2011 Hyundai Sonata -- 3 cylinders dropped!!!

[admzn]

I notice a lot of Hyundia/Kia vehicles ping under load, I can hear it when I'm walking down the sidewalk and someone accelerates from a stop. And it is always a vehicle of that make.

The knock sensor is supposed to detect this and adjust timing/boost accordingly. Even my ancient by today's standards 2002 Xterra with the supercharger can modulate it's timing. I never hear ping ever. And I know that sound all too well from other boosted cars I've had lol.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by nicholas
Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Originally Posted by nicholas
Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells

.
With direct injection and precise engine timing - 87 octane is not a problem for ANY manufacturer, let alone Hyundai.


Meh, not really. The Germans still mostly use 91 except for entry level cars, and even that only started three or four years ago. Guess which manufacturers have pretty much no concerns with LSPI?

If manufacturers had their way, 91 would absolutely be the minimum octane available
------How do you "know" this?



Because I read, and stuff.

https://www.autonews.com/article/20...o-industry-lobbies-for-95-as-new-regular

From that article:

Quote
GM, Ford Motor Co. and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, working with the United States Council for Automotive Research, are seeking just one grade of fuel: 95. That would eliminate today's grades, generally 87 octane for regular, 88-90 for midgrade and 91-94 for premium. Even though premium gasoline costs about 50 cents more per gallon than regular, Nicholson says moving to 95 octane would cost consumers far less.


They are talking 95 RON, which is 91 octane.

This was back in April 2018 - - - - - anything new???????????????????????
We are almost in 2020 now you know...............

Transition to BEV continues. I doubt there will be a change because it'll might discourage/delay further electrification of passenger vehicles.

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

Originally Posted by nicholas

This was back in April 2018 - - - - - anything new???????????????????????
We are almost in 2020 now you know...............


18 months in this industry is like yesterday.

Originally Posted by nicholas
My point is that 87 will do zero engine damage for an engine designed to use it - - - Audi's, BMW's, ect.... all recommend 91 octane, they are tuned to use this.
The point that 87 will damage a turbo direct injected engine holds no water, and makes zero sense- - - - even the article someone posted has zero to do with 87 octane damage.

91 will make it easier for manufacturers to hit the mpg targets governments are posting - - thats it thats all.......


It will allow more compression. That's it. A byproduct of more compression is both more power, and more fuel economy. It is simply an increase in efficiency.

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl

Transition to BEV continues. I doubt there will be a change because it'll might discourage/delay further electrification of passenger vehicles.


This will be 20+ years from now, if not longer. If this were true they wouldn't be developing new ICE engines, and they most certainly are.

 

[KrisZ]

I don't understand why people want the push to eliminate 87 octane fuel. What good to the consumer will it do? Eliminating choices, especially by legislation is always bad to the consumer.

If manufacturers cannot design to 87, they are FREE to specify 91 and advertise the heck out of it. If the claimed gains in HP and savings in fuel actually materialize, people will have no problem using 91.

 

[69Torino]

Originally Posted by nicholas
My point is that 87 will do zero engine damage for an engine designed to use it - - - Audi's, BMW's, ect.... all recommend 91 octane, they are tuned to use this.
The point that 87 will damage a turbo direct injected engine holds no water, and makes zero sense- - - - even the article someone posted has zero to do with 87 octane damage.

91 will make it easier for manufacturers to hit the mpg targets governments are posting - - thats it thats all.......


With all due respect, this is false. If you hear preignition, it's already too late. It's already had preignition evens that are not audible. Knock sensor input to ECU takes time to process, even if milliseconds. Adjusting ignition timing takes time too. Add a combustion chamber volume lessening layer of carbon, lean fuel mixtures and superheated carbon particles and 87 octane won't do the job anymore. Engineering has its limits and these limits are pushed every model year.

If you have a DI turbo car, run higher octane fuel or you (or the next owner) will experience some form of consequence, whether it's lower power output, non optimal fuel mileage, or something more impactful such as catastrophic engine failure.

You may choose to adjust your rose colored glasses as time goes on or adapt and inform yourself as technology changes.

 

[Sayonara_Sonata]

The early Genesis 2.0T was intake port injected utilizing a mechanical spring loaded wastegate actuator. When the Theta II mill was introduced it came with DI, electronic wastegate actuator, CVVT that was only manipulating the exhaust timing\overlap and more HP. I wanted the coupe, yet alas me dear auld mum at 'er advanced age could not climb out if she could get in. Plus, the Sonata was overall more DD user friendly. Roomy with plenty of glass for rural country viewing and power on tap somewhat mimicking late 60's early 70's self proclaimed personal luxury vehicles\land yacht. With exception of being midsize having two extra doors, a good 400lb less weight a lot more HP with ride \handling that doesn't resemble a small boat bobbing about in choppy water

Many dealers stocked 5-20 in bulk for NA engines. I'm sure they were encouraged to use this weight on the new 2.0T because of better gas mileage, and a more than slightly quicker response due in part to lower viscosity of thinner oil bathing internals & CVVT. For the first couple of years the constant variable valve train was hydraulically powered. Later on they adopted electric solenoid for that task that wasn't so dependent on oil weight.

If you used a proper thick oil say 5W-40 you lost response time big time. Well beyond knocking the edge off of green, age not colour or politically correct energy saving, oil. Somewhere in the range of 3K miles. The mill ran the best right at 5K oil change, was originally T6 Rotella 5w-40, and worst initially after OC. The tolerances of the Theta II were tight enough that it didn't seem to loosen up completely until about 10-12K on the clock.

As well 4.8qts made for a fill. Later a new dipstick was provided enlisting a full 5qts. All this and more looking for the alleged Theta II demon lurking about. By comparison the Kia Stinger 2.0T mill takes 5.7qts.

The 87-93 octane is a trade-off not completely limited to finances. 87octane packs more punch vis-a-vis 93. If you were forced to duplicate the timing curve of 87 with 93 you would never buy 93 again. Of course the ability to avoid early detonation allows use of more advanced timing\power. As use of 93 in low compression scenario is a waste of money and loss of power.

91oct is a viable compromise of performance\mpg\thriftiness. I blend 93 up to E10 with 93 EO at well below E5 if indeed the up to E10 is even close to E10. E5 is most efficient I shoot for E3 and on Mondays save 35 centavos a Gl. on E10 93.

Has it been eight months? My how time flies when youse havin' fun. One can only stay at the William J. Le Petomane memorial gambling casino for the insane so long before the leisure confines of chateau de la woods beckons; as the siren's song,

 

[69Torino]

Your posts are fun to read. Very animated. ^ Thanks for the lighthearted disposition.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by Sayonara_Sonata
Has it been eight months? My how time flies when youse havin' fun. One can only stay at the William J. Le Petomane memorial gambling casino for the insane so long before the leisure confines of chateau de la woods beckons; as the siren's song,

Let us know what you tally:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

Originally Posted by KrisZ

If manufacturers cannot design to 87, they are FREE to specify 91 and advertise the heck out of it. If the claimed gains in HP and savings in fuel actually materialize, people will have no problem using 91.



Then you won't sell your entry level cars. VW and MINI have been specifying 91 forever, and only came out with 87 friendly engines in the last few years because otherwise anyone who isn't a petrolhead just isn't going to buy the car. Tell someone if they buy this car their gas bill increases 20% over the car that's at the Mazda or Hyundai dealer and it's an automatic lost sale. My sister has a '17 Cooper S and only puts 89 in it. Yet she spent 5k more than a regular Cooper solely because the wanted a color only available on the S. This is how a huge portion of people think

.

 

[Sayonara_Sonata]

"Thanks for the lighthearted disposition."
Thanks for the tip o' hat.

Also, I almost always used a high zddp heavy synthetic oil and allow the engine and running gear to get up to operating temps before playing around. In order to keep the lid shut during the fall-spring I've liberated two of the three horizontal sections of the grille.

I'm currently searching for a shop that will cut a section of 0.08" Aluminium to me specs along with five deep, 10 row louvers of of 3\16-3\8 opening for summer temps.

As much as I'm sorely tempted to click a link that contains "crackpot" in the URL I fear I must pass.

ETA: the Theta II also introduced a twin scroll turbo that helped to some extent remedy turbo lag.

 

[nicholas]

Originally Posted by 69Torino
Originally Posted by nicholas
My point is that 87 will do zero engine damage for an engine designed to use it - - - Audi's, BMW's, ect.... all recommend 91 octane, they are tuned to use this.
The point that 87 will damage a turbo direct injected engine holds no water, and makes zero sense- - - - even the article someone posted has zero to do with 87 octane damage.

91 will make it easier for manufacturers to hit the mpg targets governments are posting - - thats it thats all.......


With all due respect, this is false. If you hear preignition, it's already too late. It's already had preignition evens that are not audible. Knock sensor input to ECU takes time to process, even if milliseconds. Adjusting ignition timing takes time too. Add a combustion chamber volume lessening layer of carbon, lean fuel mixtures and superheated carbon particles and 87 octane won't do the job anymore. Engineering has its limits and these limits are pushed every model year.

If you have a DI turbo car, run higher octane fuel or you (or the next owner) will experience some form of consequence, whether it's lower power output, non optimal fuel mileage, or something more impactful such as catastrophic engine failure.

You may choose to adjust your rose colored glasses as time goes on or adapt and inform yourself as technology changes.

You have no clue what you are talking about -- - - - - Engine's today adjust timing in milliseconds in every aspect of the combustion cycle.
You are simply incorrect - - no rose coloured glasses here.
87 and a turbo engine "designed" to use it - - - - - for the love of everything - I am not talking about euro engines - - - is fine. It makes zero sense that an engine that was programed to use 87 would ping under any circumstance........................zero sense.
Carbon in the cylinders or "hot spots" - - - 91 is not going to prevent this kind of detonation.

 

[nicholas]

Originally Posted by AdamZ
I notice a lot of Hyundia/Kia vehicles ping under load, I can hear it when I'm walking down the sidewalk and someone accelerates from a stop. And it is always a vehicle of that make.

The knock sensor is supposed to detect this and adjust timing/boost accordingly. Even my ancient by today's standards 2002 Xterra with the supercharger can modulate it's timing. I never hear ping ever. And I know that sound all too well from other boosted cars I've had lol.

This is so wildly laughable I can't believe you posted it - - - - you can hear detonation before the ECU can correct timing, on engines designed to use 87, in Ontario.
90% of our gas is Top Tier in this province.

You are not hearing any pinging in these lowly hyundai engines.....such a joke.

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

Originally Posted by nicholas
Originally Posted by 69Torino
Originally Posted by nicholas
My point is that 87 will do zero engine damage for an engine designed to use it - - - Audi's, BMW's, ect.... all recommend 91 octane, they are tuned to use this.
The point that 87 will damage a turbo direct injected engine holds no water, and makes zero sense- - - - even the article someone posted has zero to do with 87 octane damage.

91 will make it easier for manufacturers to hit the mpg targets governments are posting - - thats it thats all.......


With all due respect, this is false. If you hear preignition, it's already too late. It's already had preignition evens that are not audible. Knock sensor input to ECU takes time to process, even if milliseconds. Adjusting ignition timing takes time too. Add a combustion chamber volume lessening layer of carbon, lean fuel mixtures and superheated carbon particles and 87 octane won't do the job anymore. Engineering has its limits and these limits are pushed every model year.

If you have a DI turbo car, run higher octane fuel or you (or the next owner) will experience some form of consequence, whether it's lower power output, non optimal fuel mileage, or something more impactful such as catastrophic engine failure.

You may choose to adjust your rose colored glasses as time goes on or adapt and inform yourself as technology changes.

You have no clue what you are talking about -- - - - - Engine's today adjust timing in milliseconds in every aspect of the combustion cycle.
You are simply incorrect - - no rose coloured glasses here.
87 and a turbo engine "designed" to use it - - - - - for the love of everything - I am not talking about euro engines - - - is fine. It makes zero sense that an engine that was programed to use 87 would ping under any circumstance........................zero sense.
Carbon in the cylinders or "hot spots" - - - 91 is not going to prevent this of detonation.



He was a tech for Hyundai for years

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Originally Posted by KrisZ

If manufacturers cannot design to 87, they are FREE to specify 91 and advertise the heck out of it. If the claimed gains in HP and savings in fuel actually materialize, people will have no problem using 91.



Then you won't sell your entry level cars. VW and MINI have been specifying 91 forever, and only came out with 87 friendly engines in the last few years because otherwise anyone who isn't a petrolhead just isn't going to buy the car. Tell someone if they buy this car their gas bill increases 20% over the car that's at the Mazda or Hyundai dealer and it's an automatic lost sale. My sister has a '17 Cooper S and only puts 89 in it. Yet she spent 5k more than a regular Cooper solely because the wanted a color only available on the S. This is how a huge portion of people think

.


And I will ask again, since you omitted it from the quote.
Why would you want 87 to be outlawed by the government? What positive will it bring to the consumer?

Do you honestly believe the lobbiests?

It's rather interesting that when it comes to consumer spending, free market is always hailed as the best. But when it comes to corporate spending free market forces are not enough.

 

[nicholas]

Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Originally Posted by nicholas
Originally Posted by 69Torino
Originally Posted by nicholas
My point is that 87 will do zero engine damage for an engine designed to use it - - - Audi's, BMW's, ect.... all recommend 91 octane, they are tuned to use this.
The point that 87 will damage a turbo direct injected engine holds no water, and makes zero sense- - - - even the article someone posted has zero to do with 87 octane damage.

91 will make it easier for manufacturers to hit the mpg targets governments are posting - - thats it thats all.......


With all due respect, this is false. If you hear preignition, it's already too late. It's already had preignition evens that are not audible. Knock sensor input to ECU takes time to process, even if milliseconds. Adjusting ignition timing takes time too. Add a combustion chamber volume lessening layer of carbon, lean fuel mixtures and superheated carbon particles and 87 octane won't do the job anymore. Engineering has its limits and these limits are pushed every model year.

If you have a DI turbo car, run higher octane fuel or you (or the next owner) will experience some form of consequence, whether it's lower power output, non optimal fuel mileage, or something more impactful such as catastrophic engine failure.

You may choose to adjust your rose colored glasses as time goes on or adapt and inform yourself as technology changes.

You have no clue what you are talking about -- - - - - Engine's today adjust timing in milliseconds in every aspect of the combustion cycle.
You are simply incorrect - - no rose coloured glasses here.
87 and a turbo engine "designed" to use it - - - - - for the love of everything - I am not talking about euro engines - - - is fine. It makes zero sense that an engine that was programed to use 87 would ping under any circumstance........................zero sense.
Carbon in the cylinders or "hot spots" - - - 91 is not going to prevent this of detonation.



He was a tech for Hyundai for years

I have had many discussions with "techs" over the years, only a small handful really knew what they were talking about.
Just because someone is or was a tech really holds zero for me.....now if you said he worked for shell then that might be different.

 

[nicholas]

There are so many variables at play - - - you can not make a blanket statement that 87 will eventually damage a DI turbo engine. Especially one designed to utilize 87.
a 91 octane designed engine , sure maybe.

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

Originally Posted by KrisZ
Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Originally Posted by KrisZ

If manufacturers cannot design to 87, they are FREE to specify 91 and advertise the heck out of it. If the claimed gains in HP and savings in fuel actually materialize, people will have no problem using 91.



Then you won't sell your entry level cars. VW and MINI have been specifying 91 forever, and only came out with 87 friendly engines in the last few years because otherwise anyone who isn't a petrolhead just isn't going to buy the car. Tell someone if they buy this car their gas bill increases 20% over the car that's at the Mazda or Hyundai dealer and it's an automatic lost sale. My sister has a '17 Cooper S and only puts 89 in it. Yet she spent 5k more than a regular Cooper solely because the wanted a color only available on the S. This is how a huge portion of people think

.


And I will ask again, since you omitted it from the quote.
Why would you want 87 to be outlawed by the government? What positive will it bring to the consumer?

Do you honestly believe the lobbiests?

It's rather interesting that when it comes to consumer spending, free market is always hailed as the best. But when it comes to corporate spending free market forces are not enough.


You don't see an advantage to 91 octane becoming the new base fuel? With the price being the same as current 87? I know most people seem to believe current premium fuel prices will become the new base price, but that is not what is being proposed, nor does it make much sense since refineries now make one fuel, and that's it, instead of two or three.

At worst any car that doesn't require it goes on with life as if nothing changes. At best, new engines come out with better efficiency than what is currently possible.

 

[nicholas]

Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Originally Posted by KrisZ
Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Originally Posted by KrisZ

If manufacturers cannot design to 87, they are FREE to specify 91 and advertise the heck out of it. If the claimed gains in HP and savings in fuel actually materialize, people will have no problem using 91.



Then you won't sell your entry level cars. VW and MINI have been specifying 91 forever, and only came out with 87 friendly engines in the last few years because otherwise anyone who isn't a petrolhead just isn't going to buy the car. Tell someone if they buy this car their gas bill increases 20% over the car that's at the Mazda or Hyundai dealer and it's an automatic lost sale. My sister has a '17 Cooper S and only puts 89 in it. Yet she spent 5k more than a regular Cooper solely because the wanted a color only available on the S. This is how a huge portion of people think

.


And I will ask again, since you omitted it from the quote.
Why would you want 87 to be outlawed by the government? What positive will it bring to the consumer?

Do you honestly believe the lobbiests?

It's rather interesting that when it comes to consumer spending, free market is always hailed as the best. But when it comes to corporate spending free market forces are not enough.


You don't see an advantage to 91 octane becoming the new base fuel? With the price being the same as current 87? I know most people seem to believe current premium fuel prices will become the new base price, but that is not what is being proposed, nor does it make much sense since refineries now make one fuel, and that's it, instead of two or three.

At worst any car that doesn't require it goes on with life as if nothing changes. At best, new engines come out with better efficiency than what is currently possible.

Why would Shell or Mobil sell 91 at the current 87 price? Unless the Gov subsidized this. But then our tax money is paying for the difference in price.

Not sure I see gas refiner selling 91 at a lower price.

 

[Sayonara_Sonata]

Even with the same diameter tyres the Sonata fore of cab presents a substantial declining angle of attack. Back in the spring whilst swapping plugs of various heat ranges I inadvertently left the lid down and unlatched.

It wasn't until a spirited run, a couple of miles down the pike, on the on-ramp after busting triple digits that the bonnet pops up in violent fashion. BOOM! as the emergency latch catches.

On cue I remove me right hand from the tiller, place it over me heart, eyes to heavens proclaiming in Fred G. Sanford fashion, "I'm coming Elizabeth"

Had I at that precise moment been attempting to pass gas I surely would have sharted. To say it startled me is most assuredly an understatement. For a brief moment it scared the bejesus outa me.

The 1" smaller diameter tyres on front offer a half inch more drop and I'm cool with the additional down-force.

ETA: "He was a tech for Hyundai for years"

Vundervall, guten tag might this former tech go into detail about the early Theta II 2.0T, specifically the electronic wastegate acuator, and the effects\characteristics of under\over Voltage range of adjustment departing from the oem recommended 3.9-4V, yah?

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells


You don't see an advantage to 91 octane becoming the new base fuel? With the price being the same as current 87? I know most people seem to believe current premium fuel prices will become the new base price, but that is not what is being proposed, nor does it make much sense since refineries now make one fuel, and that's it, instead of two or three.

At worst any car that doesn't require it goes on with life as if nothing changes. At best, new engines come out with better efficiency than what is currently possible.



Empty promises that's all I see.

Besides, how would reducing choice and competition reduce fuel prices?

Using this logic, automakers should be mandated to make one vehicle model instead of many, say a mid size SUV, and sell it for the price of a subcompact. Would you accept such a proposal as feasible?.