87 octane in tiburon gt v6

J

Jeff Hodges

Usenet Archive
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
anybody here using the 87 octane gas in their tibby? I have been using 93 only, but with the prices and the manual saying 87 will work I am thinking about it.

2003 GT-V6
 
anybody here using the 87 octane gas in their tibby? I have been using 93 only, but with the prices and the manual saying 87 will work I am thinking about it. 2003 GT-V6
Click to expand...

The Tiburon's engine is not a high-compression engine and is designed to run on 87-octane gas. There is no reason to use 93-octane gas unless you really like paying more money to fill the tank. I've been using 87-octane gas in my 2003 V6 Tiburon for 1.5 years; no knocks, pings, or other signs of premature combustion.
 
The Tiburon's engine is not a high-compression engine and is designed to run on 87-octane gas. There is no reason to use 93-octane gas unless you really like paying more money to fill the tank. I've been using 87-octane gas in my 2003 V6 Tiburon for 1.5 years; no knocks, pings, or other signs of premature combustion.
Click to expand...

The compression ratio is kinda of high and any other manufacturer would have recommended 89 instead of 87. Hyundai is getting around the problem of knocking by keeping the engine flooded with gasoline all of the time. My 2.7L Sonata runs an A:F around 10.5:1. I've been thinking about retuning the fuel maps and running 89. More power and better mileage at the cost of an extra $1.50 per fillup is fine by me.

I'll agree though, 93 octane is a waste of money.
 
If you were running 10.5:1, your check engine lamp would be on because the oxygen sensors were reading rich all the time. The car's oxygen sensor allows the computer to adjust fuel to minimize harmful emissions.
 
Use 87 octane. All the time. Every piece of information I have from Hyundai is that higher octanes will actually cause the car to run WORSE.
 
I use 93. I tried 87, no knocks, but definitely calculated less gas mileage and less peppiness.
 
Practically everything I've heard indicates that Hyundai engines run really rich. hyundaitech, is what Jason said true, and the high fuel content is there only to reduce knocking, or are there other reasons for it?
If you were running 10.5:1, your check engine lamp would be on because the oxygen sensors were reading rich all the time.
Click to expand...

Maybe there's a flaw in how Jason measured the ratio, or he made a typo, or something. Jason, how'd you get the 10.5:1 numbers?
 
I use 93. I tried 87, no knocks, but definitely calculated less gas mileage and less peppiness.
Click to expand...

I ask you again: Got hard numbers for this claimed increase in "peppiness"? The first time you made this claim, on March 31, 2004, I asked you for hard data in Message-ID
202.dyndns.org .
You never responded. It's not difficult; fill the tank with 87-octane, measure 5 or 6 0-60 or 1/4-mile times, record. Repeat with 93-octane. If there's a stastically significant difference in the times, one grade of gas is better than the other for acceleration. If there's *not* a statistically significant difference, you're talking rubbish and/or experiencing the placebo effect.

Measurement accuracy and precision are vital here, since the differences are going to be miniscule. I have plenty of time slips from the times I've been to the dragstrip. Next time I go, I'll put 93-octane gas in the tank, see what the time slips say, and post the results to this newsgroup. I don't think there'll be a statistically significant difference, but I'm willing to conduct the experiment and have my data publically reviewed. Are you willing to do the same? The more data points, the better, after all....
 
It's fine if you don't believe me. If you don't know what a spongy gas petal feels like, you won't know the difference. I lost 2 miles per gallon with 87 octane.
 
hyundaitech said:
Use 87 octane. All the time. Every piece of information I have from Hyundai is that higher octanes will actually cause the car to run WORSE.
Click to expand...

How could that be? I can understand that using fuel with higher than necessary octane provides no benefit and is a waste of money, but how could it make an engine run worse?
 
Sorry about the lack of context in some of my posts. I don't have the ability (that I know of) to cut and paste previous posts into mine.
 
It doesn't burn as fast. If the engine's compression is low enough it can have issues with properly igniting the fuel. If you have a little bit of carbon on the valves (an older car), it gets held as a liquid in the carbon, and plays having with the cold operation logic worse than 87. About 10 years ago, Hyundai had a cold start problems with Elantras, carboned valves, bad hesitation for a minute or so. If the customer was running premium, it REALLY got bad.
 
I'd be interested in seeing your comparison. Despite oil company claims, everything of repute I've heard indicates there's no performance difference with 93 vs. 87 if the engine was designed to run on 87.
 
Sorry about the lack of context in some of my posts. I don't have the ability (that I know of) to cut and paste previous posts into mine.
Click to expand...

It's your Usenet client's fault. Nobody (not even Google) has managed to make a web-based Usenet frontend that doesn't suck. So, for a better Usenet-reading and posting experience, get a good client. There are many good clients on Unix-like systems; slrn, pine, tin, and emacs run on the command-line while Pan, KNode, and Mozilla work in a GUI. If you're stuck on Windoze, Forte Free Agent is probably the best free-as-in-beer client though you can use Mozilla as well. Good clients include "killfile" functions that allow you to filter out any messages posted by trolls/idiots. These functions are a must for reading many groups--not necessarily this one, since it's pretty low-traffic and there are fewer idiots here than on Usenet in general.

Most ISPs have their own newsswervers, and the name of the server is usually "news.$ISP", so you'd use "news.comcast.net" if your ISP is Comcast. ISP newsswervers are usually not well-maintained and propagation can be iffy. news.individual.net is a free newsswerver that allows posting and is fairly well-maintained. It only carries text newsgroups like this one, so you'll have to get your alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.redheads fix elsewhere :-) . Get an account by going to http://news.individual.net/ and signing up. HTH,
 
Not very likely in a stock engine. Unless you have a LOT of problems in that engine.
 
hyundaitech said:
It doesn't burn as fast. If the engine's compression is low enough it can have issues with properly igniting the fuel. If you have a little bit of carbon on the valves (an older car), it gets held as a liquid in the carbon, and plays having with the cold operation logic worse than 87. About 10 years ago, Hyundai had a cold start problems with Elantras, carboned valves, bad hesitation for a minute or so. If the customer was running premium, it REALLY got bad.
Click to expand...

Very interesting; thanks for the explanation. I'm too cheap to run higher octane fuel than necessary, so I guess I'm safe. ;-)
 
hyundaitech said:
I'd be interested in seeing your comparison. Despite oil company claims, everything of repute I've heard indicates there's no performance difference with 93 vs. 87 if the engine was designed to run on 87.
Click to expand...

Unless he's got a problem with pre-ignition and the ECU is retarding the timing to compensate, I can't see how one could possibly get better performance or mileage with premium fuel. I'd suspect this is a case of the "placebo effect". If he actually IS getting better performance, it would indicate a problem with the engine or engine management system.
 
Dances With Crows said:
I ask you again: Got hard numbers for this claimed increase in
"peppiness"? The first time you made this claim, on March 31, 2004, I
asked you for hard data in Message-ID
[email protected]202.dyndns.org .
You never responded. It's not difficult; fill the tank with 87-octane,
measure 5 or 6 0-60 or 1/4-mile times, record. Repeat with 93-octane.
If there's a stastically significant difference in the times, one grade
of gas is better than the other for acceleration. If there's *not* a
statistically significant difference, you're talking rubbish and/or
experiencing the placebo effect.

Measurement accuracy and precision are vital here, since the differences
are going to be miniscule. I have plenty of time slips from the times
I've been to the dragstrip. Next time I go, I'll put 93-octane gas in
the tank, see what the time slips say, and post the results to this
newsgroup. I don't think there'll be a statistically significant
difference, but I'm willing to conduct the experiment and have my data
publically reviewed. Are you willing to do the same? The more data
points, the better, after all....
Click to expand...

You never posted your results.....
Left me in a 15 year cliffhanger.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top