I bought a Cerato a few months ago and have been putting in 95 octane fuel as the dealer suggested. He said it was better for the engine.
I have just noticed that the car seems to use a lot of fuel as compared to my old Mitsubishi ASX. I can almost see the fuel gauge move after a short trip to Bunnings. Could the fact that i use 95 octane be the reason? Do I even need to use 95 or 91 is ok?
why does it use more fuel for short trips? Oh, ive never really looked at the trip info once i stopped. I will check it out.
On highway trips you spend a lot of time coasting, you use fuel to accelerate but then don't need more fuel as the car keeps travelling due to inertia. You don't have to brake much or at all as there aren't sharp curves. It also costs fuel to even start the car, in short trips a higher percentage of your trip is in starting, in long trips that percentage is less. Also if you are travelling slowly you are probably braking and reaccellerating regularly (for traffic lights, roundabouts, turning). Each time you brake you are giving up the energy the fuel gave you, then having to spend more to get back up to speed again. Also, cars use less fuel when they are well warmed up. On long highway trips the engine is warmed up for the vast majority of the trip. For short trips a decent proportion of it the engine is not well warmed up.
Could think of it like eating a meal, a short trip is like eating ribs and corn on the cob - you have to throw away a lot of it (breaking, not warmed up) so need more food to get the same energy compared to if you had steak and peas
Thank you for this explanation. Makes sense.
I also do notice the car takes more to run before it reaches optimum temperature as well.
The KIA stealership I use for services told me that 91 is more than sufficient when I asked them .
I've owned 2 Ceratos and unless it's a Stinger they'll even run on E10 (not that I'd ever use E10 in any of my cars)
Read the manual that came with the car and follow what it says in there.
Yeah, any more than standard octane 91 is excessive and literally a quicker way to burn money.
Kias are built strong and tuned to lower octane fuel, the benefits from premium petrol will be negligible. Unless its specified on the manual/in the fuel door don't bother. You bought a cheaper Korean car, now you get to reap the rewards of not having to fork out for premium fuel like euro cars.
Should be doing around 7-7.5l/100k's in the city
There's also a sticker on the inside of the petrol filler flap (I just went and looked) telling you what grade fuel is OK to use.
I average about 6.5 on a trip and 7.5 around town.
been putting in 95 octane fuel as the dealer suggested
Car dealer I assume? Either way drugs were involved offering that advice. What a Muppet.
The dealer told you porkies….run it on 91 and save your $$$.
using 95 in such a high performance car is a waste..
should've gone 98
Avgas or bust.
This is an extremely general statement - but as your car is brand new, usually it takes a few months to fully 'break in'.
Your fuel consumption will be slightly higher at first (e.g. there might be a slightly 'thicker' engine oil being used to protect your engine during break in, or the computer in your car may be running a 'break in' profile) but after a couple of months (e.g. break in programs used to run until after 10,000km on the engine) you should start to get closer to the advertised fuel economy of your car.
Also 91 is fine for a Cerato.
Do you really think a Cerato is sophisticated enough to have a "break-in" map on the ECU?
Running in oil isn't thicker. It's either the same grade or mono-grade (old VW aircooled were straight 30 weight) or thinner. They generally don't have any friction modifiers in them.
I was just giving some examples… May not necessarily be accurate (as I don't work for Kia I wouldn't know for sure).
My last new car was a mazda and it came with 40w mineral oil (dealer put in a 30w synthetic at first oil change). Like you said, there will be no friction modifiers in break in oil, in theory decreasing fuel economy (additives or lack thereof may also be a factor). It'll be whatever crap they fill it up with out of the factory ("Kia" , "sophistication"… etc).
In addition break in isn't just the engine, you have all your other drivetrain components 'wearing in'.
Point is it's perfectly normal for fuel consumption to be a little higher when a car is new (aforemented mazda went from 9L to 8L per 100km after 6 months, had a hyundai which went from 8.6 to 7.8 after similar time).
I average about 7.5l/100km in my petrol Cerato on standard 91. Mostly country highway driving.
Incidentally, I get about 8l/100km on diesel in my Sorento; which I'm pretty pleased with given it's almost double the kerb weight!
It's not even close to double the kerb weight.
Then you underestimate the quantity of tools I carry in the boot, the number of children in the middle, and the EXTRA THICC yours truly in the front
What I didn't underestimate is the amount of bullshit coming from your account.
Yes as with any car you can use double in the city vs highway
More in the city, but hardly double.
Maybe if the driver has a lead foot and can't judge traffic flows properly perhaps.
You should try actually measuring your fuel consumption. Fill the tank and note how many kms next time you fill. Then calculate litres per 100km. There are apps that will do it for you.
I have been measuring fuel consumption for a long time, several vehicles. Fuel type didn’t seem to make a measurable difference to consumption. Driving style and conditions can and do make a measurable difference.
Using higher octane fuel than your vehicle is designed for is typically just wasting money. Don’t forget that to save the difference in dollars you need a significant improvement in consumption.
Gusssing your consumption has changed without measuring it, or ‘feeling’ that the car is more powerful is often not measurable and can be explained by things like confirmation bias. Ie I paid more so it must feel better, so therefore it feels better. .
My ex-wife has a 2016 Cerato auto. According to my kids who drive a 2.4 Accord Euro "it's a slug and chews through fuel". Considering how much the Honda likes a drink the fuel comment surprised me.
Cerato only needs 92ron doesn't it?
You should experiment. Drive on e10, 95ron and 98 ron for at least 2000km each and measure the actual fuel consumption in L/100km.
We run 98ron in the old Mazda because it can be months between fills and the fuel does deteriorate with age.
Refer to the owners manual and use whatever is the lowest octane that the manufacturer states.
He said it was better for the engine.
"He" is a salesman. Not a university trained mechanical engineer or a chemical engineer.
Their job is to make money and act in their own self interest. They don't care if the owner will incur additional maintenance/running costs.
Do you strictly follow what sales people say in other industries? eg. Harvey Norman salesman, The Good Guys, JB Hifi…
For non-performance vehicles the best fuel to use is the lowest octane fuel. The KIA engineers spend hundreds of hours on tuning their engines for optimal fuel economy/power/emissions/exhaust temperature/etc. They take into account environmental conditions, driving styles and contaminated fuel. They take into account that fuel is a mixture and can fluctuate (water, ethanol, pollutants, detergents, additive packs). So the engine is actually able to detune itself and run on lower RON fuel than what is specified in the manual.
For a non-performance vehicle the only time a higher RON will be "better for your engine" is if the vehicle is being overworked so hard that it is outside of the normal operating conditions. eg. High engine temperatures due to racing on a race track, high engine temperatures from constant towing.
There are stacks of older KIA Cerato's that have made it to the 200,000km mark. Even "if" a higher RON fuel was better for your engine how long do you want to keep the Cerato in your possession.
There's also no fuel economy benefit (for a non-performance vehicle). 98 RON unleaded fuel contains exactly the same amount of chemical energy
as 91 RON unleaded (don't believe me, Google it).
I personally own a 1996 Hyundai Excel with 240,000km with an engine that is still going strong (never reconditioned, never replaced gaskets, never bought a new seal). The Excel has been used for numerous track days at Wakefield Park race circuit on 91,95,98 RON fuel. I'm also a DIY engine tuner who studies ECU maps and remapped my other WRX.
There's also no fuel economy benefit (for a non-performance vehicle). 98 RON unleaded fuel contains exactly the same amount of chemical energy
as 91 RON unleaded (don't believe me, Google it).
Same calorific value but the knock resistance of the extra octane will allow you to run a bit more timing advance under certain engine loads and manifold vacuums which will give better economy. Of course, most ECUs aren't smart enough to take advantage of the extra octane but it is a possibility.
Given the amount of Camry Hybrids detonating around Sydney, sometimes you've got to give them some higher octane fuel just to work around other issues.
95 is overkill.
Even the Cerato GT which has a turbo engine runs on 91 or e10.
Sure, you will get some more fuel efficiency from the higher octane fuel but not comparatively to the additional cost.
Run 91 on the 2.0 engine, run E10 on the turbo engine (less knock, and no it doesn't hurt like others may have you believe).
You'll use more fuel per km on short trips. The dash display should show how many litres/100km you used in your trip once you stop. Mine varies from 10 or 11 on very short trips to 6 on highway trips. I use 91 octane in mine.