Hi,
I've been using Ultra Premium gas on my 2003 Corolla LE but friends have told me that I'm overdoing it and that just normal unleaded would work just fine on the Corolla -- and that, in fact, the car's designed for the lower grade gas.
Anyone have suggestions as to what gas to choose?
Thanks!!
-Charlotte
Don't listen to anyone except the owners manual. The owners manual says to use "octane rating 87 OR HIGHER" . Thus Toyota engineers consider 87 the MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE octane rating but 87 is adequate if you only plan to keep your Corolla about 10 years or 150,000 miles. If you plan to keep it longer than that and want it to still be reliable then continue to use premium gas as it is best for long engine life plus it's high detergency prevents costly fuel and emission system problems like semi-clogged fuel injectors and semi-clogged catalytic converters and EGR valves.
paul, just curious....seems like you have information all over the place. do you have anything to back this up??? just curious
i have tried the higher octane on occasion, it seems
the toyota engine adjusts to the different
octanes to extract energy efficiently from all the
different octanes by the way it behaves.
On an older nissan sentra, you'd get just alittle more
mileage with noticeably improved power while the toyota , you
don't notice the power improvement but the meileage
jumps alot. The older nissan was perhaps pre tuned for
87 and perhaps was not as efficient at 89
Or one could use the 87 or 89 octane and run the occAssional bottle of fuel injector cleaner thru the system.
In some cars (perhaps not Toyotas or the Corolla), you should NOT run 92/93 octane. Those cars ar enot set up to make any use from the higher octane, and it can actually cause problems.
Those in higher altitudes, or those that have "modified" the engine, may need to up the octane as needed.
Access-denied, my information is based on real world Toyota driving experience. Example: here is photographic proof of how using premium gas and genuine Toyota parts and filters practically eliminated metal to metal engine wear on my Toyota engine even after 423,700 miles http://www.saber.net/~monarch/valveadscrew.jpg On another forum, Ted Stanwood, a 61 year old well known Portland, OR engine rebuilder made the following comment when he saw this picture: "if those are the originals, the wear is exceptional, and quite simply I have
never seen that before with the kind of mileage you state. Much more common is to see the beginning pitting, or multiple wear patterns due to normal valve adjustments over time."
PC, how does gas grade affect wear on valve adjustment screw? I admire your "real word Toyota driving experience", but example you have submitted to back up your myth ( if you remember I asked to do so back in February) is total BS.
How come I don't see picture of you truck and corolla on you web page?
Hey mpls,
Calculate out the cost savings from using premium vs regular. You'll find that, over the years, they are substantial. Toyota has indicated that 87 octane is acceptable to run in their car. They've designed the car to run on it and they've backed it up by putting it in their manual. Based on that I see no harm in using it.
Now, about those cost savings....If I were you, I'd apply the newly discovered funds to more frequent oil changes, coolant changes, transmission servicing, etc. to extend the life of your car and better tires, headlights, wiperblades and brakes to extend the life of you.
Cheers,
Regular Joe
Paul !!
I don't think the big 3 automakers
like to hear your claims of
cars lasting 400 K or more.
Thank god for Rust, otherwise
these automakers would be
out of business.
Their business model is on an ****umption
that cars last only 100k along with
unnecessary environmental costs.
As a consumer/environmenalist, I hope my toyota lasts
400k.
I totally agree, Regular Joe.
To be fair to Paul, and looking at the
cost of a new car and also the higher insurance
for new cars ... I think it is better to maintain the old one.
1 car @ 400 K with extra strict maintenance costs cheaper than
3 cars @130 k with poor maintenance.
PC, that still isn't much proof. You have shown good pictures showing that changing your oil every 3k miles with 'geninue toyota oil/oil filters' does a good job.
I just want some proof showing that higher octane gas makes it last 400k+ miles. Compared to lower octane gas having problems in that 400k miles.
The cost savings of using regular 87 octane gas vs. premium 91/92 octane is about $2,500 over 400,000 miles - ****uming premium costs 20 cents more per gallon and a car got 28 miles per gallon. However, there really isn't a $2,500 savings because the car running 87 octane is not going to get as good gas mileage due to deposits that will form on the intake valves and fuel injectors, reducing fuel efficiency. And the reduction in combustion efficiency means the EGR valve and catalytic converter will be exposed to a higher load of unburned hydrocarbons which will begin clogging them up sooner, which in turn reduces MPG even more. A third factor contributing to reduced MPG is that the engine running 87 will wear quicker and the compression pressure of the engine will decrease sooner. So by the time the car is getting only 25 MPG, the cost to run it is the same as when the car burns high octane gas and gets 28 MPG. Now factor in all the extra costs Associated with repairing/replacing expensive fuel and emission control components and it is clear there is little money saved running 87 octane over 400,000 miles vs. running premium 91/92 octane, plus the car will be less responsive and enjoyable to drive.Calculate out the cost savings from using premium vs regular. You'll find that, over the years, they are substantial.
Paul, it is not the deposits initially
that mean less gas mileage when using 87.
Higher octane gas has more useable energy
for the internal combustion engine with Less waste/pollution,
so you get more mileage and less buildup.
Hello All,
I've posted some factual information regarding fuel octane ratings and engine performace under the thread:
"Outstanding Fuel Economy"
I'd repost here, but they are long and detailed. Enjoy!
Cheers,
Regular Joe
The cost savings of using regular 87 octane gas vs. premium 91/92 octane is about $2,500 over 400,000 miles - ****uming premium costs 20 cents more per gallon and a car got 28 miles per gallon. However, there really isn't a $2,500 savings because the car running 87 octane is not going to get as good gas mileage due to deposits that will form on the intake valves and fuel injectors, reducing fuel efficiency. And the reduction in combustion efficiency means the EGR valve and catalytic converter will be exposed to a higher load of unburned hydrocarbons which will begin clogging them up sooner, which in turn reduces MPG even more. A third factor contributing to reduced MPG is that the engine running 87 will wear quicker and the compression pressure of the engine will decrease sooner. So by the time the car is getting only 25 MPG, the cost to run it is the same as when the car burns high octane gas and gets 28 MPG. Now factor in all the extra costs Associated with repairing/replacing expensive fuel and emission control components and it is clear there is little money saved running 87 octane over 400,000 miles vs. running premium 91/92 octane, plus the car will be less responsive and enjoyable to drive.Calculate out the cost savings from using premium vs regular. You'll find that, over the years, they are substantial.
I thought I'd post this because it made me laugh when I read it.
I don't know why people on this board can keep selling the maintenance benefits of high octane gasoline. I can understand why fuel companies do it. They do it to make more money. Check out what happened when EXXON made similar false claims about their products.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/1997/09/exxon.htm
There's only one place in their, court ordered, "Answering Questions About Octane" brochure that vaguely claims benefits and I noticed that they used, "EXXON believes", "some", "may", and "some" again in the same sentence. Wow, that's really laying down the concrete facts.
More general information about the pointlessness of high octane gas as it relates other fuel companies.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/fyi/real.life/10/18/gas.costs/
Cheers,
Regular Joe
The cost savings of using regular 87 octane gas vs. premium 91/92 octane is about $2,500 over 400,000 miles - ****uming premium costs 20 cents more per gallon and a car got 28 miles per gallon. However, there really isn't a $2,500 savings because the car running 87 octane is not going to get as good gas mileage due to deposits that will form on the intake valves and fuel injectors, reducing fuel efficiency. And the reduction in combustion efficiency means the EGR valve and catalytic converter will be exposed to a higher load of unburned hydrocarbons which will begin clogging them up sooner, which in turn reduces MPG even more. A third factor contributing to reduced MPG is that the engine running 87 will wear quicker and the compression pressure of the engine will decrease sooner. So by the time the car is getting only 25 MPG, the cost to run it is the same as when the car burns high octane gas and gets 28 MPG. Now factor in all the extra costs Associated with repairing/replacing expensive fuel and emission control components and it is clear there is little money saved running 87 octane over 400,000 miles vs. running premium 91/92 octane, plus the car will be less responsive and enjoyable to drive.Calculate out the cost savings from using premium vs regular. You'll find that, over the years, they are substantial.
I also have to laugh a bit. Shell is running commercials in my market about how their gasoline gets better fuel economy than competitors, then has a little "footnote" at the bottom of the screen that says when formulated a minimum required detergency or something to that effect.I thought I'd post this because it made me laugh when I read it.
I don't know why people on this board can keep selling the maintenance benefits of high octane gasoline. I can understand why fuel companies do it. They do it to make more money. Check out what happened when EXXON made similar false claims about their products.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/1997/09/exxon.htm
There's only one place in their, court ordered, "Answering Questions About Octane" brochure that vaguely claims benefits and I noticed that they used, "EXXON believes", "some", "may", and "some" again in the same sentence. Wow, that's really laying down the concrete facts.
More general information about the pointlessness of high octane gas as it relates other fuel companies.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/fyi/real.life/10/18/gas.costs/
Cheers,
Regular Joe
Well of course, if you take out as much of the detergent you legally can and the other guys haven't, you are likely to have more fuel and less "soap" (ok, not really soap, but you get the idea)
Let me see if I can find an online copy of some of their claims...
http://www.localshell.com/Content.aspx?Article=41
From reading it, I think they are saying the competitors fuel has minimum detergent content.
If they are saying 125 "free" miles over the course of 12500, that is about a 1% improvement in fuel economy. Of course, that is the "upto" figure, meaning YMMV.
Of course what they don't seem to address is will this be the same in all markets. We know Shell and other refiners have to formulate gasoline based on EPA requirements for a region, so what they blend for Cleveland may not allowed in Chicago or St. Louis.
So while what they say may be "true" I really doubt folks are going to see that 1% improvement in their mileage.
Besides, is a 1% change statistically significant? I know price wise, a 1% improvement in fuel economy over my 25K miles/year results in saving a whopping 4-5 gallons or less than $10 if gas is $2/gallon (It isn't here.)
TB
1. 87 octane is best for cars rated at 87 octane. The higher octane ratings of premium fuels are the result of different formulations. Your mileage may go DOWN with higher octane...or it may not. We generally cannot get precise measurements - the EPA with its strict testing regimen can.
2. You can get fine detergents in a good gasoline. Amoco and Chevron are usually cited as good. Exxon, Gulf, and no-names are generally not.
3. If your spark plugs are nice and clean after a year of using a gas brand, it's good 
4. As Paul would say, use Toyota brand certified gasoline (just kidding).
Because people who have used high octane gasoline, synthetic oil and genuine Toyota parts, fluids and filters have had some incredible benefits that you cannot read about in any "educational" automotive websites on the internet. Here are two examples:I don't know why people on this board can keep selling the maintenance benefits of high octane gasoline.
#1 Show me a website on the internet that educates the public about the fact that even a 1976 Toyota is capable of putting out ZERO or near zero hydrocarbon and carbon monpxide emissions after 28 years and 148,000 miles http://www.saber.net/~monarch/20rsmog.jpg There are no such websites and a huge percentage of "automotive experts" would dispute this claim or the validity of the smog test.
#2 Show me a website on the internet that educates the public about the fact that a Toyota engine can still have no substantial wear after 423,700 miles of being maintained with premium gas, synthetic oil and genuine Toyota parts and filters http://www.saber.net/~monarch/valveadscrew.jpg There just are no such websites and a huge percentage of "automotive experts" would dispute this claim or the validity of my picture. And they would also dispute my claim that not a single emission or fuel system componet wore out or failed or required replacment during those 423,700 miles (other than the PCV valve and oxygen sensor which are normal maintenance items).
Why is "insider" information like this not freely distributed to the public? Well the consequences to our economy would be catastrophic if all cars on the road were Japanese makes and lasted 600,000 miles and put out zero or near zero emissions.
Maybe I'm confused. I thought that this thread was started to discuss "What grade of gas to use?"
While your comments on oil, rad fluid, and replacement parts are appreciated, they do not have any bearing on the topic.
Also, using the Corona as an example of why you need to run high octane fuel isn't valid. You cannot claim that your low emissions are due to high octane gas because you cannot isolate it as a single contributing factor. As I've said in the past, your emissions are most likely low due to stringent fuel requirements in your state of California.
As for your environmental comments, you should take some time to investigate the environmental impact from the creation of premium fuels, especially with the addition of additives. Remember, the environmental impact of fuel consumption does not start at your gas cap and end at your tailpipe.
Cheers,
Regular Joe
I 've got no gripes with anyone on the board.
But as to the difference in performance in different
grades of gas.. you must ask one question:
Why would mercedes engineers prefer to
use only premium ??(of course, cost not being
a factor)
They have alot more resources for research,
than anyone on this board.
Hey bhp02,
The link below (to information provided by our good friends at 76) outlines why some high end car manufacturers use high octane fuel. They design the high performance/high compression ratio engines around it. That is to say that they are designed for the fuel.
http://www.boyleworks.com/ta400/psp/Mythsgas1.html
See point #11.
Cheers,
Regular Joe
the original question was whether there is
a difference in output for the internal combustion engine,
the average modern(I am ****uming) including those designed
only for
and those like the 03 corolla(which will accept different Octanes)
the amount of actual energy ultimately transfered into kinetic
energy of the auto in motion for the higher grade.
And yes in my opinion, the higher octane has higher yield
and that is why mercedes prefers to design it around the premium
grades. Of course, if the mercedes engine cannot take lower grades,
we cannot compare. But my ****umption why mercedes prefers
the higher grades is probably close.
Thanks for the info,
note point 14 also.
fuel is like water...
cheap fuel causes build ups and less power to the drop
good fuel burns more efficient and the needs less to make the power
