just makes sense and supports the concept of a "better" spec - even if nobody will ever feel it."

Frankly, it's much ado about nothing.

HTH

THX!

 

[ceb]

You didn't look very hard ... but then it is not a big difference.

LC engine is spec'd at 381 hp @ 5600 rpm and 401 lb.-ft. of torque @ 3600 rpm (2016 Toyota Land Cruiser | The timeless icon. )

LX engine is spec'd at 383 hp @ 5600 rpm and 403 lb.-ft. of torque @ 3600 rpm (Larry H. Miller Lexus Murray Is Your Lexus Dealer in Greater Salt Lake City )

The question I was answering was:



And I have shown you the difference in the specifications ... so, no, the LX and LC engines are not identical specifications.

Those are facts.

My opinion, however, is that both engines are identical. It is my further opinion that Toyota feel the only way they can guarantee the additional 2 hp and 2 lb.-ft. of torque for the LX is to recommend 91 octane fuel. It is my even further opinion that if we run our LC engines on 91 octane, we will realize the same hp and torque as the LX engine; and, conversely, anyone running their LX on 87 octane will realize the same hp and torque as the LC engine.

Will anyone ever actually feel those "extra" hp and torque figures? Highly doubtful.

So, the ultimate conclusion could be that for marketing reasons Toyota wanted to put "better" specs, no matter how small or insignificant, on the LX compared to the LC. Engineering then probably told marketing that a 91 octane recommendation would be required to guarantee those "better" specs. Marketing probably responded with something like, "Great! Asking people to pay more to feed a luxury version just makes sense and supports the concept of a "better" spec - even if nobody will ever feel it."

Frankly, it's much ado about nothing.

HTH

Isn't that the same thing I said a few posts ago?

 

[gaijin]

Isn't that the same thing I said a few posts ago?

Uh ... no.

 

[Markuson]

THX!

Right. I mean besides the 2hp.

I mean...that's barely more than half of 1%.

You didn't look very hard ... but then it is not a big difference.

LC engine is spec'd at 381 hp @ 5600 rpm and 401 lb.-ft. of torque @ 3600 rpm (2016 Toyota Land Cruiser | The timeless icon. )

LX engine is spec'd at 383 hp @ 5600 rpm and 403 lb.-ft. of torque @ 3600 rpm (Larry H. Miller Lexus Murray Is Your Lexus Dealer in Greater Salt Lake City )

The question I was answering was:



And I have shown you the difference in the specifications ... so, no, the LX and LC engines are not identical specifications.

Those are facts.

My opinion, however, is that both engines are identical. It is my further opinion that Toyota feel the only way they can guarantee the additional 2 hp and 2 lb.-ft. of torque for the LX is to recommend 91 octane fuel. It is my even further opinion that if we run our LC engines on 91 octane, we will realize the same hp and torque as the LX engine; and, conversely, anyone running their LX on 87 octane will realize the same hp and torque as the LC engine.

Will anyone ever actually feel those "extra" hp and torque figures? Highly doubtful.

So, the ultimate conclusion could be that for marketing reasons Toyota wanted to put "better" specs, no matter how small or insignificant, on the LX compared to the LC. Engineering then probably told marketing that a 91 octane recommendation would be required to guarantee those "better" specs. Marketing probably responded with something like, "Great! Asking people to pay more to feed a luxury version just makes sense and supports the concept of a "better" spec - even if nobody will ever feel it."

Frankly, it's much ado about nothing.

HTH

I think most are aware of the 2hp and 2 torque difference...
I was looking for spec differences that actually matter...or that indicate ANY physical or electrical characteristics that are different.

I agree that it may be Toyota playing a rather silly head-game with LX buyers, bolstering the concept of "LX-ness" --no matter how infinitesimally small.

383 vs. 381 is LESS that 0.6% difference.
Torque percentage an even smaller percentage.

I would think even environmental differences on any given day might get you 0.5% change in either direction.

 

[ceb]

Uh ... no.

Perhaps you missed this from post 36:

"...The case of the LC/LX is interesting and we need to ask ourselves a few questions:

Why does the LX "recommend" premium? Does it actually bring a benefit or is it a marketing ploy to fool consumers - the LX is premium so it must use a premium gas.

Why does the LC require regular? Is it because the Toyota is more mainstream and Toyota has decided that all Toyotas use regular gas? Would the LC actually benefit from higher octane (even though we know that any difference doesn't make sense financially)?

Are the two engines the same (I think they are)? are the rated outputs the same? If the LX output is higher than that of the LC then the 89 octane rating of the LC may be a marketing ploy. If, OTOH, the ratings are the same, then it goes back to my first point - LX is premium so it should use premium gas..."

 

[gaijin]

Perhaps you missed this from post 36:

"...The case of the LC/LX is interesting and we need to ask ourselves a few questions:

Why does the LX "recommend" premium? Does it actually bring a benefit or is it a marketing ploy to fool consumers - the LX is premium so it must use a premium gas.

Why does the LC require regular? Is it because the Toyota is more mainstream and Toyota has decided that all Toyotas use regular gas? Would the LC actually benefit from higher octane (even though we know that any difference doesn't make sense financially)?

Are the two engines the same (I think they are)? are the rated outputs the same? If the LX output is higher than that of the LC then the 89 octane rating of the LC may be a marketing ploy. If, OTOH, the ratings are the same, then it goes back to my first point - LX is premium so it should use premium gas..."

I saw all your questions ... I just missed the answers ...

 

[Desert Nomad]

I use 98 octane in my cruiser, it was fine running on 95 octane *(ratings are a little over exaggerated here) until a bad batch of fuel hit the market, burnt and clogged all 4 cats and had to repeatedly clean out the injectors and fuel system. Sticking to 98 and running de-catted. You realise you have a serious problem when your mash the pedal to the floor going flat out on the highway and a 90's suburban goes flying past you

Tests showed huge amounts of MMT (Methylcyclopentadienyl Mangenese Tricarbonyl) mixed into the 95 rated fuel.

 

[Angelo1]

I use 85 here in Co. I ran my last '08 LC 200 before I sold it with 115k miles using only 85. I started it with 91oct. when I bought it. I switched to 85 after a few months to compare and noticed zero difference in mileage or performance. I'm happy with 85

 

[Markuson]

So after a full tank of 87 instead of my usual 91...

...I DO have a SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE to report!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The difference is...

...I save about $6 bucks a tank!

Absolutely no discernible difference besides the "free sandwich and Smoothie" at Costco!

(OK...Sandwich $3.99 & Smoothie $2...only "free" if I don't save with 87). Heh.

 

[studawg]

I use whatever octane the ethanol-free variety comes in, varies between reg, mid grade and premium. If all three are available without ethanol at the gas station I fill up at, I go with 89.

From an article in Road and Track...

"If the engine is tuned for regular but fueled with something of higher octane, things are a tad more complex. Most modern knock-sensed ignitions seek MBT timing and thus, at least in theory, profit from the added octane. Some, though, have preset ceilings beyond which they won't advance."

------------

"Another interesting factoid, albeit one that's a bit contorted: Premium fuel is good for a catalytic converter. In allowing advanced timing of ignition, the fuel has a longer burn duration. This in turn gives more time for heat transfer within the combustion chamber—which results in reduced temperature of exhaust gases. This cooler "engine-out" condition makes for an easier thermal life of downstream catalysts. (It's a carefully engineered balance—quick warmup to cut cold-start emissions, hot enough to promote catalyst efficiency, but not to the detriment of durability.)"



Pretty sure the timing on the LX is set to run on the higher octane, which is why its recommending premium fuel, to achieve those stated specs. If lower octane is used, it senses that and retards timing. The LC is timed for 87, and if a higher octane is used, it may advance timing to take advantage of the higher octane, according to that first paragraph above. Even if our engines don't advance the timing for higher octane, at least it will see benefit to the CC from lower exhaust temps.

This is my logic, anyway.

 

[ceb]

I use whatever octane the ethanol-free variety comes in, varies between reg, mid grade and premium. If all three are available without ethanol at the gas station I fill up at, I go with 89.

From an article in Road and Track...

"If the engine is tuned for regular but fueled with something of higher octane, things are a tad more complex. Most modern knock-sensed ignitions seek MBT timing and thus, at least in theory, profit from the added octane. Some, though, have preset ceilings beyond which they won't advance."

------------

"Another interesting factoid, albeit one that's a bit contorted: Premium fuel is good for a catalytic converter. In allowing advanced timing of ignition, the fuel has a longer burn duration. This in turn gives more time for heat transfer within the combustion chamber—which results in reduced temperature of exhaust gases. This cooler "engine-out" condition makes for an easier thermal life of downstream catalysts. (It's a carefully engineered balance—quick warmup to cut cold-start emissions, hot enough to promote catalyst efficiency, but not to the detriment of durability.)"



Pretty sure the timing on the LX is set to run on the higher octane, which is why its recommending premium fuel, to achieve those stated specs. If lower octane is used, it senses that and retards timing. The LC is timed for 87, and if a higher octane is used, it may advance timing to take advantage of the higher octane, according to that first paragraph above. Even if our engines don't advance the timing for higher octane, at least it will see benefit to the CC from lower exhaust temps.

This is my logic, anyway.

If the engine doesn't take advantage of the higher octane then there aren't any lower exhaust temps either.

 

[studawg]

Ahhh, thats true, but since "most modern knocked-sensed ignitions seek Minimum advance for Best Torque", Im assuming ours does.