For nx200T drivers, has anyone had any engine problems after using the lower grade fuel for the long term? Just visited a dealership over the weekend and sales guy said that I should only use premium...that there have been problems with people using lower grade fuels.

 

Short term you should not see any difference, but on the long term you will get idling issues at stops.

 

Granted this is a different car, let alone a different mfg, but when I had a Subaru that required premium, it would spark knock on 87. Very few times did I ever do that and it was because I wasn't left with much choice. I only use shell fuel locally and a time or 2 the pumps were out of plus or premium.

 

Car and manual indicates premium fuel required. So why not put what the engineers instruct for the car? The car does have knock sensors to compensate for lower octane, and you'll be getting less performance (both hp and fuel economy). Save a few dollars now for a big problem later on? Not worth the risk.

Although, I have heard people with leased cars just run 87 because they aren't keeping it for the long haul. So if you're in that boat...haha

 

I have used 87 octane in my 2015 RX450h and 2013 ES300H. I have noticed no difference in fuel economy. I have used 87 octane in engines that have recommended premium for over one million miles and never ever had an engine problem. I always revert back to two MIT graduates that are car mechanics who had a syndicated radio show called Car Talk for 35 years.
http://www.cartalk.com/content/premi...egular-0#myth4

From the USA Today:
The only modern engines that should really need premium are those with superchargers, which force-feed fuel into the cylinders. "You're driving along and just tramp the gas and the knock sensor cannot sense the knock fast enough in some cases," because the supercharger boosts pressure so fast, says Bob Furey, chemist and fuels specialist at General Motors.

Burning regular when the owner's manual specifies premium won't void the warranty, nor damage the engine, even the most finicky automakers say. "You're giving up perhaps just a little bit of performance that a customer wouldn't really even notice, it's so slight," says Furey.

 

Go with the premium requirement.
Don't you think Toyota would love to have 87 the recommended gas in a 200t?
I assume the Toyota engineers know what they're doing with the premium requirement.

If leasing...go 87.

 

I use premium since the sticker says "premium required ". However, we bought a demo with 4550 miles on it. The sales person told us the 87 was fine and that's all the dealership stocked for all their cars. This is a Lexus dealer. I don't know if the salesperson was correct or not.

 

The sales person wants that commission.

 

I do fill premium but I hate that I have to. When I bought the NX I didn't pay attention to that factor too much thinking, "eh it's what, 25 cents more?" Nooope. It's a good 50-80 cents more than regular everywhere I've seen. Sure it's not that big of a deal in the big picture, but it still stings a bit every time, especially knowing that the RX takes regular.

 

I'm curious: why, pray tell, would Lexus recommend 91 octane if 87 was sufficient? What's their motive?

 

Higher horsepower rating and potential impact to fuel economy. They do this in other models ... examples are one year ES or RX required premium, the next did not but no changes to vehicle to support that (but believe HP rating was decreased very slightly).

AFAIK, turbo motors would be more sensitive to this and so I personally would use only premium if I owned one.

 

If a manufacturer tunes a car on a specific fuel then why not just use the recommended fuel? Most luxury and performance cars require premium fuel. On a reg car like a lexus, I doubt it makes a huge difference but on a performance car it does make a huge difference. One Chevron had the nozzle locations switched and I accidentally put 89 instead of 91 in my E46 M3 and I got misfires on all cylinders.

I disagree with the comments stating to just use 87 if the car is leased. Whether a car is leased or not, you should take care of it and not screw over the future owner of the car.

 

In the ideal world, sure, but we don't live in that kind of world. Once the car is off their hands, its not their business what happens for the next owner.

Personally I use 93 octane in NYC. I didn't lease, therefore I have more incentive to care for my car... maybe a little too much.

 

Of course once a car is sold then it is up to the next owner what happens to the car BUT if the previous owner(s) knowingly causes damage to that car then that is just lazy and ghetto. If people do this to save a few bucks then they can't afford that car to begin with. I bet those same hyprocrites cry about lack of accountability in today's society.

 

I would not put anything lower than premium in a turbo-charged engine. I just don't understand why you would take the risk of long-term damage to save a few bucks throughout the year.
Let's assume 12,000 miles per year, 25MPG as average, equates to 480 gallons per year. If the difference is 50 cents per gallon, we're talking about $240 a year in savings.
Do you really want to risk damage to your $40K+ vehicle by saving $240 a year?
Not worth it to me, but we are all allowed to make our choices.....no one wants to accept the consequences though.