Rising Sun Member Forums  

Go Back   Rising Sun Member Forums > Toyota 4x4 > General Chit Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 04-12-2013, 08:55 AM
Telly Telly is offline
Locked
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Monument
Posts: 268
Default 1st Tank, MPG Report

I burned my first full tank of gas in the new 100. Thought I'd share my mgp experience. 2003 with 135,000, full tank of Costco 85 octane, drove conservative (soft accelleration & at or below the speed limit), 60/40 highway/city driving. The fuel light came on at 335 miles and I filled with 359 miles. MPG = 15.9. Not too bad. With better fuel with mostly highway and ideal weather, I think the rig could reach 17 mpg but I doubt I'll ever see it. My 07 Tacoma used to get 19-20 so this is not too big of a hit in MPG.
Doug
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-12-2013, 09:04 AM
MDH33's Avatar
MDH33 MDH33 is offline
Hard Core 4+
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Land of Corn
Posts: 5,770
Default

I haven't tested very accurately, but it seems like our Tundra gets pretty similar mileage to our old Tacoma as well. Definitely doesn't work as hard climbing the hills.
__________________
--Martin
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-12-2013, 09:05 AM
Corbet's Avatar
Corbet Corbet is offline
Hard Core 4+
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Durango, Colorado
Posts: 3,880
Default

When I was researching 100's on MUD years ago most reported that premium fuel provided enough MPG to offset the additional cost.

Now that many in the club have them someone is sure to post up.
__________________
Speski OffRoad LTD, Cargo Solutions for Toyota 4x4's http://www.SpeskiOffRoad.com
"80 series, with a fridge"
1976 FJ40, Project with little progress.
2004 Starcraft 10RT

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-12-2013, 09:44 AM
spectre6000 spectre6000 is offline
Locked
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Coal Creek Canyon
Posts: 299
Default

Unless the 100 has a high compression engine (which I feel pretty safe saying it doesn't) high octane fuel isn't going to help. Higher octane fuel in a higher compression engine CAN yield better fuel economy because the ECU (modern engines only here) will retard timing (producing less output) in the presence of low octane fuel. All octane does is prevent ping (like the tetraethyl lead used to do).

What might help (depends on who supplies the fuel at your Costco) is getting better quality gasoline. Murphy Oil tends to be the go-to supplier for most of the really cheap off-brand fuel stations, and the low quality fuel can absolutely have an effect on how your engine runs and the resulting fuel economy. For instance, in my air cooled cars (more sensitive to tune and such than water cooled cars), I stick with Exxon or Chevron (the "up to 10% ethanol" blend) because it's consistent enough to tune for and it's good quality. After running for several months on Exxon, I was once forced to fill up at a station in the sticks that was definitely not the good stuff. The engine ran noticeably hotter, slower, and got 2-3 mpg worse. The next fill up was with quality fuel and was like a free tune up. The cost difference between name brand quality gas and the cheap crap you find at discount pumps is absolutely worth it and can yield positive MPG results; additional octane is only worth it in modern high compression scenarios...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-12-2013, 10:22 AM
RicardoJM's Avatar
RicardoJM RicardoJM is offline
Rising Sun Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Centennial, CO
Posts: 2,293
Default

I compute MPG with every fill up. Pretty solidly 16.something MPG mean value. Occassionally, I'll see something in the 15.something - 14.something area and less often I get 17.something. I put in premium. My LX470 is a stock 99 that I've been driving for 10 years.
__________________
Ricardo Maestas - Bio Page
KD0CAW
1999 LX 470, 1971 FJ-40
TLCA #18941
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-13-2013, 08:14 AM
farnhamstj's Avatar
farnhamstj farnhamstj is offline
Hard Core 4+
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: vail co
Posts: 2,576
Default

I have always run 91. I believe there was a software update that makes is acceptable to run 85.???

15.9 is about the best you will ever see. But you didn't but a 100 for the gas milage.
__________________
98 uzj100. Factory rear-ARB front locked 4.88's. ARB Bull, Warn 9000, Irbis rear bumper, Slee sliders and belly pan. OME t-bars w/863 rears, HID, XM
KD0GWO
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-14-2013, 08:11 PM
corsair23's Avatar
corsair23 corsair23 is offline
Rising Sun Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Littleton
Posts: 8,697
Default

Am I wrong in my thinking that most non-carbureated, EFI vehicles anymore typically require 87 or higher?

Once in awhile I'll put 91 in the LX but typically I run 87...I don't think I've ever put 85 in there...The 40 yes, but not the LX. Am I wasting $$
__________________
Jeff Z. (the "not quite as skinny" one)
TLCA #17037
'97 LX450 - aka "The Whale"
'97 FZJ80 Antique Sage AE #267, stock
12/74 FJ40, 2F, SM420, 4" Lift, ARBs, 33" MTRs

:

"...anything else i can do for you guys, how about i wash your car or mow your lawn while you figure out your firewall system? I am now boarderline insane/unibomber." Kipper

"That assumes I'm even capable of pulling and stabbing..." Jacket

"I really like having a detachable unit." Beater
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-15-2013, 08:04 AM
subzali's Avatar
subzali subzali is offline
Rising Sun member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver CO
Posts: 7,464
Default

My 2000 Tundra manual calls for I think 86 or 87 or higher...I'll have to double check that though.

My 22RE red truck would ping on 85 so I always used 87.
__________________
Matt Miller
"Stay the Trail," "Tread Lightly," and "Leave No Trace" ethics
TLCA# 13684
Rising Sun Bio
1977 FJ40 2F "Brahma" + Lockright, tach, Warn 8274, FJ60 Power Steering, soon to lose the Sanden OBA to go back to factory emissions
1996 FZJ80 1FZ-FE factory lockers + Safari Turbo , CDL switch, cup holder, AATLAS1X leather, heated seats and JDM switches
2000 Tundra Limited TRD 2UZ-FE SOLD
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-15-2013, 11:32 AM
coax's Avatar
coax coax is offline
Hard Core 4+
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Estes Park
Posts: 601
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corsair23 View Post
Am I wrong in my thinking that most non-carbureated, EFI vehicles anymore typically require 87 or higher?

Once in awhile I'll put 91 in the LX but typically I run 87...I don't think I've ever put 85 in there...The 40 yes, but not the LX. Am I wasting $$
I'm definitely not an expert, but I would imagine those octane requirements have to apply for sea level, where you'll need more octane. Up here at 5k+ I don't imagine that 85 would pose any problems (and why our low grade starts at 85 compared to other lower elevation places where it starts at 87). Of course other factors like heat, carbon buildup, RPM, timing setting, throttle will also affect octane requirements. FWIW

I run 85 in the cruiser with the timing at about 4 degrees, but at 8k feet and high RPMs detonation shouldn't ever be an issue. Granted I had the head all cleaned when Robbie did the HG so no carbon build up in there.
__________________
-Corey
'97 lx450, 170k, factory lockers, ome 850/863, 285's, 4 working doors(1 more than the old fj55 )
'74 project pig (sold)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-15-2013, 11:36 AM
coax's Avatar
coax coax is offline
Hard Core 4+
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Estes Park
Posts: 601
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corbet View Post
When I was researching 100's on MUD years ago most reported that premium fuel provided enough MPG to offset the additional cost.

Now that many in the club have them someone is sure to post up.
Does anyone know if the 100's fuel management will actively advance timing if the octane supports it? I was under the impression that most (if not all) cars will run on a standard timing map, and reduce timing in large increments if knock is detected. I was not aware that any engines would advance the timing past the map until it gets close to pinging, and then dial it back a bit? Seems pretty risky from an engine live standpoint? And hence really no mileage gain from higher octane? (Since octane rating is not a measurement of energy content in the fuel, but the resistance of the fuel to detonate?

Mostly just curious as I did a bunch of reading about knock/detonation/timing/octane/etc recently. Interesting stuff.
__________________
-Corey
'97 lx450, 170k, factory lockers, ome 850/863, 285's, 4 working doors(1 more than the old fj55 )
'74 project pig (sold)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.