Edmunds CarPool

I agree. The idea that I may be in some backwater wilderness (be it Alaska, Canada, Mojave, the Rubicon or Baha) and have the low-fuel light on, then see a lone gas station pump sitting there between the dust devils and swaying corrugated steel, and have to ask the grizzled old proprietor, "So, um, this is premium fuel, right?"
 
Just doesn't make sense to me.

One more thing...
 
Requiring premium on a vehicle that likely will rarely if ever see 20+ mpg is akin to rubbing salt in the wound. I hope for '08 Toyota retunes this engine for regular gas.
 
Actually, I hope Toyota decides to bring over the 3.0L turbo diesel that they offer on the Aussie-spec Land Cruiser Prado, which is similar to our Lexus GX470, and which the FJ chassis is based on. That would be a perfect engine for this vehicle.

Argh, I can't understand the idea of cheaping out on gas when a tankful costs so much regardless of 87 or 91 octane.
 
The FJ has a 19 gallon tank and it gets 16/19 with a manual on premium gas. So let's say 18 mpg. One tankful will take you ~342 miles at a cost of 3.40 a gallon (san diego prices I saw today) = $64.60
 
If you use cheap gas you'll retard the engine's timing and that will impact mpgs too. Let's say combined 17 mpg. To go 342 miles you'll need 20.12 gallons of 87 octane at $3.20 a gallon = $64.37.
 
Where are the savings? You are robbing the engine of the power it was designed to provide. And you'll need to stop more often for gas.
 
Sorry, see this often on premium luxury boards and it makes me wonder what people are thinking. Even when the operating costs make a fillup $3 more expensive, I don't get the logic. Back when gas was $1 for 87 and 1.20 for 91 I could see the savings. But today gas is so pricey that the 20 to 25 cent gulf means nothing.

Someone should do a controlled test to see how much switching gas grades actually affects fuel economy (for cars that "require" it)... the 5% drop from 18 to 17 mpg seems to me like an overestimate, but this is just a gut feeling that has no supporting evidence. I did a search, but found nothing.

blueguydotcom, you're missing the points being made here.
 
• This is an off-road vehicle designed to take you to the ends of the earth, or so Toyota would like you to believe. That being the case, and for people who do take this far into the backwoods, premium gas may not be available. It's dumb planning on Toyota's part.
 
• If the 4.0 4Runner and Tacoma uses regular, why should this vehicle be required to use premium? All these vehicles are off-roaders.
 
• The "savings" issue is more of an inconvenience, and an added pain in the rear, that's not necessary when regular-grade 4.0 engines are already in the Toyota parts bin.

If I go with your logic bluedotguy, it sounds as if Toyota is incapable of producing that amount of power with this size engine in this vehicle with that level of fuel efficiency WITHOUT going the premium route (higher compression ratio or something?). I just can't see that.
 
It's not cheaping out to desire the ability to use regular fuel in this vehicle, and even still expect to achieve the same mileage (others already do). Of course, that may've cost Toyota a little more up front somewhere in the engine design / tuning (not sure how though- given the other Toy examples that have been mentioned here), rather than costing you as the owner during the lifetime of your ownership.
 
And then there's the simple issue that everyone else is talking about- it's a vehicle designed to take you into the boonies- shouldn't you expect it to run on the fuels most likely to be available there?

"shouldn't you expect it to run on the fuels most likely to be available there?"
 
No, I don't think so. At least not in very remote areas.
 
For me it comes down to what was the "mission statement" for this vehicle?
 
Was it to build the most practical and functional off-roader that Toyota could possibly build at a reasonable price point?
 
Or was it really intended to be a good off-roader—but really more important—to be a vehicle to impress on the Las Vegas strip?
 
If it was the first, Toyota blew it. If it was the latter, they succeeded admirably.

Jerry, you're point about Toyota not achieving the desired gas mileage without going to premium fuel may have some truth. If that's the case, I still think it's a lose-lose scenario for Toyota. You're damed if you do, and you're damned if you don't...

Whoa, it's an SUV, people. It's designed to drive on highways and in suburbs. It's got its retro design to look "cool" and offer a bling factor that regular toyotas do not possess. The idea that FJ buyers are out in the "boonies" is pretty amusing. They're taking the car to the mall, not the rubicon. you're more likely to see one parked at the beach parking lot than out in Joshua Tree.
 
You can still put low grade gas in it...the engine just won't perform to the same levels as it was designed for higher compression. The ECU will compensate and the driver will get less power and lower economy.
 
BTW. I'm curious as to where they're gonna find a gas station that only has 87 octane. As I travel for work and end up in all kinds of places (in the past few months I've been to Texas, Florida, Missouri, Georgia, Oklahoma, California, MS and Nevada) and I've yet to see a station that only carries 87 octane. I'm often in remote god-awful places too (as if being in Oklahoma isn't bad enough, try going to Durant).
 
The 4.0 engines are irrelevant in the discussion. The engine is what it is. Why is this really such a big deal to people? It's $4 more per fillup. If the fillup is costing you $60 with 87 octane, then $64 isn't even a 10% bump. It's neglible.

I can budget for a capital expense like a new car, but it's harder to guesstimate what gas will cost next year. I'm pretty sure that premium is going to be higher than regular though and I'm not willing to pay extra at the pump. There's usually a .20 cent differential here between regular and premium. I've burned over 5,000 gallons in my '99 minivan to date, so there's $1,000 I've saved.
  
Oh, you can still find 85 octane in higher elevations, like parts of the Rocky Mountain states.

When you multiply $4.00 per tank over the lifespan of the vehicle, it's not as small a number as you suggest.

15000 miles a year / 20 mpg * $3.40/gallon = 2550
 
15000 miles a year/ 20 mpg * $3.20/gallon = 2400
 
A measely $150 a year or $3 a week difference. Eek!