Canadian Stingers with JB4 - What fuel?

[Ek9max]

I think I'll switch over to Shell 91 first and compare logs to the Petro 94 I've been running. Might try Costco myself after that too. I ran Costco 91 in the Mustang with the 91+ tune and never heard/felt any issues in over a year.

Let me know how it goes.

 

[Christopher Léger]

Same here from montreal so test away jb4 in june

 

[JDM_Man]

Map 2 & PetroCan 94 here. @Terry@BMS - care to look over this log and see how you feel about Petro94? I'm curious to know too.

13.19s @ ~108mph @ 2200ft / 2995 DA, AWD, FYI. IAT probably plays a role in the fact it wasn't in the 12's?

Did @Terry@BMS ever take a look at this?

 

[Secondchance]

I find this an interesting scenario given that I've tuned three previous cars with forced induction motors, all three using hand held tuners allowing datalogging, all three getting custom tunes after submitting several datalogs on each car, tuned by three different tuners, and all here ended up being able to adjust the tunes slightly more aggressively allowing a slight increase in power over and above the standard 93 octane tunes for all three cars. Yet Terry maintains that, based on his past experience (many datalogs with the Petrocan 94), the gas was garbage, and recommended that I stop using the Petrocan 94 and go to a superior top tier 91 octane fuel. (I don't have a JB4, nor will I in the future)

It is what it is.

Canned tunes you get on the handhelds (you mention an Accessport, I've used one on 3 Different Platforms and protuned all after the initial canned tune) run rich and won't push timing nearly as much as a pro tune will. This is done for a variety of reasons, but mainly to make them safe and to allow the licensed pro tuners that use Cobb software the opportunity to make an income off of the improvements.

While I agree that Husky/Petro Can 94's aren't the "garbage" some suggest, much of the improvement you've seen going from canned to pro tune, is in the the tunes themselves, and not a byproduct of the fuels capabilities. 93 Octane in most of the US is a much better than our 94 in Canada.

 

[Revvdmedia]

Did @Terry@BMS ever take a look at this?

Nah, no feedback yet.

If it's the log I think I posted, the biggest thing I wondered is why it only pushed 5 degrees timing advance in fourth gear. Most others pull an average between 10-15 closer to the 15 end.

 

[Secondchance]

Nah, no feedback yet.

If it's the log I think I posted, the biggest thing I wondered is why it only pushed 5 degrees timing advance in fourth gear. Most others pull an average between 10-15 closer to the 15 end.

Timing could be lowered by the ECU as a precaution, likely because your knock sensor detected knock. Could have been a range of things from a bad tank of fuel, to a phantom sound the knock sensor picked up and everything in between

 

[JDM_Man]

Timing could be lowered by the ECU as a precaution, likely because your knock sensor detected knock. Could have been a range of things from a bad tank of fuel, to a phantom sound the knock sensor picked up and everything in between

These cars don't have a knock sensor.

 

[Secondchance]

These cars don't have a knock sensor.

I'll just leave this here.... 2018-2019 Kia Stinger Knock Sensor 39320-3L010 | Kia Parts Online

 

[Shablo]

Did @Terry@BMS ever take a look at this?

post in the N54 tech . com thread - the official Kia & Hyundai JB4 support thread. He might respond there. Sorry i cant post links.

 

[JP's_Stinger]

Any updates, yet?

 

[JDM_Man]

We've been pinging him here and asking for him to check the logs but hes never taken the time to chime in, somewhat disappointed @Terry@BMS

 

[Revvdmedia]

I did run some logs by Terry in the main JB4 thread. He noted there were no "concerns" with the logs I posted for Map 2. My take from what I've seen is that the ignition timing could be a little better, but not sure how much power I am losing with the timing I am seeing. I'm not satisfied with what I'm seeing for stats (low 5s 0-60, 13.2s 1/4 mile with 107mph traps). I haven't performed any baseline Map 0 runs as a comparison yet. I've run Petro Ultra 94 and Shell 91 and I'm seeing similar timing between both fuels and same boost levels. I'm not sure if this indicates I'm getting all the car can give, or that I'm seeing no octane benefit running Ultra 94 compared to V-Power 91, I would expect more advanced timing if I was getting an octane benefit.

On my to-do list is to do some baseline Map 0 runs, 1/4 runs on Shell 91 V-Power, and probably give Husky 94 a go as well. After that I should get my hands on octane booster, then analyze all the data and see where I stand.

 

[JP's_Stinger]

I did run some logs by Terry in the main JB4 thread. He noted there were no "concerns" with the logs I posted for Map 2. My take from what I've seen is that the ignition timing could be a little better, but not sure how much power I am losing with the timing I am seeing. I'm not satisfied with what I'm seeing for stats (low 5s 0-60, 13.2s 1/4 mile with 107mph traps). I haven't performed any baseline Map 0 runs as a comparison yet. I've run Petro Ultra 94 and Shell 91 and I'm seeing similar timing between both fuels and same boost levels. I'm not sure if this indicates I'm getting all the car can give, or that I'm seeing no octane benefit running Ultra 94 compared to V-Power 91, I would expect more advanced timing if I was getting an octane benefit.

On my to-do list is to do some baseline Map 0 runs, 1/4 runs on Shell 91 V-Power, and probably give Husky 94 a go as well. After that I should get my hands on octane booster, then analyze all the data and see where I stand.

Yeah I read some of your posts. Terry seems to answer very quickly on other threads, but the Canadian one seems to be less important, for whatever reason...

 

[Christopher Léger]

Should have time to go to the track this week end, i will have map 0-1-2 logs with shell 91, ill try to get terry to take a look at it and share his responses

 

[JDM_Man]

Yeah I read some of your posts. Terry seems to answer very quickly on other threads, but the Canadian one seems to be less important, for whatever reason...

I wonder if JB4 just doesn't run well at all on Canadian gas and that doesn't want to be admitted to as it would hurt sales? Why else would he literally ignore this thread, hes not posted once in here or replied to 10 of the pings in here @Terry@BMS

I guess Canadians don't get support for JB4, maybe its worth looking at another option lol....

 

[JDM_Man]

I did run some logs by Terry in the main JB4 thread. He noted there were no "concerns" with the logs I posted for Map 2. My take from what I've seen is that the ignition timing could be a little better, but not sure how much power I am losing with the timing I am seeing. I'm not satisfied with what I'm seeing for stats (low 5s 0-60, 13.2s 1/4 mile with 107mph traps). I haven't performed any baseline Map 0 runs as a comparison yet. I've run Petro Ultra 94 and Shell 91 and I'm seeing similar timing between both fuels and same boost levels. I'm not sure if this indicates I'm getting all the car can give, or that I'm seeing no octane benefit running Ultra 94 compared to V-Power 91, I would expect more advanced timing if I was getting an octane benefit.

On my to-do list is to do some baseline Map 0 runs, 1/4 runs on Shell 91 V-Power, and probably give Husky 94 a go as well. After that I should get my hands on octane booster, then analyze all the data and see where I stand.

I think you mentioned that it was pulling a lot of timing, almost like it was trying to protect itself from knocking.

Odd how it's pulling a lot of timing but terry said there were "no concerns" lol........

 

[Revvdmedia]

I think you mentioned that it was pulling a lot of timing, almost like it was trying to protect itself from knocking.

Odd how it's pulling a lot of timing but terry said there were "no concerns" lol........

I don't have the knowledge or experience to know for sure how much timing our engines should be seeing or should be pulling, nor do I have a Map 0 baseline. I can only interpret my finding based on what I see from the logs of others. What I do see is with the logs that I feel are "ideal" and the research I have done as to what I should be seeing. It looks like ideal logs should be seeing around 15 ignition advance on average, with the normal upslope towards redline. Mine seems to run an average of 10, but I see significant timing dips early in some gears (3, 4) and then it picks back up towards redline. To me, the dips in timing and the lower than average ignition advance says the ECU doesn't like something, and considering IAT is comparable to others running similar setups, if it's not spark and not air, it must be fuel. I have not heard any audible knock, but I know good knock sensors should pick up subtle pinging and compensate throttle, boost and timing to avoid it. Considering the car is designed from Kia to be run on 87 octane if desired, you will get the same timing being pulled and similar results on that front, and that is warrantied, therefore, not necessarily a "concern."

There are 2 things that bug me about my situation. Even being at 2200ft, I expect my 0-60 to be in the high 4's and I had expected my 1/4 to be very high 12's. I am not achieving either and I believe it is due to my car not performing quite as well as those on "good" fuel based on the logs. I fully understand engines do not perform as well at higher altitudes, but TFLCar ran a stock Stinger AWD 0-60 in 5.4s and that is at a mile altitude, I'm pulling 5.1s TUNED. Something there doesn't seem right. The second thing that bugs me is that if the issue is our fuel, why is it that it is considered acceptable that Canada has lesser quality fuel than the USA. Is there not some sort of metric that mandates minimum levels of performance for particular octanes? How is it legal to call something 91 octane, or even worse - 94, if it is not performing to the standards of that octane? If I'm running a 93 octane tune (especially one that seems to work well for some on 91 octane), 94 octane should be absolutely sufficient to offer full ignition advance and full boost. How do the fuel companies get away with that?

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with my car or the JB4. I'm just chasing numbers and stats here, wishing for a little more power that in truth I rarely use, probably just to fill my ego. If the fuel is the issue, I still stand by the question of why is it acceptable to call something what it is not?

 

[JDM_Man]

I don't have the knowledge or experience to know for sure how much timing our engines should be seeing or should be pulling, nor do I have a Map 0 baseline. I can only interpret my finding based on what I see from the logs of others. What I do see is with the logs that I feel are "ideal" and the research I have done as to what I should be seeing. It looks like ideal logs should be seeing around 15 ignition advance on average, with the normal upslope towards redline. Mine seems to run an average of 10, but I see significant timing dips early in some gears (3, 4) and then it picks back up towards redline. To me, the dips in timing and the lower than average ignition advance says the ECU doesn't like something, and considering IAT is comparable to others running similar setups, if it's not spark and not air, it must be fuel. I have not heard any audible knock, but I know good knock sensors should pick up subtle pinging and compensate throttle, boost and timing to avoid it. Considering the car is designed from Kia to be run on 87 octane if desired, you will get the same timing being pulled and similar results on that front, and that is warrantied, therefore, not necessarily a "concern."

There are 2 things that bug me about my situation. Even being at 2200ft, I expect my 0-60 to be in the high 4's and I had expected my 1/4 to be very high 12's. I am not achieving either and I believe it is due to my car not performing quite as well as those on "good" fuel based on the logs. I fully understand engines do not perform as well at higher altitudes, but TFLCar ran a stock Stinger AWD 0-60 in 5.4s and that is at a mile altitude, I'm pulling 5.1s TUNED. Something there doesn't seem right. The second thing that bugs me is that if the issue is our fuel, why is it that it is considered acceptable that Canada has lesser quality fuel than the USA. Is there not some sort of metric that mandates minimum levels of performance for particular octanes? How is it legal to call something 91 octane, or even worse - 94, if it is not performing to the standards of that octane? If I'm running a 93 octane tune (especially one that seems to work well for some on 91 octane), 94 octane should be absolutely sufficient to offer full ignition advance and full boost. How do the fuel companies get away with that?

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with my car or the JB4. I'm just chasing numbers and stats here, wishing for a little more power that in truth I rarely use, probably just to fill my ego. If the fuel is the issue, I still stand by the question of why is it acceptable to call something what it is not?

Are you near the boarder where you could jump over and fill with 93 to test?

 

[Revvdmedia]

Are you near the boarder where you could jump over and fill with 93 to test?

I would be interested in trying, but the closest border is Montana, about 5 hours away or so. Last time I was there I noticed some pumps sell 86 octane! So no idea what kind of gas they have there. Would have to at least go to Kalispell or Helena to get anything decent, and that's even further. Maybe during a road trip I would try it out.

I will eventually pick up a can of Boostane (finally available on Amazon.ca for about 30 bucks) just to at least see how the car responds to octane.

 

[Terry@BMS]

Sorry not able to read every thread. My "ping" system is disabled as I participate on a lot of forums daily and don't have time to follow up on everything. Didn't know anyone was trying to reach me here. I'm actually pulling for the Raptors to win tonight so I'm not anti-Canada.

For consistent log help post them in the n54tech thread!

While I was here scrolled back looking for a CSV to review and didn't see any.. Shrug.