Is Comfort mode worthless on 2022?

[MerlintheMad]

Break in period says not to exceed 4K RPM. I've found that sport will exceed that easily and hold the gear above 4K, so I'm not really using it yet.

I used Sport exclusively during the break-in: and the paddle shifters. In Sport, the higher revs makes it easier to stay above 2K RPM, which is the other half of the break-in recommendation that you didn't mention. It was easy to stay within 2-4K RPM as long as your priority was watching the tach and using the paddles.

 

[Travis Wills]

all of the pedal tuners are pretty much the same. It will eliminate the dead zone, But eco mode will still be eco mode and not have much power unless you floor it. Unless you adjust the pedal tuner to be super aggressive, but at that point you definitely wont be saving any gas, which defeats the whole purpose of eco mode. And in other modes, it will be so aggressive that it may be difficult to control the acceleration and accelerate smoothly. In short, it makes the throttle what it should have been from factory.

ECO mode always maintains the optimal gear for fuel economy at part pedal and part throttle. At full throttle ECO mode can give you all of the Horsepower that even Sport mode can. Using a WindBooster to make the pedal much more sensitive makes ECO mode responsive yet economical(when you aren't on the gas).

The WindBooster really transforms Eco mode with a Sport +5 or +6 setting. You still get good gas mileage when cruising as well.

 

[Travis Wills]

Break in period says not to exceed 4K RPM. I've found that sport will exceed that easily and hold the gear above 4K, so I'm not really using it yet.

The manual says "No break-in period is necessary". Everything after that in that section is.... well..... unnecessary. You do not have to break in a Stinger. Kia will warranty the car even if you don't do it at all.

 

[MerlintheMad]

The manual says "No break-in period is necessary". Everything after that in that section is.... well..... unnecessary. You do not have to break in a Stinger. Kia will warranty the car even if you don't do it at all.

That's all true. And so is the suggestion that by following the break-in procedure you "may add to the performance, economy and life of your vehicle." Since most owners will trade in the car long before that realized lifespan, it is moot whether or not they bother with following a break-in for the first "600" miles. But those of us who plan to keep the car forever feel differently. And the break-in procedure is like wooing our ride, to show her that we care and are serious about her health and welfare long-term, in fact, for the duration.

 

[Coldbread]

Eco mode also isn't just a change in throttle response. According to Engineering Explained

The engine also does run differently to push the efficiency. There are also a few functions that exist in eco that aren't on any other; first the car definitely rolls better on eco than on sport, probably because of the less aggressive downshifts which cause engine braking. There is also a function that you can turn on where the transmission will go into neutral while rolling, you would be able to release the throttle earlier and coast the rest of the way.

 

[Travis Wills]

That's all true. And so is the suggestion that by following the break-in procedure you "may add to the performance, economy and life of your vehicle." Since most owners will trade in the car long before that realized lifespan, it is moot whether or not they bother with following a break-in for the first "600" miles. But those of us who plan to keep the car forever feel differently. And the break-in procedure is like wooing our ride, to show her that we care and are serious about her health and welfare long-term, in fact, for the duration.

In 10 years gasoline will not be affordable. The manufacturers will see to that. They are already "all in" on electric. I believe you that you intend to keep the car for 10+ years. I just don't believe that you actually will.

 

[MerlintheMad]

I just don't believe that you actually will.

If your "prophecy" is accurate, then only Jay Leno et al. super rich car collectors will be playing around with fossil fuels: ten, twenty, thirty years, what is the difference in the end?

But the future is unwritten; that makes it a mystery; anything can happen to drive fossil fuels either way. For one thing, the main thing: "green" really isn't; it is no panacea to save Planet Earth: it's just another maneuver by those positioned to take profits from those that have them, and divert to those who are invested in "green": and it's a politicized game too, a power grabbing game of global proportions. None of this is new: but it's all about cars and the future of the private automobile: so I will talk about that.

 

[Coldbread]

If your "prophecy" is accurate, then only Jay Leno et al. super rich car collectors will be playing around with fossil fuels: ten, twenty, thirty years, what is the difference in the end?

But the future is unwritten; that makes it a mystery; anything can happen to drive fossil fuels either way. For one thing, the main thing: "green" really isn't; it is no panacea to save Planet Earth: it's just another maneuver by those positioned to take profits from those that have them, and divert to those who are invested in "green": and it's a politicized game too, a power grabbing game of global proportions. None of this is new: but it's all about cars and the future of the private automobile: so I will talk about that.

I agree that assuming centuries of progress of the combustion engine will be thrown away is a little extreme. My money is on a hydrogen powered ICE assuming we can figure out how to make hydrogen fuel more efficiently. I heard the one Toyota entered into that race didn't do great though =(.

I remember Cadillac said they were going all green and then came out with the CT5-V Black Wing. Holy that could have just been a beefy SS Batman.

 

[RM7]

That's all true. And so is the suggestion that by following the break-in procedure you "may add to the performance, economy and life of your vehicle." Since most owners will trade in the car long before that realized lifespan, it is moot whether or not they bother with following a break-in for the first "600" miles. But those of us who plan to keep the car forever feel differently. And the break-in procedure is like wooing our ride, to show her that we care and are serious about her health and welfare long-term, in fact, for the duration.

Also, it's generally not a good idea to go drive the car and immediately rev it up to 5K, letting the engine warm up for a few miles or if it's a short trip, just keeping it in comfort. It can definitely be useful.

 

[RM7]

In 10 years gasoline will not be affordable. The manufacturers will see to that. They are already "all in" on electric. I believe you that you intend to keep the car for 10+ years. I just don't believe that you actually will.

This is ridiculous. There is not a giant switch somewhere that will be just "flipped on" requiring everyone to change to EVs. Yes, most if not all new cars sold by then will be EV or significant hybrid (plug-in), but it'll take decades before the US fleet moves mostly to electricity and plenty of supporting industries (that have lobbying groups) will ensure that fossil fuel is available for the foreseeable future. Trucking, businesses that rely on machines or that operate in remote locations without services, and so on. We may not need 5 gas stations on a city intersection, but I would put money on there being no issues getting fuel in the foreseeable future.

 

[ChaneRZ]

So what happens if the state calls for a mandatory flex alert due to hot weather? How are you going to charge your ev? Buy a generator? I know my gas car is still going to run.

 

[RM7]

So what happens if the state calls for a mandatory flex alert due to hot weather? How are you going to charge your ev? Buy a generator? I know my gas car is still going to run.

This is idiotic. What happens when you build more houses and businesses? What happens during the normal course of ****? The power grid gets updated, that's what. Most EVs charge off of peak, at night too, so they actually make our use of the grid MORE efficient. As demand increases, the grid and infrastructure gets improved.

People are still acting like there's some giant switch that's going to be turned on at midnight.

 

[5tinger]

If your "prophecy" is accurate, then only Jay Leno et al. super rich car collectors will be playing around with fossil fuels: ten, twenty, thirty years, what is the difference in the end?

But the future is unwritten; that makes it a mystery; anything can happen to drive fossil fuels either way. For one thing, the main thing: "green" really isn't; it is no panacea to save Planet Earth: it's just another maneuver by those positioned to take profits from those that have them, and divert to those who are invested in "green": and it's a politicized game too, a power grabbing game of global proportions. None of this is new: but it's all about cars and the future of the private automobile: so I will talk about that.

It's called Eco/Green fasicm.
Fossil fuels have been and will continue to be a staple to human civilization and development.

 

[stoopid]

It's called Eco/Green fasicm.
Fossil fuels have been and will continue to be a staple to human civilization and development.

Fasicm? :-/

It's science. Oil that we extract from the ground takes millions of years to become oil, and by time it's all sucked up in the 200 years of industrialization, we'll be waiting a bit for replenishment of those deposits.

What is possible (although not likely at the current rate of development) is we'll come up with a synthetic means of running combustion vehicles that doesn't puke more CO2. The tech is there but is not easily ramped up to the levels we need for full replacement. It's likely we'll be seeing an electric future in stages. Stage 1 are hybrids, cars that either use gas as generators or use electric engines for city / low speed travel. Stage 2 will be full electric. Stage 2 is a long way off due to battery tech and charging infrastructure being very far behind what is necessary.

The answer to the power grid issue handling the additional electric cars is home solar power (and/or wind) and batteries for off hours use. People are already doing this, and as that industry grows the costs will come down. Additionally, power companies are starting to see the clouds on the horizon and loosening their grip on the industry, allowing more and more people to sell excess power back to the grid. This helps the home owner with solar as well as the power company who doesn't have to build another costly station or dam or huge solar/wind farm. The vision for power companies of the future is to have them simply connect us all together, rather than be the sole source of power generation.

 

[5tinger]

Fasicm? :-/

It's science. Oil that we extract from the ground takes millions of years to become oil, and by time it's all sucked up in the 200 years of industrialization, we'll be waiting a bit for replenishment of those deposits.

What is possible (although not likely at the current rate of development) is we'll come up with a synthetic means of running combustion vehicles that doesn't puke more CO2. The tech is there but is not easily ramped up to the levels we need for full replacement. It's likely we'll be seeing an electric future in stages. Stage 1 are hybrids, cars that either use gas as generators or use electric engines for city / low speed travel. Stage 2 will be full electric. Stage 2 is a long way off due to battery tech and charging infrastructure being very far behind what is necessary.

The answer to the power grid issue handling the additional electric cars is home solar power (and/or wind) and batteries for off hours use. People are already doing this, and as that industry grows the costs will come down. Additionally, power companies are starting to see the clouds on the horizon and loosening their grip on the industry, allowing more and more people to sell excess power back to the grid. This helps the home owner with solar as well as the power company who doesn't have to build another costly station or dam or huge solar/wind farm. The vision for power companies of the future is to have them simply connect us all together, rather than be the sole source of power generation.

Evidence for or against oil/associated gas & unassociated gas will be sucked dry in any amount of years is inconclusive . However that's a different story.

But what many fail to understand is the absolute breadth the function of crude oil and gas serves. It really is far from only vehicle fuel.
The world's agricultural industry is reliant on it, the global logistics industry relies on it.
The petrochemical industries which are responsible for the base material of everything from your microfiber cloth to your medication are based on crude oil and even the asphalt that is surfaced all over your cities and towns is made from it. Not to mention power generation. Gas power plants are cleanly and reliability powering the majority of the world up.

Are there alternatives, maybe? However I don't think anyone has yet found the replacement that is as staple and flexible as oil/gas.

 

[jthrelf]

Funny anecdote about the fossil fuel "switch" being flipped: before I had my license and couldn't wait to have my first car (this went on for years and years...) I was absolutely convinced very shortly after the world would run out of gas and I'd be stuck with no car or a crappy electric one (fast EVs did not exist...). Happy we haven't come to that yet.

You want to read a crazy book somewhat on this subject? American War by Omar El Akkad is about a second American civil war that stems from the disagreement on fossil fuel policy. It's been a few years since I've read it but I really enjoyed it.

 

[MerlintheMad]

Going back a lot further, when we were put on a national 55 MPH speed limit for years, it was all a fabricated fuel crunch: and the skuttlebutt was that before the end of the century we'd run out of gas. Why does anyone listen to "them" anymore? People have short/selective memories.

 

[stoopid]

Evidence for or against oil/associated gas & unassociated gas will be sucked dry in any amount of years is inconclusive . However that's a different story.

But what many fail to understand is the absolute breadth the function of crude oil and gas serves. It really is far from only vehicle fuel.
The world's agricultural industry is reliant on it, the global logistics industry relies on it.
The petrochemical industries which are responsible for the base material of everything from your microfiber cloth to your medication are based on crude oil and even the asphalt that is surfaced all over your cities and towns is made from it. Not to mention power generation. Gas power plants are cleanly and reliability powering the majority of the world up.

Are there alternatives, maybe? However I don't think anyone has yet found the replacement that is as staple and flexible as oil/gas.

It's finite and takes a long time (millions of years) to replenish. Unless you know something no one else does. Burning it is also has toxic byproducts. It's not really a different story, you're the one who brought up our reliance on it. Reconciling what replaces it is the top priority among all the various industries you listed. Air travel might be the most challenging, since planes need A LOT of fuel for an average length flight, and batteries are waaay too heavy using any incarnation of current tech.

Whether or not alternatives are found, eventually the well runs dry. Eventually we choke the atmosphere or warm the planet into extinction. We are the same species that cut down the last tree on easter island. We're ancestors of primitive animals who breed themselves into disease and famine.

The issue is that our lifestyles and our industrialized world was never intended to be sustainable. Instant gratification is our species' fatal flaw.

If we're going to talk about cars then let's stick to conversations and context of how that conversation relates back to cars.

 

[jthrelf]

Going back a lot further, when we were put on a national 55 MPH speed limit for years, it was all a fabricated fuel crunch: and the skuttlebutt was that before the end of the century we'd run out of gas. Why does anyone listen to "them" anymore? People have short/selective memories.

I was in Germany last year for work (first time) and got to experience no speed limits. I had a BMW wagon with a turbo diesel so it wasn't fast, but still drove like a BMW. I hit 235 km/h with a shit eating grin the entire time.

At the site I was visiting they were saying some folks yet again were bringing up implementing speed limits in Germany to reduce pollution, etc. Thankfully that got defeated!

 

[stoopid]

I was in Germany last year for work (first time) and got to experience no speed limits. I had a BMW wagon with a turbo diesel so it wasn't fast, but still drove like a BMW. I hit 235 km/h with a shit eating grin the entire time.

At the site I was visiting they were saying some folks yet again were bringing up implementing speed limits in Germany to reduce pollution, etc. Thankfully that got defeated!

Air resistance (drag) makes moving vehicles at high speeds VERY inefficient. That's why it was proposed, not to make tourists drive slow.

Braking from a high rate of speed is also slow, making reaction to other vehicles potentially dangerous.

Non-sport/performance vehicles also react poorly to sudden changes in direction, so having to suddenly move the vehicle at a high rate of speed to avoid something/someone also dangerous.

There's very few legitimate reasons I can think for them to keep the status quo. And I'm into cars/speed.