2019 horrible gas mileage

Western New York, some consider that upstate vs NYC though, if I tell people I’m from new York I like to specify not NYC haha. More of a country guy. I plan to keep my 4 runner stock as well and with a little around town driving and some highway to work I have been averaging 17 and change which I think is good. Highway I see 20-21 if I keep it under 65. 70 + is 18-19. Going to lake George from buffalo area in 2 weeks curious how far I get before I have to fill up.

 

Yes, I stipulate I am NOT from NYC. Upstate might as well be a a whole different country. My HS graduation class was 44, K-12 all in the same building.
Buying a TRD for us was a overkill but we just wanted one and stock it is more than capable for our use, and I always have Goldie to scratch up.

 

Now that’s a small town

 

“Downtown” consisted of a general store the size of a 2 car garage and of course the required small town Bar.
My sister still lives in Rochester.

 

My 07 Volvo with a 2.5L turbo has 230k and counting on the original turbo and it runs great. Many other owners are over 300k on original turbos.

X2 what @Thatbassguy said about German cars. Most German cars are garbage and should not be owned out of warranty. Add modifications to that, and they're ticking time bombs. Same with Subarus. They're fine till knuckleheads crank the boost to the moon.

The Volvo is a low pressure turbo tuned for torque. It makes it's peak TQ at 1800 RPM, and while the hp is relatively low, it drives great thanks to the TQ. (Unlike the 4.0 which needs a lot of RPM. I was in some traffic in hilly terrain yesterday, and trying to get back up to speed on the uphills reminded me again why I hate the 4.0 so much. On the brakes downhill, then foot to the floor on the uphills trying to regain speed to stay with traffic.

I'm all in on turbos, and a hybrid 4R would be great as well.I was looking at Marketplace yesterday, most Priuses listed are over 200k miles. Toyota has that technology down to a science.

 

My GF and I love the Finger Lakes area. We kind of want to move there, we find it amazing one can still find a home for under 200k. Rochester too, lots of nice homes there that are like 50% of comps in RI where we are.

 

I myself am heading to Lake George next week, can’t wait to take the new 4 runner on its second road trip. House prices around here depend on the area for sure. I purchased mine for $130,000 8/2019 and now is valued at $204,000 which is nuts. Typical suburban neighborhood. Meanwhile 40 miles away my friend purchased a beautiful home in the ‘country’ with 3 acres for $199,999

 

20+ years in the hybrid game I would trust it

 

Yeah, we'd definitely be late to the game, but still so much cheaper than MA or RI near where I work. I'm basically priced out of the market anywhere remotely close to my job. Not sure what the job market is there though.

 

Short staffed where I am, people used to fight to get in, now nobody applies.

 

It's the same at my place. Even with bumps in starting pay and sign on bonuses, not many people apply.

 

Actually it's the same thing where I work in Massachusetts, but this starting pay isn't enough to actually live in the area, so I don't blame anyone for not applying.

 

Same thing where I work in Massachusetts. I was just talking to a co-worker about this the other day, where I work used to be a place where you had to know somebody to get in, now we can't keep people more than a couple days in certain departments. We're having a hard time filling these positions, but I think a part of the problem is that the starting wage is nothing special, and not enough to live in the area. 2 years ago our parent company purchased a company down south, transferred all the manufacturing to our facility, and offered to relocate the employees. Not one of them took the offer, and I can't say I blame them because the cost of living up here is so damn high.

 

Where I am the starting wage is not that appealing either, but the benefits are some of the best around for time off, health insurance, pension / deferred compensation accounts and such. State benefits but low state salaries for the jobs that have to be done depending on your level of work here.

 

Late to the game here but wanted to chime in on the 91 octane discussion and clear some things up. The 5th gen 4Runner comes equipped with the 1GR-FE engine and has a 10:1 compression ratio, I couldn’t find a good chart to post here but with that compression ratio the optimal octane is really more like 100.

The owners manual states that you should select octane rating 87 or higher. The people saying that you’re wasting money running 91 are just flat out wrong both of my trucks that have had the 1GR-FE have always felt a difference between 87 & 91 especially here in the Colorado mountains. They're dogs on 87 and have some pep on 91 and cruise up the steep mountain passes with no problem on 91. 87 feels like I’m fighting to get it up the mountain.

Pretty much all new cars have a high compression ratio and could be running 91 octane, modern engine tech allows the ecu to essentially tune itself on the fly as it senses knock, engine load, air volume, throttle position etc and allows you to switch between the different octane ratings.

 

- Would you classify our current 1GR-FE engine - Modern. I believe its been same for decades. Though bullet proof. Correct me if am wrong

 

What's interesting about this is that a lot of people Will run 85 or 86 octane at higher elevations without any issues. It seems that the lower octane is generally more of an issue at lower elevation.

While the engine can learn to use higher octane fuel, it seems that any gains are never enough to justify the cost difference. Some people claim to notice a significant difference, while others claim to experience no difference with higher octane.

 

I’d classify it as modern, Toyota makes revisions to the 1GR-FE every few years so I wouldn’t say it’s been completely the same for decades. Modern engine tech is basically anything 2000 or newer, there is a difference between modern engine tech and high compression engines so I’m not trying to say that anything 2000 and up is suitable for 91.

 

The 1GR hasn't changed since like 2009.

How is your fuel economy on 91? Have you ever run lower octane long enough for a real comparison?

I'm genuinely curious. I can see how it could make a difference. But, there's conflicting information, so I'm just wondering how significant the difference is for you. Or, is it just a difference in performance?

 

It's been a few years since I have toured through Colorado, but I recall that regular gas was an 85 octane. Because of the elevation I presume (air being thinner)?

I accidentally put in 91 octane when I unknowingly bumped the wrong selector button while wrangling the hose. I did not get notably better gas mileage. Maybe 0.3 MPG at sea level. The computer adjusts the fuel mixture. I drive in eco mode.

You're talking "pep," not MPG, that might also be a key in this particular discussion. There's no right or wrong. I choose to do things to get 22MPG+.

Maybe the elevation makes a larger play on octane differences because atmospheric oxygen is less dense. $6+ a tank might be worth it there.

 

When they added the additional air pump system miraculously they were able to meet EPA standards for efficiency.

Ahmed at A Car Care Nut YouTube channel talks in depth about the iterations of the engine. It's a great story!

https://youtu.be/wDeLFAAJCyk

Other things:
https://youtu.be/JteXnrxPQJo
https://youtu.be/bQxSI0jVkY0

 

I think allot of it comes down to how well your butt dyno is tuned, some people turn the key press the accelerator and don’t care or comprehend how well the car is running. Others like myself who have worked in automotive, have driven hundreds of cars and know how well a car can drive notice the difference. To me it’s a night and day difference when I switch between 87 & 91.

What I was getting at with that reply was that there is technical merit to running 91 and that someone saying “don’t do it your engine isn’t designed for it” is wrong.

 

Nice post with good info.

Since I got my 4runner I only put 87 in. Now the next tank im only test out the 93 octane.

Its not hard to get 18+ mpg out of a 4runner.

 

Glad you brought that up. I went for a fill-up at Costco Gas immediately after getting the TRD this year.

I was pumping the 91 Octane Gas.

The Gas attendant came over to me .. Said I was wasting money putting high Octane Gas into the 4Runner.

The Engine wasn't designed to use high Octane unlike Lexus.

He suggested sticking with Top Tier Regular Gas from Costco, Shell.

Says the cleaning agents are five time better than other stations.

Word

 

Nope it’s been updated since then, I can’t find exact years and there’s probably overlap but the most notable improvement was the update from single VVT-I to dual VVT-I, my 15 Tacoma had single VVT-I and my 2020 4Runner has dual VVT-I, same engine code but updated components. There’s been other updates too I wish I could find the article I read on it months ago the wiki doesn’t have much information on the updates only the VVT-I update.

In my 15 Tacoma I always got better mpg on 91, was it worth the cost for the >1mpg improvement? No. But it was always worth it for the better performance, I do a ton of driving in varying conditions and I always regretted filling up with 87. It totally comes down to the driver I notice it because I’m always paying attention to how she’s performing, other people might not care or notice, what I was getting at with my original reply was that there is merit to running higher octane.

 

I think there is a gap here. Between what is said and what is perceived.

Tell us all about working in the automotive industry, it doesn't add credibility when you don't approach the actual context of the content. The included insult just adds to the mix.

I regularly am passed by people driving trucks doing 80-90MPH. I'm not butthurt about it, but I always will congratulate them on a spiritual level for getting 7-8 MPG. It's their money and it's their fault if they rear end somebody because of their decreased response times.

I am not a poor person, I live in a large three-story house close to the ocean in Southern California, I also choose to spend my money differently. Why give my money over to a gas station (or the highway patrol when they issue a ticket for speeding 20 over the limit) when I can put it in my high yield savings account or paying for my kids' graduate school or their mortgage?

Choices can be foolish, not necessarily wrong.

Fun fact: I'm a big proponent of front and rear facing dash cams.

 

I pay very close attention to how mine is running. I'd be more likely to experiment if the cost difference weren't so significant.

I think the argument most people are making is that you won't experience any gain in fuel economy. Or, at least not enough to justify the cost.

 

Funny, I heard a regional manager at Costco mention that the additives were 10 times the Chevron Techron level. I'm in San Diego County, and they may have changed it since supply chain issues have done quite a bit to a lot of petroleum products.

I believe that this additive story (5x or 10x) is true. I do so much better with MPGs at Costco than, say, Mobil or Shell.

 

The 4Runner has had dual VVT-I since 2010.

 

Wasn’t trying to insult just laying out some facts, the post that I replied to stated “Unfortunately, the truck has no use for 91 octane gas” and another user stated “Your engine has been designed, and your computer has been programmed to accept 87 octane fuel. Do not put premium in it.”

The bottom line is that these are high compression engines and can make use of high octane gas.

Whether it’s more economical to run 87 or 91 is where the rest of the thread picks it up and gets it right, 87 is cheaper for basically the same mpg