Curious ... who here uses 87 octane Regular gas in your 3.3t?

[eflyguy]

Hello there I have been using 87 octane from the get go, now have approx. 92600 miles and my mileage has varied best being 28 mpg on freeway cruse control set to 75-80 mph best mileage 27.8-28 little variance...

My experience exactly.

There is no benefit to using higher octane fuel when you are not using maximum performance of the engine.

I guess a lot of owners are drag racing between every traffic light..

 

[Travis Wills]

My experience exactly.

There is no benefit to using higher octane fuel when you are not using maximum performance of the engine.

I guess a lot of owners are drag racing between every traffic light..

You are absolutely correct. At anything other than wide open throttle and full boost you don’t even need 87 Octane. Detonation can only happen at maximum cylinder pressure.

When they say fuel economy may suffer if you don’t use a high enough octane. What they actually mean is fuel economy at wide open throttle may be less. Who cares about fuel economy when you are flooring it?

Fuel economy at minimum throttle can never be affected by the octane of the fuel unless you are running at incredibly lean mixtures. Only the Mazda Sky Active-X engine runs anywhere near that lean a mixture and that engine doesn’t even exist in the states at all.

And yes I partake in some spirited driving from stop light to stop light from time to time. The Stinger just begs to be driven. It is such a fun car to drive.

 

[eflyguy]

Even on "lowly" 87, the Stinger is quite capable of getting you going.

I've ridden sport bikes for quite some time. The Stinger is pretty close in "adrenaline production"..

______________________________

 

[stung cb]

One thing that people are missing is that ambient air temperature and air pressure are probably the most important factors in choosing whether to use low octane fuel or high octane fuel.

My wife’s Expedition with the Ecoboost Turbo 6 cylinder engine recommends 87 or higher octane. However, it has a disclaimer that during warmer months higher octane may be necessary to prevent knocking.

I only ran 87 in that vehicle until yesterday. It has been in the upper 90s here with a high pressure system stalled out over us. We are at a relatively low altitude as well.

I didn’t tell my wife that I changed to 93 fuel. However, her first comment when she drove it was “Woah, where did all that power come from”.

I specifically switched to premium fuel for that car because it just stopped feeling like it had that much torque once it got warm. One switch to 93 and that problem was definitely solved.

Maybe the Stinger is different? Maybe heat and pressure don’t effect it as much? However, the ecoboost engine in the Expedition is actually one of the closest engines to our Stinger’s engine in terms of discplacement per liter for a turbocharged engine. The Expedition has a 3.5 liter turbo V6 while the Stinger has a 3.3 liter V6. Most other turbo V6 engines are 3.0 liters or less.

I have only used 93 octane in my Stinger. I know that during the winter months it is highly unlikely that high octane fuel is necessary. However, with the Stinger I want max power every single time I mash the go pedal.

I don’t want anything less than full potential power in that car. With the Expedition I wasn’t as picky because it is my wife’s land yacht and acceleration isn’t as important to me there. Although it did get to the point once it got hot that I said “something is wrong” this car doesn’t have the torque it once did. Premium fuel resolved that issue rather quickly.

There are six gas pumps and they all look the same with no ID. Three dispense 93 octane and three dispense 87 octane. Do you think with 100% certainty you could tell which pumps dispensed 93 vs 87 after burning gas from all six? I have two 2020 3.3L turbos. One in a Stinger GT2 and the other in a K900. I've been playing the 93 octane vs 87 octane game for weeks and I can't tell a difference in either turbo. I can't say one vs the other has an effect in your Ford but, in my Kia's I can't tell a difference. I think the placebo effect might be involved with some folks.

 

[65RivieraGS]

Octane wars ... love it. I hold my opinion and just say that the engineers knew why they recommended 91. SO 91 or higher is what I'll use.

 

[Travis Wills]

There are six gas pumps and they all look the same with no ID. Three dispense 93 octane and three dispense 87 octane. Do you think with 100% certainty you could tell which pumps dispensed 93 vs 87 after burning gas from all six? I have two 2020 3.3L turbos. One in a Stinger GT2 and the other in a K900. I've been playing the 93 octane vs 87 octane game for weeks and I can't tell a difference in either turbo. I can't say one vs the other has an effect in your Ford but, in my Kia's I can't tell a difference. I think the placebo effect might be involved with some folks.

I definitely would be able to tell the difference in the Ford and more importantly my wife could tell the difference without me mentioning it.

Now I fully concede that the Stinger May be different. Maybe it’s intercooler is different and heat doesn’t affect it as much? That is possible.

However, with the Ford I am certain anyone could tell the difference. The power drops dramatically when the engine senses that there could be knock when using low octane fuel in the heat.

 

[Shockington]

Octane wars ... love it. I hold my opinion and just say that the engineers knew why they recommended 91. SO 91 or higher is what I'll use.

Am I the only one who's owners manual says 87 recommended?

 

[stung cb]

Am I the only one who's owners manual says 87 recommended?

Perhaps you have the manual for the 2.0 L Stinger. Do you own the 3.3L ?

 

[Travis Wills]

Perhaps you have the manual for the 2.0 L Stinger. Do own the 3.3L ?

It is interesting that the 2.0 Liter Stinger engine produces 147.50 lb*ft per liter of displacement and the 3.3 Liter Stinger only produces 113.94 lb*ft per liter of displacement. In addition the 3.3 Liter engine has a 10.0:1 compression ratio while the 2.0 liter engine has a 10.2:1 compression ratio. The 4 cylinder 2.0 Liter engine should be much more susceptible to knock than the V6 engine. If either of them require premium for optimal performance it should be the 4 cylinder engine.

 

[Shockington]

Perhaps you have the manual for the 2.0 L Stinger. Do you own the 3.3L ?

3.3L purchased in April 2018. Definitely the correct manual.

______________________________

 

[Yusha]

3.3L purchased in April 2018. Definitely the correct manual.

The 2018 manual does state minimum is 87 but the manuals 2019 onwards says 91 is minimum for optimal performance. Since there was no engine changes, I'm guessing Kia figured 91 is better suited for the stinger and didn't bother to send an addendum to 2018 owners.

 

[MerlintheMad]

The 2018 manual does state minimum is 87 but the manuals 2019 onwards says 91 is minimum for optimal performance. Since there was no engine changes, I'm guessing Kia figured 91 is better suited for the stinger and didn't bother to send an addendum to 2018 owners.

Kia did update the manual; with a revised 91 minimum octane recommendation as a sticker over the original text.

 

[Yusha]

Kia did update the manual; with a revised 91 minimum octane recommendation as a sticker over the original text.

O good to know.

 

[get_stung_]

No one...

 

[Travis Wills]

Am I the only one who's owners manual says 87 recommended?

Can you post a picture of the text from your manual? My 2019 Stinger GT2 Manual in the US simply says that 91 Octane or higher is necessary for optimal performance. It never mentions 87 Octane at all.

 

[Blamo]

You can view the 2018 Manual via below URL. Like Merlin mentioned, they revised this information in later models (with the same engine).

https://stingerforum.org/kia-stinger-owner-manuals/2018-kia-stinger-owners-manual.pdf

FUEL REQUIREMENTS
Your new vehicle is designed to use only unleaded fuel having a pump octane number ((R+M)/2) of 87 (Research Octane Number 91) or higher. (Do not use methanol blended fuels.)

______________________________

 

[Mike_TX]

Thanks for the on-topic replies, gents.

 

[colnago1331]

Since I'm a rabble-rouser....

@Mike_TX - Not counting the tank it came with, I'm on my second tank of gas on my new base GT. The first time I filled it up with 93 (AKI not RON); this last time I filled it up with 87. What will I do on my third tank? Probably 87 again.

YouTuber EatSleepDrive did an interesting video using his Fiesta ST. He filled it with 87 and ran it on the dyno. He then drained the tank, filled it with 93, and ran it on the dyno again. There was, not surprisingly, a power difference; 93 gave higher numbers than 87 did (181 hp max vs 171.4 hp max, ~5% difference). What was more interesting, though perhaps also not surprising, was that over the course of several pulls, there was a much bigger drop-off in power using 87 than there was using 93. The delta between the highest and lowest hp numbers on 93 was around 5 hp; the delta for 87 was around 10 hp.

With this in mind, I'm not a red light racer. My heaviest use of the accelerator pedal comes when I'm merging onto the freeway or passing someone on the freeway. So the performance drop-off over several back-to-back-to-back pulls is pretty irrelevant to me. So too is the ~5% difference in max hp. Max hp is reached at around 6000 RPM for the V6, and I'm rarely if ever spinning the engine that quickly.

If I were taking the car to the drag strip or the track regularly, it would be a different story. But for my needs, I doubt I'll miss the small drop in performance.

Here's the video:

 

[get_stung_]

Hope nobody uses 87 in their 3.3....

 

[65RivieraGS]

I

Since I'm a rabble-rouser....

@Mike_TX - Not counting the tank it came with, I'm on my second tank of gas on my new base GT. The first time I filled it up with 93 (AKI not RON); this last time I filled it up with 87. What will I do on my third tank? Probably 87 again.

YouTuber EatSleepDrive did an interesting video using his Fiesta ST. He filled it with 87 and ran it on the dyno. He then drained the tank, filled it with 93, and ran it on the dyno again. There was, not surprisingly, a power difference; 93 gave higher numbers than 87 did (181 hp max vs 171.4 hp max, ~5% difference). What was more interesting, though perhaps also not surprising, was that over the course of several pulls, there was a much bigger drop-off in power using 87 than there was using 93. The delta between the highest and lowest hp numbers on 93 was around 5 hp; the delta for 87 was around 10 hp.

With this in mind, I'm not a red light racer. My heaviest use of the accelerator pedal comes when I'm merging onto the freeway or passing someone on the freeway. So the performance drop-off over several back-to-back-to-back pulls is pretty irrelevant to me. So too is the ~5% difference in max hp. Max hp is reached at around 6000 RPM for the V6, and I'm rarely if ever spinning the engine that quickly.

If I were taking the car to the drag strip or the track regularly, it would be a different story. But for my needs, I doubt I'll miss the small drop in performance.

Here's the video:

Do NOT use 87 and for quite a si.pke reason: the ex engineers at Kia have determined that 87 isn't recommended.


While the car can "correct" itself for the lowest octane fuel, it'd be foolish to do that with a GDI at the start. Once you log several tens of thousands of miles, then a lower octane MAY be ok as the carbon buildup in the combustion chamber will increase the compression ratio.