Ownership Experience - 200t Premium vs Regular Fuel
02-08-15, 06:10 AM
#1
Racer
Thread Starter
Ownership Experience - 200t Premium vs Regular Fuel
This is a follow up to previous discussion on fuel for the new turbo engine.
Corrado posted, .....- 200t states "Premium recommended" fuel but it doesn't state "Required". My IS for instance states "Premium Fuel ONLY". Hmmm.... Maybe we can put 87 octane in the 200t without any reliability impacts though at the expense of some performance loss possibly... TBD
I'd like to know what current owners are using. If you use regular (87 octane) are you experiencing any loss of performance or other issues?
Corrado posted, .....- 200t states "Premium recommended" fuel but it doesn't state "Required". My IS for instance states "Premium Fuel ONLY". Hmmm.... Maybe we can put 87 octane in the 200t without any reliability impacts though at the expense of some performance loss possibly... TBD
I'd like to know what current owners are using. If you use regular (87 octane) are you experiencing any loss of performance or other issues?
02-08-15, 06:27 AM
#2
The pursuit of F
So far, been using 91 octane - only third tank of gas used so far. Was planning on trying 87 eventually so I'll accelerate this and do it on the next tank and report. It's a good question... 
EDIT: I've used 87 for 3-4 tanks (never in a row) in my IS the last 18 months and no discernable differences besides "feeling" slightly less responsive.
EDIT: I've used 87 for 3-4 tanks (never in a row) in my IS the last 18 months and no discernable differences besides "feeling" slightly less responsive.
Last edited by corradoMR2; 02-08-15 at 06:45 AM.
02-08-15, 07:05 PM
#3
Lexus Test Driver
Just like almost every late model lexus, It is 91/Premium recommended with using 87 in a pinch if needed be.
If you really do your homework about cars, newer ECU programming, ECU's can make the necessary adjustments to run lower octane fuel (87) BUT for optimal performance you use 91 or higher. With 87, you may not get the full HP or full fuel economy but some people don't really care about that to much so do some research and make an educated decision about what you want out of your car
If you really do your homework about cars, newer ECU programming, ECU's can make the necessary adjustments to run lower octane fuel (87) BUT for optimal performance you use 91 or higher. With 87, you may not get the full HP or full fuel economy but some people don't really care about that to much so do some research and make an educated decision about what you want out of your car
02-09-15, 04:11 AM
#4
Lexus Test Driver
^This only applies if the car can pull enough timing in order to prevent knocking.
And really, is it that big of a deal to pay the extra 30 cents a gallon?
Assuming you drive 13,000 miles a year, at 28mpg, thats 464 gallons of gas.
For unleaded 87, say you get it for $2.25/gal, thats $1044
For unleaded 91, say you get that for $2.55/gal, thats $1183.
So $139 difference over the period of a year. Heck, thats cheaper than some dinners at a resturant. You'll never notice the difference money wise, but it will help keep your engine from knocking.
And really, is it that big of a deal to pay the extra 30 cents a gallon?
Assuming you drive 13,000 miles a year, at 28mpg, thats 464 gallons of gas.
For unleaded 87, say you get it for $2.25/gal, thats $1044
For unleaded 91, say you get that for $2.55/gal, thats $1183.
So $139 difference over the period of a year. Heck, thats cheaper than some dinners at a resturant. You'll never notice the difference money wise, but it will help keep your engine from knocking.
Last edited by Swacer; 02-09-15 at 06:15 AM.
02-09-15, 09:23 AM
#6
Lexus Test Driver
02-10-15, 03:59 PM
#7
Racer
Thread Starter
Well, the reason for my post was just to get some real world experience with those that actually own a 200t engine.
I know the math and I've done research. It will be interesting switching to 91 after using 87 in my RX. In fact I don't recall ever owning a vehicle that didn't run on Regular. I should be trading in my RX this Thursday on a NX.
I know the math and I've done research. It will be interesting switching to 91 after using 87 in my RX. In fact I don't recall ever owning a vehicle that didn't run on Regular. I should be trading in my RX this Thursday on a NX.
Trending Topics
02-10-15, 06:56 PM
#8
The pursuit of F
^This only applies if the car can pull enough timing in order to prevent knocking.
And really, is it that big of a deal to pay the extra 30 cents a gallon?
Assuming you drive 13,000 miles a year, at 28mpg, thats 464 gallons of gas.
For unleaded 87, say you get it for $2.25/gal, thats $1044
For unleaded 91, say you get that for $2.55/gal, thats $1183.
So $139 difference over the period of a year. Heck, thats cheaper than some dinners at a resturant. You'll never notice the difference money wise, but it will help keep your engine from knocking.
And really, is it that big of a deal to pay the extra 30 cents a gallon?
Assuming you drive 13,000 miles a year, at 28mpg, thats 464 gallons of gas.
For unleaded 87, say you get it for $2.25/gal, thats $1044
For unleaded 91, say you get that for $2.55/gal, thats $1183.
So $139 difference over the period of a year. Heck, thats cheaper than some dinners at a resturant. You'll never notice the difference money wise, but it will help keep your engine from knocking.
That's a reasonably cheap premium for premium fuel and I agree the cost difference is a moot point.
In Canada, the difference is more significant at 20 cents/liter, that's about 75 cents more per gallon or closer to 350$ more per year based on your calculations. And for someone averaging lower (i.e. 24 mpg) due to colder climates and/or increased city driving, the difference (541 gallons) equates to over $400 more per year.
02-10-15, 07:13 PM
#9
Lexus Champion
That's a reasonably cheap premium for premium fuel and I agree the cost difference is a moot point.
In Canada, the difference is more significant at 20 cents/liter, that's about 75 cents more per gallon or closer to 350$ more per year based on your calculations. And for someone averaging lower (i.e. 24 mpg) due to colder climates and/or increased city driving, the difference (541 gallons) equates to over $400 more per year.
In Canada, the difference is more significant at 20 cents/liter, that's about 75 cents more per gallon or closer to 350$ more per year based on your calculations. And for someone averaging lower (i.e. 24 mpg) due to colder climates and/or increased city driving, the difference (541 gallons) equates to over $400 more per year.
02-10-15, 07:53 PM
#10
The pursuit of F
UPDATE: Filled tank with 87
^^^ Pretty noticeable price difference too!
UPDATE: I filled the near-empty tank in the NX with 87 octane this morning. The drive to and from work has been uneventful but surprising, in a good way. In short, with about 70 km (45 miles) city driven on 87, I was pleasantly surprised to experience no discernable difference in power or sound. Engine was quiet, smooth, and responsive/powerful even under heavier throttle/boost as compared to 91.
I'll report again if my experience changes, in particular when I fill the next tank back to 91.
UPDATE: I filled the near-empty tank in the NX with 87 octane this morning. The drive to and from work has been uneventful but surprising, in a good way. In short, with about 70 km (45 miles) city driven on 87, I was pleasantly surprised to experience no discernable difference in power or sound. Engine was quiet, smooth, and responsive/powerful even under heavier throttle/boost as compared to 91.
I'll report again if my experience changes, in particular when I fill the next tank back to 91.
The following users liked this post:
NolaMoley (04-18-24)
02-12-15, 09:05 AM
#11
Racer
Thread Starter
^^^ Pretty noticeable price difference too!
UPDATE: I filled the near-empty tank in the NX with 87 octane this morning. The drive to and from work has been uneventful but surprising, in a good way. In short, with about 70 km (45 miles) city driven on 87, I was pleasantly surprised to experience no discernable difference in power or sound. Engine was quiet, smooth, and responsive/powerful even under heavier throttle/boost as compared to 91.
I'll report again if my experience changes, in particular when I fill the next tank back to 91.
UPDATE: I filled the near-empty tank in the NX with 87 octane this morning. The drive to and from work has been uneventful but surprising, in a good way. In short, with about 70 km (45 miles) city driven on 87, I was pleasantly surprised to experience no discernable difference in power or sound. Engine was quiet, smooth, and responsive/powerful even under heavier throttle/boost as compared to 91.
I'll report again if my experience changes, in particular when I fill the next tank back to 91.
02-12-15, 10:54 AM
#12
Driver School Candidate
My personal opinion, but to maximize the life of any engine, I think premium fuel is worthwhile. Regardless of whether the manufacturer says "required" or "recommended". But I realize the economic considerations come into play.
02-12-15, 07:12 PM
#13
I filled up my gas tank for the 5th time yesterday since I first purchased my vehicle. I have about 1370 miles on it already and I started with 13 miles back on Jan 6th. I drive about 240 miles per week for work (and that's including 1 day where I get to work from home).
Anyway, the first time I filled up, I used premium 91. But given that gas is so cheap and the difference between premium and ultra is like 2 cents, I went with Ultra 93 for the next 4 fill ups. I haven't even thought about using unleaded. Similar to what someone wrote earlier, I'm willing to pay that extra $4 or so since I'm just not sure of all the downside with the continuous use of regular unleaded.
Anyway, the first time I filled up, I used premium 91. But given that gas is so cheap and the difference between premium and ultra is like 2 cents, I went with Ultra 93 for the next 4 fill ups. I haven't even thought about using unleaded. Similar to what someone wrote earlier, I'm willing to pay that extra $4 or so since I'm just not sure of all the downside with the continuous use of regular unleaded.
02-13-15, 08:09 AM
#15
Racer
Thread Starter
smh
I honestly don't know how to convey how silly a concern of $400 over the period of a year is. To spend $45k on a vehicle..and yet try to avoid spending $400 more a year...
Maybe I"m just used to paying for 93 in my camaro (tuned to run it), and running C12 in our race cars which was anywhere from $12-20/gallon.
I honestly don't know how to convey how silly a concern of $400 over the period of a year is. To spend $45k on a vehicle..and yet try to avoid spending $400 more a year...
Maybe I"m just used to paying for 93 in my camaro (tuned to run it), and running C12 in our race cars which was anywhere from $12-20/gallon.