Fuel Consumption

[Manchuz]

With 5 drive modes (including a custom mode here in Canada), has anyone done any statistical testing on average fuel consumption on the different modes? I think it would be really beneficial for all Stinger owners to know what and if there is a significant difference on the fuel consumption, say between Eco and Sport. While it's perceived that these modes are at the 2 ends of the spectrum, if the reality is that the difference is really minor, then why would anyone really use Eco.

I think it would be interesting to keep some stat tracking on how much mileage a full tank goes. Indicate what mode you use and what type of gas (87, 89, 91, etc).

 

[Rufus]

Ours was delivered with only 6 miles on it, so we've been breaking in the motor as advised in the manual and are doing so in sport mode to keep the rpms varying between 2-4k. I'm not going to tell you what the mileage is so far, but once past the 600mi Mark, I should have a better idea of real-world mpg

 

[EchoesMyron]

I have around 1400 miles on mine and have had it for a month. I commute around 20-30 miles a day with around 1/2 freeway and 1/2 in town (30-50 mph, stop lights).

I drive in comfort mode most of the time but will use sport mode when I want some acceleration, or want to hit a few corners. I'm not a leadfoot and I don't redline the car at every stoplight but I do like to get up to the speed limit relatively quickly.

I have been measuring my MPG for the last few tanks and I'm getting a pretty consistent 23-24mpg per tank in these driving conditions. Interestingly, the MPG lie-o-meter on the dash is actually pretty accurate and is typically within a few tenths of a MPG average for a tank of gas. In fact, I filled up this morning and dash said 22.8 and my calculation was 23.2 but It may be a case where I added more gas than last time. I just went until the pump clicked off so it's not a super scientific measurement.

Winter MPG is going to be lower for me because of the colder weather. I tend to notice an increase of 3-5 mpg with any car during the summer months so it will be interesting to see how this translates to the Stinger.

I am at 5000' of elevation so that may affect my MPG slightly but with the list of various factors affecting it, it's probably not going to be much different than someone at a lower (or higher) elevation.

 

[mldavis2]

Another possible factor in comparing your results, @EchoesMyron, is that fuel at higher altitude tends to be lower octane than for us flat-landers. Just another possible thing to screw up comparisons....

 

[Clearly Canadian]

the MPG lie-o-meter on the dash is actually pretty accurate

I would be interested to hear from others if the system is reliably accurate or not...

 

[Mike_TX]

I would be interested to hear from others if the system is reliably accurate or not...

Funny thing. Many people discount the on-board mileage calculations made by the trip meter, believing that their own calculations are more accurate. But the car's system calculates actual fuel usage as opposed to fuel tank level, and the odometer measures miles pretty accurately.

But gassing up at the ol' Eat-Here-And-Get-Gas and ciphering it up yourself arguably has more inaccuracy built in.

For instance, you can NEVER fill the tank to the same degree time after time. Slight differences in how your car is sitting affect how full the tank gets and when the pump clicks off. An air bubble can also affect it (ever see one of those guys who rock their car and squeeze in some more gas?). Also, the temperature of the gasoline affects how much you put in, since it expands and contracts like anything else, as does the temperature of your car/gas tank and the remaining gas in it.

I've played around with it like everyone else, and finally gave up and accepted the car's calculations. I figure they're as good as any and as accurate as most.

 

[Manchuz]

Funny thing. Many people discount the on-board mileage calculations made by the trip meter, believing that their own calculations are more accurate. But the car's system calculates actual fuel usage as opposed to fuel tank level, and the odometer measures miles pretty accurately.

But gassing up at the ol' Eat-Here-And-Get-Gas and ciphering it up yourself arguably has more inaccuracy built in.

For instance, you can NEVER fill the tank to the same degree time after time. Slight differences in how your car is sitting affect how full the tank gets and when the pump clicks off. An air bubble can also affect it (ever see one of those guys who rock their car and squeeze in some more gas?). Also, the temperature of the gasoline affects how much you put in, since it expands and contracts like anything else, as does the temperature of your car/gas tank and the remaining gas in it.

I've played around with it like everyone else, and finally gave up and accepted the car's calculations. I figure they're as good as any and as accurate as most.

Well, that's a good start at least and would be a consistent reading for all to use. Perhaps the electronics is smarter than we give credit. When my Stinger arrives in a couple of weeks, I'll report some readings of what the trip meter says in the various drive modes, and include gas type and approximate city-to-hwy driving.

 

[EchoesMyron]

the car's system calculates actual fuel usage as opposed to fuel tank level, and the odometer measures miles pretty accurately.

Well, it attempts to calculate them at least. The system is an estimation potentially based on everything from fuel level in the tank to injector duration, average speed, distance, ambient and engine temperature, engine airflow, etc. The older ones were estimates at best and the last couple of Acuras I had were always rather optimistic in their calculations. No, you can't get 100% accuracy with your own calculations unless you put a specific amount of fuel in and run it completely empty out. That's not practical nor is it good for the fuel system (the running out part).

I would bet that just by filling to when the pump clicks off is going to be pretty consistent; within a half gallon and potentially quite a bit less than that. If nothing else, doing your own calculations gives you a mathematical baseline with some slight margin of error so that you have something to compare the car's calculations to.

FWIW, the 2013 Optima I traded for my Stinger was also quite accurate in it's MPG calculations when compared to my own. I'm not sure about other brands but Kia seems to be using either the right data or the right algorithms (or both) when it comes to the onboard MPG calculations.

 

[Zsolt]

Hello, at the moment I have a BMW 4 and now planning to replace it. I have two candidates: BMW M240i or Stinger. (I know quite different cars, but I wanted a small fun car, but then Stinger hit the market)
I made many comparisons like test drives, reading reviews, forums. I have one question about the Stinger, which I couldn't find a clear answer:
As I make a lot of miles per year and mainly on highway, my concern is: what is the REAL LIFE mpg with the 3.3 Stinger on highway doing constant 93 mph/h (86-93 depending on country - I'm in Europe) with cruise control? The city part I don't care, but I do make 1200 km trips to home and same back quite often and these are only boring highway trips with traffic.
Thanks in advance!

 

[Berzerker]

Hello, at the moment I have a BMW 4 and now planning to replace it. I have two candidates: BMW M240i or Stinger. (I know quite different cars, but I wanted a small fun car, but then Stinger hit the market)
I made many comparisons like test drives, reading reviews, forums. I have one question about the Stinger, which I couldn't find a clear answer:
As I make a lot of miles per year and mainly on highway, my concern is: what is the REAL LIFE mpg with the 3.3 Stinger on highway doing constant 93 mph/h (86-93 depending on country - I'm in Europe) with cruise control? The city part I don't care, but I do make 1200 km trips to home and same back quite often and these are only boring highway trips with traffic.
Thanks in advance!

Every car will be lower than quoted highway at such higher constant speeds, so subtract 1-2MPG from the highway mark to get what you're expecting. At an average of 70-75 I actually see a little better than highway quoted at around 25.5-26MPG. I suspect you'd be looking at more like 23.5-24MPG.

I will tell you one thing, though: Doing regular 1200KM trips, you'll be *much* more comfortable in the Stinger than the 2er.

 

[Bwebb]

On a trip of mostly highway driving I was in the area of 25-26mpg in a 3.3t over about 1800 miles. I was averaging speeds between 65-80mph over the trip with only gas station and rest area breaks.

 

[StingerNYC]

On a trip of mostly highway driving I was in the area of 25-26mpg in a 3.3t over about 1800 miles. I was averaging speeds between 65-80mph over the trip with only gas station and rest area breaks.

What octane?

 

[Bwebb]

I was using 91 or 93 depending on at which station I filled up. I have only used premium fuel so far.

 

[Bwebb]

My calculations were only slightly lower than the cars fuel calculations. Still 24.5-25.5.

 

[Zsolt]

Every car will be lower than quoted highway at such higher constant speeds, so subtract 1-2MPG from the highway mark to get what you're expecting. At an average of 70-75 I actually see a little better than highway quoted at around 25.5-26MPG. I suspect you'd be looking at more like 23.5-24MPG.

I will tell you one thing, though: Doing regular 1200KM trips, you'll be *much* more comfortable in the Stinger than the 2er.

I know, but I had a Toyota GT68 (Sion in USA?) before and that car was okay for me. I know the Stinger is bigger and more comfortable, but actually I want(ed) a small car now. For fun M240i is better as much lighter, I make mountain trips in the Alps.
Today just saw a new candidate, new brand new A classe, however no AMG yet.
The Stinger is still in the top 3

I will use worst 95 (Europe), but mainly 98 octane. (95 is the worst in most countries here).

 

[Berzerker]

I know, but I had a Toyota GT68 (Sion in USA?) before and that car was okay for me. I know the Stinger is bigger and more comfortable, but actually I want(ed) a small car now. For fun M240i is better as much lighter, I make mountain trips in the Alps.
Today just saw a new candidate, new brand new A classe, however no AMG yet.
The Stinger is still in the top 3

I will use worst 95 (Europe), but mainly 98 octane. (95 is the worst in most countries here).

That would have been a GT86, it's a Toyota now, but a Scion FR-S from 2015 and older.

If you really like the 2er, then it's still a fantastic car, but the Stinger in sport mode is still really fun on those mountain trips as well.

 

[Zsolt]

That would have been a GT86, it's a Toyota now, but a Scion FR-S from 2015 and older.

If you really like the 2er, then it's still a fantastic car, but the Stinger in sport mode is still really fun on those mountain trips as well.

Sorry, typo GT 86, actually I replaced that with the BMW 4 convertible., and to be honest I miss that small car. I know it's strange for US people Mainly I'm alone in the car and anyway I'm quite small, 170 cm.
The only reason against the Stinger is the fuel consumption, as it's 2-3 liter more per 100 km than the M240i. However it has much more gadgets, even if it's under the quality and usability (user friendliness and features) of the Audi/BMW/Mercedes.

Actually did you know that there are 3 new options for the Stinger from now on? The 3 things those were missed a lot: rear sperr for the 4x4 also, REAL manual mode for the gearshift (so no more switching up or down, and a bit re-programmed to be faster) and 6dB louder exhaust at higher rpms.

Next week weekend I'm going to check out this at the Geneva car show: KIA and BMW both sent me free entry tickets and booth invitation

 

[Mike_TX]

Well, it attempts to calculate them at least. The system is an estimation potentially based on everything from fuel level in the tank to injector duration, average speed, distance, ambient and engine temperature, engine airflow, etc. The older ones were estimates at best and the last couple of Acuras I had were always rather optimistic in their calculations. No, you can't get 100% accuracy with your own calculations unless you put a specific amount of fuel in and run it completely empty out. That's not practical nor is it good for the fuel system (the running out part).

I would bet that just by filling to when the pump clicks off is going to be pretty consistent; within a half gallon and potentially quite a bit less than that. If nothing else, doing your own calculations gives you a mathematical baseline with some slight margin of error so that you have something to compare the car's calculations to.

FWIW, the 2013 Optima I traded for my Stinger was also quite accurate in it's MPG calculations when compared to my own. I'm not sure about other brands but Kia seems to be using either the right data or the right algorithms (or both) when it comes to the onboard MPG calculations.

Just for grins, I just completed a test with my 2017 Optima 2.0 T, using the same gas station, the same bay, and even trying to park in as exactly the same position as possible. Filled using the same hold-open position on the pump handle, and until it shut itself off.

On this test, my Optima's onboard calculation was .4 mpg higher than the mathematical calculation. I'm not going to bother, but I'll bet if I did a half-dozen tests, some of them would swing to the other side of the ledger. Little variables, like the temperature of the gasoline in the station's tanks, the friction of the gas pump's hold-open device, the outside air temperature, air trapped in the gas tank, etc., etc., can all affect these calculations. And I calculated that as little as a 2% difference in the quantity of gas I pumped (about .12 gal) could change the mpg calc by as much as .5 mpg.

The point is that while the car's own calculation of mpg is perhaps not perfect, neither is the "manual" method, and the car's calculation is about as close as you can reasonably expect to get. I trust it, but you mileage may vary (pun intended).

 

[Johnnyfive]

Today I got 27.6 mpg over 94.1 miles running mostly between 75 and 80 mph over some hills with 5 minutes of city driving on either end. I was in eco mode and on adaptive cruise most of the drive. 3.3 twin turbo.

 

[Rufus]

Today I got 27.6 mpg over 94.1 miles running mostly between 75 and 80 mph over some hills with 5 minutes of city driving on either end. I was in eco mode and on adaptive cruise most of the drive.

Nice!