Gas. 87, 91, 93 Octane?

[V10enomous]

 

[V10enomous]

 

[V10enomous]

 

[MisterMac]

Lol so true... However this seems like a topic where personal opinions shouldnt get in the way of facts.

Here’s the basic facts and everyone can make their own determinations on how to use them.
FACT= Using anything but Premium(91+) is NOT recommended by Kia.
FACT= The 3.3TT is a high performance engine was designed & tuned for Premium fuel. Fuel economy(MPG) and performance(HP&TQ) will suffer & decline using anything less than 91.
FACT= Our engine using 87 will produce noticeably less power & MPG because it’s being forced to protect itself from internal damage. Modern ECUs can monitor detonation ”knock” and detune ignition timing, A/F ratios & boost levels to help save the engine from unsafe conditions.
FACT= Higher octane premium fuels typically burn more efficiently & completely causing more power & MPG.
FACT= Non Premium Fuels almost always have less detergents & additives causing quicker carbon deposits & buildup.
FACT= Carbon deposits build rapidly which causes progressively dirtier & less efficient engines.
FACT= Less efficient engines make less power & fuel economy. The engine with lower octane has to work harder to produce the same acceleration.
FACT= Any money saved buying regular is significantly offset by the loss of engine efficiency & MPG. (Based on AAA fuel testing...I also explain why this drastically effects our high performance Stingers in Post 135 cited below)

Lastly, the Stinger operating manual itself says:"For optimal engine performance, we recommend you use an unleaded gasoline which has an octane rating of RON (Research Octane Number) 95/AKI (Anti Knock Index) 91 or higher. Using Unleaded gasoline with an octane rating lower than RON 95 could result in loss of engine power and increase in fuel consumption."

I don’t know why this is even a debate as the facts speak for themselves. Unless you want your engine to constantly have to protect itself from detonation causing less power & lower MPG, just follow the recommendations of the actual manufacturer, not some opinions of people on the internet.

Lololololololol roflolollol, etc

 

[Jimmer]

Because some of the manuals, like mine, say 87. Because Edmund's lists vehicles that are premium required and premium recommended and 2018 Stinger is recommended, not required. 2019 Stingers, according to Edmunds, is neither recommended or required.

So, um, those are actual facts. I still alternate, mostly using 91 or higher.

Exactly. Almost nothing in that previous post was fact, nor did it add anything that hasn't already been said at least 10 times already in this thread.

There is one.and only one missing fact that matters to anyone debating this issue for themsleves, i.e., deciding which octane they PREFER to use, since any will do. What is the power output and fuel economy results at different octane? How much difference is there?

To repeat myself ad nauseum, instead of wasting time in this thread repeating the same points over and over again, contact KIA and ask/demand that they reveal the missing fact. Then everyone can go away and choose what to do with the one relevant piece of information necessary to make a decision.

Sorry, but it matters if the difference is 10% versus 2‰ versus zero. Unfortunately, the real answer could be anywhere in that range and only KIA or a volunteer willing to spend major dollars to do multiple controlled experiment dyno runs can answer the question.[/QUOTE]
You know, I didn't say tht first part, but somehow it says I did

Everyone knows RC cola beats both Coke is Mercedes, Pepsi is BMW, RC Cola is the Stinger.

 

[MerlintheMad]

You know, I didn't say tht first part, but somehow it says I did

I think that a little more care/patience in posting will prevent most of these kinds of fubar posts.

 

[StungBlueGT2]

Because some of the manuals, like mine, say 87. Because Edmund's lists vehicles that are premium required and premium recommended and 2018 Stinger is recommended, not required. 2019 Stingers, according to Edmunds, is neither recommended or required.

Mine does too, but Kia updated that within a year for good reason. The public will never know for sure, but after all the spark plug/coil issues it’s no wonder the 2019 Kia manuals now only recommend premium 91+.

Also, I’m not saying the Stinger won’t run on 87 or that’s its “required”. I said the ECU will adapt and detune the engine to protect itself. I’m just providing stats on why the manufacturers give a clear explanation of what happens if you don’t follow their guidelines...loss of power & MPG.

The FACT is that depending on the location, significant money can be saved using regular fuel instead of premium. Measurable gains (if any) in either power or mileage will vary with operating conditions, altitude, temperature, etc.

If someone wants the maximum output from the motor they can run premium, if they aren't concerned with that they can run regular. They don't need to follow anyone's opinion, they can read it directly from the owner's manual.

I'm not denying that initially buying regular can save you money. I’m simply confirming Kia’s statement of both power AND MPG loss by showing AAA’s real world examples of increased fuel consumption using 87. Two of the most similar engines tested showed 8% & 15% MPG improvements changing to premium fuel. That MPG gain would significantly offset any savings you got initially, it’s just much harder to track and account for on the back end.

Exactly. Almost nothing in that previous post was fact, nor did it add anything that hasn't already been said at least 10 times already in this thread.

There is one.and only one missing fact that matters to anyone debating this issue for themsleves, i.e., deciding which octane they PREFER to use, since any will do. What is the power output and fuel economy results at different octane? How much difference is there?

To repeat myself ad nauseum, instead of wasting time in this thread repeating the same points over and over again, contact KIA and ask/demand that they reveal the missing fact. Then everyone can go away and choose what to do with the one relevant piece of information necessary to make a decision.

Sorry, but it matters if the difference is 10% versus 2‰ versus zero. Unfortunately, the real answer could be anywhere in that range and only KIA or a volunteer willing to spend major dollars to do multiple controlled experiment dyno runs can answer the question.

Please explain how any one of the previous post’s FACTs was not a fact? And those statements have to be repeated because uninformed people keep posting misleading statements and opinions instead of documented information...

And good luck having Kia tell everyone the power & MPG loss customers get using regular fuel! Lol. That’s exactly why the best educated guess anyone can make is by using similar real world examples. AAA’s extensive testing is the best evidence we have and the samples I provided are the closest comparison you can make to date. After seeing AAAs results I’m confident our high performance Stingers would see 10-15% MPG and 10hp+ gains using premium over regular. That’s just an educated guess not a fact like I posted before...

You are entitled to your personal opinions, of course, but your versions of some of those "facts" are just that. Thx for playing.

I apologize if I misspoke or misquoted something but I don’t see which one of my statements weren’t facts. I’m trying to leave opinions out of it so I’ll happily retract & edit that statement if you can show otherwise. I’m simply trying to clear up repeated misconceptions this thread keeps taking. Thanks.

 

[GRStinger]

I've learned a lot about the octane debate in the above posts. Good discussion. Just my 2 cents... I appreciate trying to save the money - nobody wants to spend more than they should. I run premium. I assume I'm getting optimum performance that way, yet have wondered if I'm wasting some money. But personally, I didn't buy my Stinger GT to save money on gas. I just did a couple quick Google's. I've been driving since 1975 (yes, I'm THAT old ). The avg US price for gas was 57cents then (I didn't look for premium vs. mid, etc, but very few cars required more than regular back then, so I'm assuming that average is heavily weighted towards regular). Inflation adjusted, that's $2.66 in today's money. That's almost exactly what I pay now for premium here in Mich. So, I guess that gives me some piece of mind that the 93 octane I'm running is still quite economical by historic standards. (And yes - I know that we're fortunate here in the States compared to some of our fellow Stinger owners living in other parts.)

 

[SteveCo]

You can't cherry pick the results, or assume a particular competitor's engine and drivetrain is 'comparable' to the Stinger. This is what AAA concluded at the end of their comprehensive study:

The drivers organization tested six cars where manufacturers recommend -- but don't require -- premium gasoline (rated as 91 octane or higher) and found that premium fuel had a slight benefit in "extreme driving scenarios," like towing or cargo hauling. Fuel economy improved by an average of only 2.7 percent when they used premium gas, while horsepower increased a meager 1.4 percent on average.

Some 1.5 million cars and trucks were sold in the U.S. last year that advise motorists to use premium gas. Engines have to be calibrated to actually require high-octane fuel in order to benefit from it, according to John Nielsen, AAA's managing director of automotive engineering and repair.

"Based on AAA's testing, vehicles that only recommend premium gasoline can't take full advantage of higher octane fuel and, as a result, the benefit that comes from upgrading to premium gasoline may not offset its high cost," Nielsen said.

https://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/09/u-s-drivers-waste-2-1-billion-annually-premium-gasoline/

 

[Paul32]

You can't cherry pick the results, or assume a particular competitor's engine and drivetrain is 'comparable' to the Stinger. This is what AAA concluded at the end of their comprehensive study:

The drivers organization tested six cars where manufacturers recommend -- but don't require -- premium gasoline (rated as 91 octane or higher) and found that premium fuel had a slight benefit in "extreme driving scenarios," like towing or cargo hauling. Fuel economy improved by an average of only 2.7 percent when they used premium gas, while horsepower increased a meager 1.4 percent on average.

Some 1.5 million cars and trucks were sold in the U.S. last year that advise motorists to use premium gas. Engines have to be calibrated to actually require high-octane fuel in order to benefit from it, according to John Nielsen, AAA's managing director of automotive engineering and repair.

"Based on AAA's testing, vehicles that only recommend premium gasoline can't take full advantage of higher octane fuel and, as a result, the benefit that comes from upgrading to premium gasoline may not offset its high cost," Nielsen said.

https://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/09/u-s-drivers-waste-2-1-billion-annually-premium-gasoline/

I think we have beat this to death and no opinuns will be changed. It has been said that if you don't push it to the higher limits you would not notice the difference, I don't. So I choose to save on the cost while still be impressed with all the performance of the Stinger.

 

[StungBlueGT2]

You can't cherry pick the results, or assume a particular competitor's engine and drivetrain is 'comparable' to the Stinger. This is what AAA concluded at the end of their comprehensive study:

The drivers organization tested six cars where manufacturers recommend -- but don't require -- premium gasoline (rated as 91 octane or higher) and found that premium fuel had a slight benefit in "extreme driving scenarios," like towing or cargo hauling. Fuel economy improved by an average of only 2.7 percent when they used premium gas, while horsepower increased a meager 1.4 percent on average.

Some 1.5 million cars and trucks were sold in the U.S. last year that advise motorists to use premium gas. Engines have to be calibrated to actually require high-octane fuel in order to benefit from it, according to John Nielsen, AAA's managing director of automotive engineering and repair.

"Based on AAA's testing, vehicles that only recommend premium gasoline can't take full advantage of higher octane fuel and, as a result, the benefit that comes from upgrading to premium gasoline may not offset its high cost," Nielsen said.
https://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/09/u-s-drivers-waste-2-1-billion-annually-premium-gasoline/

I understand your point, but a Stinger or a high performance 3.3T engine that CAN take advantage of higher octane wasn’t tested by AAA. Their test was on a wide range of different engines from small 4cyl with & without turbos to big 400hp+ V8s. In order to get the most accurate comparison you have to look at the test engines that are most similar. Again the Mustang 305HP Ecosport 2.3T and the Escalade high performance 400HP DI V8 are the closest to our 365HP 3.3T V6.

I know it’s not 100% accurate, but using only the two most similar engines as baselines will be a much closer representation to our Stingers, than also including 4 completely non-similar engines in the averages. Which is why their generalized summary of results & your highlighted parts are only slightly comparable when related to our Stingers.

Again, I agree Premium is not “required” as our ECU can detune the engine to protect itself from detonation. However, it is now so highly recommended that Kia updated all 2019 Owners manuals with the disclaimer multiple people posted before. "For optimal engine performance, we recommend you use an unleaded gasoline which has an octane rating of RON (Research Octane Number) 95/AKI (Anti Knock Index) 91 or higher. Using Unleaded gasoline with an octane rating lower than RON 95 could result in loss of engine power and increase in fuel consumption."

This fuel debate is just like a Dr/Nutritionist recommending healthy foods over multiple glazed donuts for energy. For whatever reason some people go against Doctors “recommendations” and still eat all the donuts, but everyone knows it’s wrong and should be avoided. Not saying that the donuts will kill you(immediately), but it will negatively affect your performance & stamina and will catch up with you even more as time goes on.

So again to each their own, but I’m simply showing documented facts that anyone going against manufacturers recommendations will see both a loss of power as well as fuel economy. And specifically for our Stingers the comparable 8-15% fuel loss would considerably offset any savings buying regular fuel would achieve.

But if saving a few bucks is worth all the potential negatives that comes with it then I guess “ignorance is bliss”.

 

[SteveCo]

So again to each their own ...

That much I can agree with.

Comparing this to an unhealthy diet for human being is apples and oranges, and changing fuel grades is not a case where you can say 'everyone knows it's wrong and should be avoided'. It will not 'catch up with you' as time goes on, as the engine and fuel system are designed for it.

KIA's latest and revised manuals certainly state that using regular fuel 'could result in loss of engine power and increase in fuel consumption'. That one statement covers 'all the potential negatives'.

Trying to arrive at average percentages of each based on assumptions, considering all the different operating conditions and driving styles at play, won't yield meaningful results. Those who want to make the effort can do their own empirical testing where and how they operate the car, and discover which suits their own particular needs best.

Unlike making donuts a food staple in their diet, they're not hurting anything by doing so.

 

[V10enomous]

Where did you pull 8-15% out of ? Your own quote of the owner's manual says "COULD result..." not will result. Even IF it does result in 8-15% loss in fuel efficiency, how does that "considerably" offset a 20-30% price difference between regular and premium ? At least we agree that ignorance is bliss...

"For optimal engine performance, we recommend you use an unleaded gasoline which has an octane rating of RON (Research Octane Number) 95/AKI (Anti Knock Index) 91 or higher. Using Unleaded gasoline with an octane rating lower than RON 95 could result in loss of engine power and increase in fuel consumption."

So again to each their own, but I’m simply showing documented facts that anyone going against manufacturers recommendations will see both a loss of power as well as fuel economy. And specifically for our Stingers the comparable 8-15% fuel loss would considerably offset any savings buying regular fuel would achieve.

But if saving a few bucks is worth all the potential negatives that comes with it then I guess “ignorance is bliss”.

 

[StungBlueGT2]

Comparing this to an unhealthy diet for human being is apples and oranges, and changing fuel grades is not a case where you can say 'everyone knows it's wrong and should be avoided'. It will not 'catch up with you' as time goes on, as the engine and fuel system are designed for it.

KIA's latest and revised manuals certainly state that using regular fuel 'could result in loss of engine power and increase in fuel consumption'. That one statement covers 'all the potential negatives'.

Trying to arrive at average percentages of each based on assumptions, considering all the different operating conditions and driving styles at play, won't yield meaningful results. Those who want to make the effort can do their own empirical testing where and how they operate the car, and discover which suits their own particular needs best.

Unlike making donuts a food staple in their diet, they're not hurting anything by doing so.

Looks like you keep missing all the real points and instead are focusing on specific terminology...

To clarify “Everyone” referenced in my post doesn’t mean all human beings in the world. Lol. It represents Kia Stinger owners with 2019 manuals, or anyone that was informed by forums, Kia’s website etc. Basically all of us that know Kia changed recommendations to 91.

The diet analogy was simply symbolism about people making excuses not to follow recommendations just because it’s not “required”. And “everyone”(like above) does know it’s wrong to use anything but 91+, because Kia updated its recommendations and user manuals. So it’s a documented fact that anything but 91+ is wrong to use and is NOT recommended.

It WILL catch up with you as constantly fighting detonation & lower engine efficiency from low octane will put more strain and wear & tear on the engine. Also, most premium fuels have more detergents which will keeps combustion chambers cleaner longer.

Lastly, I said my examples were simply educated guesses based on AAAs most comparable test results. Obviously “results will vary” is a given, however the provided test results do show the potential for 8-15% loss is possible and while under boost(heavy load) much more probable. I and others have documented & posted about a 2-3mpg difference switching to Premium which is on par with AAAs 8% & 15% results.

So actually, the analogy of Doctor “recommended” healthy foods vs user chosen fatty short & long term health effecting foods fits the Premium vs Regular comparison quite well.

Where did you pull 8-15% out of ? Your own quote of the owner's manual says "COULD result..." not will result. Even IF it does result in 8-15% loss in fuel efficiency, how does that "considerably" offset a 20-30% price difference between regular and premium ? At least we agree that ignorance is bliss...

As explained above and a further detailed breakdown in my previous posts... But basically, Two of the most similar cars tested by AAA gained up to 8% & 15% better MPG, while I and others posted 2-3mpg(10-15%) differences switching to 93. Again, I never said “always will result”, but driving under boost, which most do, will easily yield similar results. I provided all the math before, but basically the savings “could” be upwards of 3mpg•16g=48m/tank. @18mpg/48m=2.7g of gas saved. 2.7g•$3.50g=$9.45 per tank saved. Again they are just estimates, but you can clearly see the potential for “considerable” savings. And if you think my examples are high you can cut them completely in half, but still save $4-5/tank which still considerably offsets $8-$12/tank savings you may get buying regular.

I’m not trying to tell anyone what to do with their car. I’m simply providing real world examples for our Stingers, and backing that up with documentation which basically matches AAAs comprehensive results of 8% & 15% gains using Premium fuel.

People can either benefit the information Kia, AAA, and Stinger users provide, or stay in denial and save a few bucks. But for me and most responsible Stinger owners(87% tested here) it’s common sense. Follow manufacturers recommendations for optimal performance, which includes both power & fuel economy.

 

[Marc Collins]

Looks like you keep missing all the real points and instead are focusing on specific terminology...

To clarify “Everyone” referenced in my post doesn’t mean all human beings in the world. Lol. It represents Kia Stinger owners with 2019 manuals, or anyone that was informed by forums, Kia’s website etc. Basically all of us that know Kia changed recommendations to 91.

The diet analogy was simply symbolism about people making excuses not to follow recommendations just because it’s not “required”. And “everyone”(like above) does know it’s wrong to use anything but 91+, because Kia updated its recommendations and user manuals. So it’s a documented fact that anything but 91+ is wrong to use and is NOT recommended.

It WILL catch up with you as constantly fighting detonation & lower engine efficiency from low octane will put more strain and wear & tear on the engine. Also, most premium fuels have more detergents which will keeps combustion chambers cleaner longer.

Lastly, I said my examples were simply educated guesses based on AAAs most comparable test results. Obviously “results will vary” is a given, however the provided test results do show the potential for 8-15% loss is possible and while under boost(heavy load) much more probable. I and others have documented & posted about a 2-3mpg difference switching to Premium which is on par with AAAs 8% & 15% results.

So actually, the analogy of Doctor “recommended” healthy foods vs user chosen fatty short & long term health effecting foods fits the Premium vs Regular comparison quite well.
As explained above and a further detailed breakdown in my previous posts... But basically, Two of the most similar cars tested by AAA gained up to 8% & 15% better MPG, while I and others posted 2-3mpg(10-15%) differences switching to 93. Again, I never said “always will result”, but driving under boost, which most do, will easily yield similar results. I provided all the math before, but basically the savings “could” be upwards of 3mpg•16g=48m/tank. @18mpg/48m=2.7g of gas saved. 2.7g•$3.50g=$9.45 per tank saved. Again they are just estimates, but you can clearly see the potential for “considerable” savings. And if you think my examples are high you can cut them completely in half, but still save $4-5/tank which still considerably offsets $8-$12/tank savings you may get buying regular.

I’m not trying to tell anyone what to do with their car. I’m simply providing real world examples for our Stingers, and backing that up with documentation which basically matches AAAs comprehensive results of 8% & 15% gains using Premium fuel.

People can either benefit the information Kia, AAA, and Stinger users provide, or stay in denial and save a few bucks. But for me and most responsible Stinger owners(87% tested here) it’s common sense. Follow manufacturers recommendations for optimal performance, which includes both power & fuel economy.

I have already disagreed with most of what you have written the previous times you have made the same points, but I have a simple question. Would higher octane fuel not have a high likelihood of optimizing performance and fuel economy in all gasoline cars--even ones where the "recommended" fuel is regular? And if you believe the detergent issue, bring those benefits, too?

If your answer is no, then please explain why not?

If your answer is yes, then please explain how the wording in the KIA manual (2019 or revised 2018) could not equally apply to any car on the road? Manufacturers choose the recommended octane level for three reasons:

1. It's a vehicle likely to be driven more aggressively than average, or taken to a track, etc., so they want to hedge their bets on warranty claims
2. The power or fuel economy numbers already in circulation in marketing materials are at risk of not being achieved unless premium fuel is used
3. Either #1 and/or #2 plus the clientele buying the car is economically open-minded about spending the extra for premium, so why not?

Mechanically, every car available for the past couple of decades will safely operate with any normally-available octane. Of course, if you intend to tow a trailer or operate at very high altitudes or take your car to the track, using higher octane fuel would be wise, as would a transmission cooler and better brakes and so on. For people, especially in winter climates where the car will rarely exceed 2,000 rpm due to weather-inhibited inability to drive aggressively, choosing regular octane for economical reasons is a valid choice. For people using the car as an appliance to commute to work, who also will rarely exceed 2,000 rpm, ditto.

There is a simple way to comprehend this: use your turbo gauge. If you drive for whatever reason in a manner that you are actually using more than a moderate amount of turbo boost on a regular basis, you might want to think about premium fuel because, a) you are the only ones who will actually be able to tell the difference in seat of the pants performance, and b) you might be stressing the engine enough where higher octane could possibly make a difference. The farther along the turbo boost frequency and volume scale you are, the more you would want to consider premium octane. If you are temporarily or permanently in a category of moderate driver who only uses wide open throttle very infrequently, higher octane fuel is complete waste of money.

 

[SteveCo]

Looks like you keep missing all the real points and instead are focusing on specific terminology...

Wow - that must have taken a while. Most of what you've posted has already been addressed, but ...

So it’s a documented fact that anything but 91+ is wrong to use and is NOT recommended.

Fact? Hardly - per the 2019 owner's manual 91+ is recommended to obtain 'optimal engine performance'. Use of less than 91 'could result in loss of engine power and increase in fuel consumption'. Those are direct quotes from the owner's manual - nowhere is it documented that lower octane fuel is 'wrong to use'.

I expect (but won't claim it as fact) that the only reason KIA changed their documentation to read 'premium recommended' is that is what they used to achieve their published fuel economy numbers in standardized testing - same reasons you can't set the car to start up in 'Sport' mode, or permanently disable the 'Auto Start/Stop' feature. They've already had to revise their published Stinger fuel economy numbers once based on 'real world' driving data, and they've been burned in the past once before ($$$) when the cars didn't meet their published numbers.

The FACT is that for some cars do require premium fuel, as they were designed that way - their documentation clearly states 'Premium Required'. The KIA Stinger was designed to operate without issue on regular fuel, and as clearly stated in their documentation premium is NOT required.

It WILL catch up with you as constantly fighting detonation & lower engine efficiency from low octane will put more strain and wear & tear on the engine. Also, most premium fuels have more detergents which will keeps combustion chambers cleaner longer.

That's sheer fallacy. The computer controlled engine is constantly adjusting tuning parameters, including timing, based on operating conditions and load - it's designed to do so continuously with any fuel grade, and is not 'fighting' anything or increasing wear and tear. In many operating conditions with less than heavy demands no accommodations are needed for octane at all.

As for premium fuels and extra detergents, there are lots of cars currently running on 100 percent regular fuel without issue - and their combustion chambers are perfectly content with the scrubbing they receive. With quality (i.e. top tier) gasoline, regular fuel has more than sufficient detergent content.

Lastly, I said my examples were simply educated guesses ...

Yes, based on extrapolated numbers lifted from studies done on other cars. Other Stinger owners have posted that they see/feel no difference in power and/or fuel economy between fuel grades.

People can decide on their own whether they see, feel or document a benefit (in performance or economy) from using premium fuel, given their driving style and operating conditions - and whether any real or perceived benefit is worth the additional cost. They are not causing any damage to their car.

 

[westcoastGT]

I use 91 or higher all the time , for me , driving 10k KM a year makes very little cost difference ................I realize that I could use lower grades without harm but I prefer the perceived or real difference

 

[GRStinger]

I use 91 or higher all the time , for me , driving 10k KM a year makes very little cost difference ................I realize that I could use lower grades without harm but I prefer the perceived or real difference

Agree. No body wants spend more than they have to, but I didn't buy a GT2 AWD thinking about gas mileage. I trust/assume 93 octane gives me the best performance. That's all I use and i don't waste time worrying about it.

 

[MerlintheMad]

I use 91 or higher all the time , for me , driving 10k KM a year makes very little cost difference ................I realize that I could use lower grades without harm but I prefer the perceived or real difference

Like UHP tires, and race spec brakes (and upgraded sway bars, etc.), the use of GOOD gas means that always in your conscious, driving mind, you know your high performance GT is ready: "loaded for bear", as it were. If you put lower octane gas in, why the heck do you have a 3.3TT or a Stinger in the first place? What is the point? If all your ducks are in a row, and you stamp on the gas and hit the curves like Nicki Lauda, your car is going to deliver. The rest of the time, in rush hour traffic, you can be smuggly sitting there knowing with full confidence that you and your Stinger are in top condition, fully equipped to take on the idling Dodge Demon in your rearview mirror.

Buying cheaper gas, and knowing that you are giving up performance (and maybe a bit of mpg), is the same thing as opting to replace your rotors and pads with OEM or cheaper knockoffs; or cheap tires or any number of other things on the list of what makes the Stinger scream, just to "save a few bucks". Why do you have this car?

 

[SteveCo]

What is the point?

Quite simply, the point is choice - and correcting misinformation. Choice of what car to buy for their own reasons, choice of how to drive it (and when), and choice of how to fuel it.

If someone only drives the car for a 50 mile commute each day at legal speeds, loves the styling, comfort, and amenities, and feels the car has all the power they need, who has the right to tell them 'you're using it wrong'?

Or someone who occasionally wants to save 15 bucks on a tankful, because they don't need to be a stoplight racer today?

Like you and many others, I love the cars performance, and enjoy the hell out of feeling it perform - that's a huge part of why I bought this car. But if someone wants to economize as a priority, or feels that what little they are giving up on regular fuel is worth it, that is their call - and implying they are somehow damaging the car is wrong.

That is the point.