fuel

[bikerdude]

so I want to put the best fuel in my stinger, but i'm pretty sure not all 91 octane gas is the same quality. I have heard that chevron is one of the best. what brand are you using

 

[Stingin' Away]

Depending on your gas regulations that vary from winter and summer, it can vary greatly. I use Exxon 91 in my G since we aren't provided 93 up here. Mobil, BP, Chevron, and Exxon are all good choices. Put some fuel injector cleaner in when you get the oil changed, I do that for piece of mind.

 

[Bubbabiker]

I recommend any of the top tier branded fuels.

http://www.toptiergas.com/

 

[ralzod]

I recommend any of the top tier branded fuels.

http://www.toptiergas.com/

Agreed. Consumer Reports did a profile on this in 2016.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-maintenance/study-shows-top-tier-gasoline-worth-extra-price/

 

[Bubbabiker]

As a side note if top tier isn't available locally I would recommend adding a bottle of Chevron Techron or Gumout Regane to the tank every 3k miles or so.

 

[Shaz]

But the car can take any gas (regular or premium.). However premium is recommended?

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

 

[robz32]

Premium is always recommended, at least it should be. It burns cleaner and is more efficient. A higher octane fuel will burn cleaner, meaning that it makes combustion easier and hotter leaving the least amount of carbon deposits in the combustion chamber. For turbo engines I would always recommend running the highest octane available at the pump.

 

[Bubbabiker]

Yep. For these newer generation high compression turbocharged engines premium is recommended. The engine will tolerate regular by pulling timing which has an effect on performance and overall drive ability. With my Ford F150 Ecoboost I can tell a difference between regular and premium. And premium adds about 20HP to the EB's.

 

[mldavis2]

I'm not sure what the current thinking is on the use of Chevron Techron, but it is an extremely powerful solvent. (I'm a chemist by profession.) I'm not sure what's in Techron, but I suspect there is some carbon disulfide which dissolves carbon. In the past, the use of Techron has been recommended by a number of different manufacturers, but I think 3K is far too often to be needed and could risk deterioration of seals used in the fuel injection system if over-used. Remember that most seals are neoprene or a composite rubber, both of which contain carbon. I'm not sure of the effect on silicon seals. I plan to use it once every oil change or maybe even stretch it out to 10K. I had a Saab EMS 2.0L turbo back in the '70's that needed it about 10K and it made a huge difference. Not so much on my current rides, and if I can't tell the difference, I'm thinking it might be better to back off a bit.

Also, if you use anything like this, pour the bottle into the tank at the gas pump and then fill the tank so it gets mixed and diluted well.

If anyone has used Techron that often, I'd be interested in your results.

 

[Bubbabiker]

Both Techron and Gumout Regane contains PEA (Polyether Amine).

I wouldn't worry about the hoses/seals on late model vehicles. Seals today using synthetic materials (example Viton) which can withstand corrosive liquids like Ethanol. I've been using Techron for 30 years without any issues.

 

[mldavis2]

Both Techron and Gumout Regane contains PEA (Polyether Amine).

I wouldn't worry about the hoses/seals on late model vehicles. Seals today using synthetic materials (example Viton) which can withstand corrosive liquids like Ethanol. I've been using Techron for 30 years without any issues.

Thanks for the practical feedback, [MENTION=320]Bubbabiker[/MENTION]. The Kia salesman mentioned something about using an additive every 10K but didn't say what it was. I figured it was something sold by Kia at a huge profit. I've never used or needed anything like that on my GM small-blocks (LS2 and LS96). Is this mentioned in the user manual or just by tecchies?

 

[Kazz]

Quality additive every oil change has been a normal recommendation for years. I'll go out of my way to purchase Chevron Techron when I do choose to use it. I've not seen comparisons between products in a number of years, however.

 

[Berzerker]

Not sure why Premium is always recommended for "cleanliness." As long as your brand is Top Tier, meaning it has the certified detergents and other additives, higher octane won't burn any cleaner than regular or 87.

There's no timing issues either. If regular can be taken, the timing is calibrated for regular. Putting premium in won't alter any timing or give you any benefit.

 

[robz32]

Wrong. Premium is not only recommended for "cleanliness". It is one of the reasons but the more important one is the efficiency at which it ignites.

 

[Berzerker]

Wrong. Premium is not only recommended for "cleanliness". It is one of the reasons but the more important one is the efficiency at which it ignites.

Not even.

https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/articles/premium-gas-when-and-why/

Engines are designed for specific compression ratios. Usually, when a car requires a minimum octane rating (91 or 93), it's because the compression ratio is tuned as such for the type of engine. If it's tuned to the ratio designed that can handle 87, then there's absolutely no reason to ever pay for higher octane gas. You're simply wasting money.

 

[Bubbabiker]

No. These engines are tuned for maximum output using premium (recommended for high compression and force induction). But the ECM calibration will tolerate regular by pulling timing when the knock sensors detect detonation. Pulling timing reduces the engine power and efficiency.

Example my Ford F150 Ecoboost has a 20 HP gain by using premium (which is recommended for maximum output and towing).

 

[robz32]

Still wrong. That article is based on the assumption that a tank of premium gas every now and then will make your engine last longer. Which I agree is completely wrong. A single tank of premium every other fill up will have no benefits on your engine.
Also the article bases the assumption of not needing premium gas on the basis of pinging or knock prevention, which is completely flawed. Any car combustion engine manufacturer has to adhere to standards, and those standards, in the US for example, are using readily available gas, meaning (87-93) and sea level altitude (in order to calculate air fuel ratios) and use of materials/metals that are compatible with additives and oils available in the market.

Since 87 octane gas is the lowest octane available in the US (please correct me if I am wrong) engineers need to make sure that the engine they are going to design does not ping or knock when using the lowest octane available, but that does not mean the engine will be achieving its optimum performance using said octane nor does it mean that it will last its intended life span. Keep in mind that once the engine is designed they calculate its life span and power output by running tests on it and those tests are, more often than not, performed under optimal conditions.

Now the article goes on to say that over time the vehicle will need a higher octane fuel to prevent pinging or knock because the carbon build up will cause the compression ratio to change, and here is where they lost me. Carbon build up alone cannot change the compression on an engine enough to were it requires a higher octane fuel in order to prevent knock, the amount of carbon build up will have to be so much that your engine will probably be long gone, because of the bad maintenance practices, before it gets to that point.

My point is just because the engine can and will work using a lower octane fuel does not mean that you will be getting the performance and longevity it was designed for. Keep in mind that fuel has to travel from your gas tank to the combustion chamber and things like fuel lines, fuel filters and injectors get clogged over time under regular wear and tear and if on top of that you do not use a fuel with the proper additives (which tend to be better on higher octanes, article also states that) then you will be reducing the life span of those components as well.

 

[mldavis2]

Good posts here. A fitting analogy is to compare the powder used in a pistol cartridge with powder in a rifle cartridge. The pistol barrel is short so the powder must burn quickly to fully ignite before the bullet leaves the barrel. If the powder burns too slowly, it is still burning after the bullet has left the barrel and the energy is wasted.
On a rifle, just the opposite happens. A quick burn powder is spent before the bullet has finished accelerating and the bullet does not get the full amount of power available with the longer barrel. The bullet is still in the barrel when the powder is spent.
Either powder will work for either condition, but clearly one is better than the other depending on the utilization.

Fuel is somewhat the same. A quick burn regular will waste energy when the knock sensor in a high compression engine pulls timing back and you lose power. Using 93 octane in a low compression engine will result in partially unburned fuel because the required heat and compression is absent. People thinking that high octane fuel keeps their engine cleaner are right about the additives, but wrong about the adverse effects of incomplete combustion. Maybe the additives will overcome the tendency to build carbon in the cylinder, but maybe not. The whole thing is unbalanced.

 

[Berzerker]

Still wrong. That article is based on the assumption that a tank of premium gas every now and then will make your engine last longer. Which I agree is completely wrong. A single tank of premium every other fill up will have no benefits on your engine.
Also the article bases the assumption of not needing premium gas on the basis of pinging or knock prevention, which is completely flawed. Any car combustion engine manufacturer has to adhere to standards, and those standards, in the US for example, are using readily available gas, meaning (87-93) and sea level altitude (in order to calculate air fuel ratios) and use of materials/metals that are compatible with additives and oils available in the market.

Since 87 octane gas is the lowest octane available in the US (please correct me if I am wrong) engineers need to make sure that the engine they are going to design does not ping or knock when using the lowest octane available, but that does not mean the engine will be achieving its optimum performance using said octane nor does it mean that it will last its intended life span. Keep in mind that once the engine is designed they calculate its life span and power output by running tests on it and those tests are, more often than not, performed under optimal conditions.

Now the article goes on to say that over time the vehicle will need a higher octane fuel to prevent pinging or knock because the carbon build up will cause the compression ratio to change, and here is where they lost me. Carbon build up alone cannot change the compression on an engine enough to were it requires a higher octane fuel in order to prevent knock, the amount of carbon build up will have to be so much that your engine will probably be long gone, because of the bad maintenance practices, before it gets to that point.

My point is just because the engine can and will work using a lower octane fuel does not mean that you will be getting the performance and longevity it was designed for. Keep in mind that fuel has to travel from your gas tank to the combustion chamber and things like fuel lines, fuel filters and injectors get clogged over time under regular wear and tear and if on top of that you do not use a fuel with the proper additives (which tend to be better on higher octanes, article also states that) then you will be reducing the life span of those components as well.

I'll concede this point since there's a direct link to this information from Kia. I was unaware there was an actual performance calculation done within the engine mechanics to account for this. I guess I'll start using Premium, since the mileage increase would probably offset the extra cost.

 

[ralzod]

A quick burn regular will waste energy when the knock sensor in a high compression engine pulls timing back and you lose power. Using 93 octane in a low compression engine will result in partially unburned fuel because the required heat and compression is absent.

I'll concede this point since there's a direct link to this information from Kia.

The compression on both engines is listed as 10.0:1. Is that considered high compression? (I don't know.)