gas

[kn5owa]

Oh, no! I love a great "argument"! I just work (12-14hrs per day). I should have been retired by now, but...........lol



Yep. It's all good..........

The "Arguments" are more civilized on this forum.

They got down and dirty on my on '06 Sonata Board.

Maybe, it's got something to do with the price of the cars??

 

[DRS]

I am experiencing unrelated chat for the original question relating to the 2.0.

Anyone know if Hyundai reduces the boost with lower octane fuels? Also, does the CPU also adjust the valve timing, spark timing, EGR, when it senses lower octane fuel?

I am betting the answer is yes to all the above. Which will create less performance, and mileage with regular fuel. But I am not familiar with the design. History as I indicated prior would suggest these and other adjustments are made to detune the motor with regular.

As indicated, the SVO and GNX I had long time ago, the boost gauge showed reduction in boost with regular. The SVO was most dramatic taking the boost from approx 16lbs down to 10 or under. Also the spark timing and emission control setting changed radically to meet the lower fuel. Back then there was not cam timing changes on the SVO. Drivability, performance and mileage were all reduced way beyond the small extra cost. And especially back then, fuel injectors used in such vehicles lasted longer, and would clog up more slowly with premium than regular. The combination of compression, head, and boost design were optimized for premium. As one example the compression was higher than earlier boosted motors. That allowed for better mileage and drivability while not using turbo boost in normal driving (and at higher levels of vacuum)

Fast forward to today.. Much of the above is still valid.. Although Ecoboost engines are designed to operate pressurized in almost all conditions (to lower that horrible evil molecule called C02). Still, their mileage stated is only achieved in their testing with 92-93 octane. The Ecoboost is designed to take advantage of higher octane.. All arguing about the different journalist aside, with the Fords, as I understand, Max power is only with premium in cars like the Focus ST, Fiesta ST, Fusion 2.0, Lincoln/Mustang 2.3, Edge/Explorer 2.0/2.3, and any 2.7 or 3.5 equipped EcoBoost car. And fuel best fuel mileage measured is using high octane gas on all these combinations. Just the facts jack.

So, does anyone know how Hyundai engineers their 2.0? Is it like the Ford 2.0? Where best mileage is stated using premium, and Max power is also only with premium? Is the Hyundai tuned for best practice mileage and performance with today's standard blend of premium? If so, there is no debate on gas theory. Premium is the way to go for best overall performance and mileage.

And if one wants to get into the Ethanol debasing of gas argument, that is another topic. Cars that are designed to run on a given octane level, will see degraded mileage with that same octane that has Ethanol content. Because, due to the 10-15 percent Ethanol having lower BTU content for a given weight/volume of measure. No one can argue that. Just the facts jack. Now, if any stock motor produced can be designed to operate in the very high natural octane levels of say E85, to take advantage of this octane level, performance could skyrocket (not mileage) in turbocharged motors. However, I am not aware of manufacturer mass produced wheezing boosted motor that are allowed, or take advantage of E85 performance opportunity. "Mileage" as a measure of volume/weight would still be a mess (and may not matter if the cost per gallon in the free market would be at or lower per gallon to offset this). Because of the lower energy (BTU) level for the same gallon measurement that is "MPG".

Does anyone know for sure how Hyundai engineers their boosted 2.0? That will dictate the best option of gas. Beside the argument that premium offers better cleaners and quality to keep the uber expensive fuel system and combustion components cleaner and more reliable than "el-cheapo" regular. And here is the issue with this post. No one is saying definitive how Hyundai has designed as the best choice of fuel. Many in here have decided that they know better than what's recommended by Hyundai (use of premium fuel for the 2.0). Hyundai does not recommend premium for no reason. They have a purpose in that. Even if they also state they have the ability to detune their motor to handle regular.. they say premium is what works best. Correct? What am I missing?

I also wonder how they did their mileage test for EPA with the 2.0. Using premium or regular? If used with premium, those who use 87 octane all the time will have reduced mpg on this 2.0.

 

[Top Gear]

First, let me tell you that I am not arguing just to argue. I was told years ago that I should have been an attorney, lol . Secondly, I thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful post.

Thanks, I'm the same way. I love a good discussion

First, I never stated that all gasoline is the same, sir. If you'll go back and reread, you'll find that I did say that the benefits of higher octane/priced gasoline absolutely does make a difference for many "high performance" (the term is subjective, yes?) cars, but not for all (because of the subjectivity of the term itself).

Yet, don't take this personally, but what you're doing is very annoying, argument-wise. You want proof for everything, yet you post none. You write as if you think this argument is only about me proving premium is better, yet you fail to acknowledge that you have made a number of unsupported and unsupportable claims. You want to go over the same ground over and over, asking "where did I claim that?", etc, when all you have to do is scroll up and read what you wrote. You want to nuance your positions endlessly without committing to any. Attorney indeed

Imagine all the things you spend a 10% premium on and how you would defend that economic choice.

Respectfully, this ^ is not sound logic. It's just like saying, "I can't prove what I'm saying, but why take a chance that I could be wrong? I mean, hey, you buy expensive clothes, or.... buy expensive wine right? Why not err on the side of safety, even when I've produced no definitive evidence...because you can afford to..."

No, that is not what it's like saying. It was an added request, given all the other detailed arguments leveled against your positions, to also examine your reasoning regarding any premium products you may spend that extra bit of money on. Why would you allow those premium choices, yet, despite a desire to take care or your sports car, reject that same reasoning when it comes to gasoline?

Anyone know if Hyundai reduces the boost with lower octane fuels? Also, does the CPU also adjust the valve timing, spark timing, EGR, when it senses lower octane fuel?

Oh yes. The ECU has different "mappings" of settings triggered by octane or other inputs. With premium or regular gas, the computer tweaks these settings to provide better or worse performance, which results in more or less efficiency generally, and this is over and above the sheer chemical aspects of fuel I've shown above. It's not just a question of octane, though. I've clearly experienced these different mappings on cheapo brands' premiums, where the car feels sluggish, has trouble cranking, and gets horrible mileage. This is why I've talked so much about Top Tier brands, and even some or others of those brands will not be right for this engine or that engine. Then there's the differences between stations and regional differences. You just have to test what's available in your area and settle on the best.

And if one wants to get into the Ethanol debasing of gas argument, that is another topic. Cars that are designed to run on a given octane level, will see degraded mileage with that same octane that has Ethanol content. Because, due to the 10-15 percent Ethanol having lower BTU content for a given weight/volume of measure. No one can argue that. Just the facts jack.

Yep, that's another big reason to pump Top Tier premium. The best of these include advanced chemistry to make the most of the ethanol content.

For a while, where I am, there was a station that had ethanol-free Shell in all grades. I used to run it testing against the common E10. The difference was subtle, but the E0 gave the car even more grunt and "umph" than the Shell E10 V-Power, which gives me the best performance of all the E10s I've tested. For example, I will no longer run Exxon, BP and others common to my area because they're just not that great in my car. Another type of engine might have a different set of sweet spots with fuels, though, so I'm just talking about the Genesis 3.8, particularly the RS Lambda in the Coupes, which is a totally redesigned 3.8 from the Sedan.

I also wonder how they did their mileage test for EPA with the 2.0. Using premium or regular? If used with premium, those who use 87 octane all the time will have reduced mpg on this 2.0.

Well, the web will have more regarding the 2.0T, but I know with the 3.8 in the Coupe, the 10-12 figures were done on 87, while the 13+ are on 93. So, the "jump" in rated horsepower is a bit exaggerated, but at least the test fuels are clearly marked. This explains why many people might complain about lower mileage and performance if they're running a lesser fuel than was tested. In my case, I do better than the sticker numbers, usually, as I don't normally run 87. My owner's manual, for example, does recommend 93, and specifically recommends Top Tier brands.

 

[dbx]

Thanks, I'm the same way. I love a good discussion

And so it ends.......for now.

I truly enjoyed the discourse. Between giving thought to your assertions/statements, etc., and DRS's informative post above, I have in fact, learned a lot. I have been out of the loop on "cars" for a very long time. The last time that I bought premium gas for one of my cars was in 1979, for a 79' Z/28 I loved so much. A little bit of irony? - there was a gas shortage soon after, and I was paying (in 1981 or so) just about the very same price for premium fuel back then as it costs today! I can easily afford the difference between regular & premium, so I guess I just need to learn to stop being a cheap bastard (it's inherent and gets worse with age, I swear!) .

 

[Top Gear]

It was a good exchange, so I'm glad you got something out of it I'm also glad you could separate "argument" from personal conflict - that is ironically rare on discussion forums!

As for vehicles before the ECU era, I've had a number of them, cars and bikes, and I was usually into street racing or performance in general. I always noticed very clearly with the "butt dyno" that premium was better in them than regular, and of course, the price difference then was negligible. In one hot rod, I even added an octane booster - gosh it was all so cheap back then. Back in the day before BP bought Amoco, Amoco Ultimate was my fav (80s-90s). I gradually figured out it was the additives and not just the octane.

Yesterday, I stopped for gas, and it has gone up, V-Power at $2.95 at a particular station where it has been $2.50-70 for a long while. Ouch. I thought about you, dbx, and for a moment almost pumped the $.40 cheaper regular...almost!

One trick is I seldom, if ever, actually fill up. Too much sticker shock I get $10-$20 at a time for a third-to-half tank or so. For one thing, my tank is 17 gallons, and when full it weighs the car down a bit, affecting the mileage perhaps in stop-n-go, but certainly makes it feel heavy around town (and we can't have that). This also helps average out the cost. If the price goes down, I'm not locking in a high tank cost when I don't need the extra gas right away, yet if it goes up that won't matter. Also, if the price goes down, I can get in on the action quicker. On a long trip, when the fuel will be gone within a few hours, I might fill up, though, and once in a while I'll even use 87 for that reason.

Enjoy that premium power

 

[dbx]

It was a good exchange, so I'm glad you got something out of it I'm also glad you could separate "argument" from personal conflict - that is ironically rare on discussion forums!

Agreed. And the phenomena of "on line persona" (user name, "title" of Sr. Member, etc...) is truly complicating for a lot of folks. I've been around on many forums over the years, including; music (guitar moderator), cars, and "Health" sites, so I know all too well, that "argument vs. personal conflict" does, unfortunately, blur the majority of the time. I contribute it to the very media in which allows such exchanges, because of the limitations that it presents while discussing any subject.

.....Back in the day before BP bought Amoco, Amoco Ultimate was my fav (80s-90s). I gradually figured out it was the additives and not just the octane.

Amoco was my brand of choice back in the 80's, as well.

Yesterday, I stopped for gas, and it has gone up, V-Power at $2.95 at a particular station where it has been $2.50-70 for a long while. Ouch. I thought about you, dbx, and for a moment almost pumped the $.40 cheaper regular...almost!

Lol. You should have gone for it!

One trick is I seldom, if ever, actually fill up. Too much sticker shock I get $10-$20 at a time for a third-to-half tank or so. For one thing, my tank is 17 gallons, and when full it weighs the car down a bit, affecting the mileage perhaps in stop-n-go, but certainly makes it feel heavy around town (and we can't have that). This also helps average out the cost. If the price goes up, I'm not locking in a high tank cost when I don't need the extra gas right away. If the price goes down, I can get in on the action. On a long trip, when the fuel will be gone within a few hours, I might fill up, though, and once in a while I'll even use 87 for that reason.

Oh no, here we go again....(j/k). However, my father taught me at a young age that keeping your tank full (as much as possible) would keep condensation in the gas tank to a minimum. I've always believed this to be true. And while I, like you, fill $20-$30 at a time, I do it with keeping the tank at least, 3/4 full....if not, full.

Enjoy that premium power

I will do so, sir!

I apologize to the OP for the sidetrack, but I feel like this thread will be a decent one for newcomers in the near future.

 

[Sal Collaziano]

Yesterday, I stopped for gas, and it has gone up, V-Power at $2.95 at a particular station where it has been $2.50-70 for a long while. Ouch. I thought about you, dbx, and for a moment almost pumped the $.40 cheaper regular...almost!

One trick is I seldom, if ever, actually fill up. Too much sticker shock I get $10-$20 at a time for a third-to-half tank or so. For one thing, my tank is 17 gallons, and when full it weighs the car down a bit, affecting the mileage perhaps in stop-n-go, but certainly makes it feel heavy around town (and we can't have that).

Yeah, I've noticed. Gas prices are going up again. Just like my health care. And while I won't get too F'ing political - a couple of years ago I had a $15 deductible. Now it's $50 just to get my ear checked for an infection - and $300 for the medication. H.F.S. (to those who've seen 21 Jump Street). Plus my wife needed a biopsy this month as well - $900. And we're both very heathy people, 43 and 35 years of age. WTF?!

We do have something in common. I never fill my tank more than half way. Too heavy. Can't have that. But my wife thinks I'm crazy... So does DBX, I bet!

Agreed. And the phenomena of "on line persona" (user name, "title" of Sr. Member, etc...) is truly complicating for a lot of folks.

Okay! I'm changing those right now. "Senior Member" will be "Been here awhile" or something like that. I'll think of something interesting to avoid confusion...

 

[Top Gear]

Okay! I'm changing those right now. "Senior Member" will be "Been here awhile" or something like that. I'll think of something interesting to avoid confusion...

Ha! That's cool. Gee, while you're at it, under the "which model" part, there are 5 Sedan options and 2 Equus, but only 2 Coupe options. There are generally 6 US Coupe types:
2.0T Base
2.0T R-Spec
2.0T Premium
3.8 GT
3.8 R-Spec
3.8 Track/Ultimate

 

[DRS]

Thanks, I'm the same way. I love a good discussion


Yet, don't take this personally, but what you're doing is very annoying, argument-wise. You want proof for everything, yet you post none. You write as if you think this argument is only about me proving premium is better, yet you fail to acknowledge that you have made a number of unsupported and unsupportable claims. You want to go over the same ground over and over, asking "where did I claim that?", etc, when all you have to do is scroll up and read what you wrote. You want to nuance your positions endlessly without committing to any. Attorney indeed


No, that is not what it's like saying. It was an added request, given all the other detailed arguments leveled against your positions, to also examine your reasoning regarding any premium products you may spend that extra bit of money on. Why would you allow those premium choices, yet, despite a desire to take care or your sports car, reject that same reasoning when it comes to gasoline?



Oh yes. The ECU has different "mappings" of settings triggered by octane or other inputs. With premium or regular gas, the computer tweaks these settings to provide better or worse performance, which results in more or less efficiency generally, and this is over and above the sheer chemical aspects of fuel I've shown above. It's not just a question of octane, though. I've clearly experienced these different mappings on cheapo brands' premiums, where the car feels sluggish, has trouble cranking, and gets horrible mileage. This is why I've talked so much about Top Tier brands, and even some or others of those brands will not be right for this engine or that engine. Then there's the differences between stations and regional differences. You just have to test what's available in your area and settle on the best.


Yep, that's another big reason to pump Top Tier premium. The best of these include advanced chemistry to make the most of the ethanol content.

For a while, where I am, there was a station that had ethanol-free Shell in all grades. I used to run it testing against the common E10. The difference was subtle, but the E0 gave the car even more grunt and "umph" than the Shell E10 V-Power, which gives me the best performance of all the E10s I've tested. For example, I will no longer run Exxon, BP and others common to my area because they're just not that great in my car. Another type of engine might have a different set of sweet spots with fuels, though, so I'm just talking about the Genesis 3.8, particularly the RS Lambda in the Coupes, which is a totally redesigned 3.8 from the Sedan.


Well, the web will have more regarding the 2.0T, but I know with the 3.8 in the Coupe, the 10-12 figures were done on 87, while the 13+ are on 93. So, the "jump" in rated horsepower is a bit exaggerated, but at least the test fuels are clearly marked. This explains why many people might complain about lower mileage and performance if they're running a lesser fuel than was tested. In my case, I do better than the sticker numbers, usually, as I don't normally run 87. My owner's manual, for example, does recommend 93, and specifically recommends Top Tier brands.

Yes.. Get what you are saying that most of the advantages also apply to the V6. Because it was designed that way to use premium. Uber high compression, aggressive variable cam settings, aggressive spark timing and length of spark.. Plus more I am sure. What I want to understand about the V6 in the coupe verses the sedan, GDI version... Is the CPU mapping any different to get more speed out of higher octane? The 3.8 motor is the same compression, cams, valves, GDI, heads, exhaust and intake manifolds, plus other identical bits. When I rented a GDI V6 prior to buying the two V8 TAU I have, I played with running premium.. Sedan was much faster and gained at least ten percent mileage. Way up into 35mpg on rural highways. Back then Shell 93 was ethanol free (or so it was reported). Ton faster,and better mpg than say Wally World regular E10.

Is the sedan set up close to the tune as the coupe? And is the motor the same as I describe it? If so, V6 owners should use premium I would think. Same or better net cost, and a whole bunch more fun. Plus better fuel system wear and tear with top tier.

As for Ethanol spoiling top tier gas... It does. Here in the state we have a refinery co-op that refines and sells Indiana and IL oil from fields, a no Ethanol version in premium and regular is sold retail at some of their company owned stations. . In premium it is only 92.. But runs better than Benchmark Shell 93. Without a full turbo engine that has CPU and design to take advantage of say E85 for high performance (terrible mpg), all this E10, E15, E20 and behind is not the way we should go. Regardless of farming perceived advantages. No reason in hell to subsidize this with tax payer money in order to keep E85 and lower Percentage E fuels at a falsely "competitive" price.

 

[Top Gear]

What I want to understand about the V6 in the coupe verses the sedan, GDI version... Is the CPU mapping any different to get more speed out of higher octane? The 3.8 motor is the same compression, cams, valves, GDI, heads, exhaust and intake manifolds, plus other identical bits....Is the sedan set up close to the tune as the coupe?

No, the all-aluminum Coupe V6 was redesigned from the start, partly to fit under the lower hood. The Lambda was redesigned as the "RS Lambda" (or RS 3800). During the years up to 2012 it was port-injected, then in 2013 it was changed to GDi, basically just a change in heads and intake config, perhaps pistons. Much of that power increase is due to the higher compression and testing on regular vs premium, not the trendy GDi (which only creates more issues with needing better fuels). The Sedan's 3.8 is an obviously similar yet somehow different engine with slightly less power. The Sedans got the GDi upgrades before the Coupes, but the Sedans still had less power, not to mention more weight. Thus entered the lovely 5.0 R-Spec

Here's an article from the time:

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1023283_hyundai-develops-high-performance-rs-lambda-v6​

"Hyundai is pulling out all the stops for its upcoming Genesis Coupe, already confirming the car will ship with Brembo brakes and now with a newly developed high-performance V6 engine as well. Based on the Lambda V6 family first introduced in 2004, the new mill has been given a number of modifications to improve its smoothness, power delivery and efficiency.

"Cars on sale in the United States will feature a 310hp (231kW) version of the engine with 266lb-ft (360Nm) of torque. Picking up ‘RS’ specification (Rear wheel drive Sports), the new engine not only produces more power and torque than the previous 3.8L Lambda, it also delivers higher torque levels across the rev-range and delivers its peak output figures at lower rpms."

Incidentally, while it is "fighting words" controversial among the turbo guys, the 2.0T in the Coupes is almost identical to the one found in the Sonata and other cars. The head was re-cast as a mirror image in order to flow in the opposite direction in moving from transverse mount to RWD, but 2.0T fans claim the two engines are somehow totally different, yet the brake HP figures are exactly the same. This created the "tuner" market in the Coupes which I believe challenged the car's long-term popularity with non-tuners. Little wonder they've discontinued the 4cyl and now there is only a V6 option. However, the US market has been BEGGING for the 5.0 R-Spec engine to be adapted to the Coupe.

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[DRS]

Thanks for the detail. Very helpful... I tend to be biased for V8s.. With that said, the RS version sounds cool and should be in the sedans. They need whatever weight reduction possible. And use this in TT mode instead of 3.3 for the steam rolling lemming moves to replace the TAU with a TT V6. This might get 525hp easy. That might get me interested. IF it was truly lighter by 150lbs or so with all the plumbing a TT would need up front too.

This RS version should be the standard motor for the sedans and coupes?

 

[Sal Collaziano]

Ha! That's cool. Gee, while you're at it, under the "which model" part, there are 5 Sedan options and 2 Equus, but only 2 Coupe options. There are generally 6 US Coupe types:
2.0T Base
2.0T R-Spec
2.0T Premium
3.8 GT
3.8 R-Spec
3.8 Track/Ultimate

Thank you. I updated the options for the Genesis Coupe.

 

[Top Gear]

Thanks for the detail. Very helpful... I tend to be biased for V8s.. With that said, the RS version sounds cool and should be in the sedans. They need whatever weight reduction possible. And use this in TT mode instead of 3.3 for the steam rolling lemming moves to replace the TAU with a TT V6. This might get 525hp easy. That might get me interested. IF it was truly lighter by 150lbs or so with all the plumbing a TT would need up front too. This RS version should be the standard motor for the sedans and coupes?

It's kinda frustrating, as nobody really knows for sure, or hasn't really posted publicly, exactly how different or the same the 3.8s are across the various cars. Same with the other Hyundai-Kia engines. Hyundai-Kia have just never been super-forthcoming with those kinds of details for us - we're just not dealing with a Porsche or Ferrari who want to detail every minute change for enthusiasts. So, for the 3.8, among pistons and cooling jets in a strengthened block, different exhaust and intake manifolds, head changes, throttle bodies, injectors and rails, ECU mapping, cams and more aggressive timing, we just have to accept their are family variations, that they're very similar and yet very different.

Anyway, I like V8s, too, mainly because that's what I grew up with, so it's hard to get over the idea of "bigger, badder". The 3.8 in my car is very V8-like, though, particularly with the carbon filter removed from the airbox and V-Power in the tank in a ~3,200 pound perfectly balanced true racing/sports car with great brakes and tires. It has an awesome exotic "growl" both at the CAI and out the exhaust. Still, I was one of those hoping the 5.0 R-Spec engine would make it to the Coupe. There's also talk of the 3.3 TT V6 going into the next generation Coupe, but I'm waiting to believe any details until we hear more than blog rumors and drool over concept cars - many concept cars never make it to production, and the sales of all Genesis cars are quite low for Hyundai. This is sad to contemplate, but it wouldn't surprise me if they quietly cancel both Genesis lines...but along with site owner "HG", I think they should completely separate Genesis from Hyundai-Kia, or make it Hyundai-Kia-Genesis Motor Company with more separation than current. However, that would put even more pressure on sales. Why they shot themselves in the foot introducing yet another brand, Equus, is a hint that they are just throwing pasta at the wall more than we would like. I guess we just have to wait to see what happens ;(

All of this has to do with "gas", of course, in that a 3.3 V6 will be more efficient for a fleet, obviously, but the owner can get V8 performance by stomping on the twin turbos. So, the carmaker can claim to reduce emissions, and thus Global Warming triggers, etc. I get it. However, they are putting 5.0 engines in several cars, so...

Nevertheless, long-term, the oil-based engine is going to have to kinda end. While today's engines are VASTLY more efficient and less polluting, and while gas (with the best additives) is far cleaner today, having hundreds of millions of engines on the road just in the US impacts the environment negatively. It's a fact. So, we gearheads have to accept new paradigms. I love the Tesla cars, for example, and wish they weren't so expensive. However, if we all had electric cars, that puts huge pressures on the power grids - aging, poor quality, easily overwhelmed power grids that Congress ignores - and we'd be burning FAR more coal than we do today to keep charging all the cars, which negates removing the oil-based engines! So, we need a whole new renewable energy strategy to move the world to the next level...yet that is completely impossible politically, at least today. There are too many powers invested in status quo, wars over oil, lies about pollution, etc. It may take a complete collapse of the house of cards for us to wake up to reality.

So, let's pump some gas and do some burnouts What a responsibility to carry around and yet be so powerless, politically.

Thank you. I updated the options for the Genesis Coupe.

Thanks! It's cool to have that kind of flexibility to change the software.