[QUOTEThe Kona comes set to 12 psi
The absolute max boost for the Kona is capped @ 20 psi. Max boost @ 3850-4000 rpm is over 18+psi depending upon atmospheric conditions.
David, post the website so all can see the results. Where's the source of the information?
There are already several tunes written by Vivid Racing and it costs $500.00 but you have to send the ECU in to have it flashed tuned by them. Vivid Racing who is a reputable tuner and has been for quite sometime, rates the crank horsepower at Hyundai's 175 also.
VR Tuned ECU Flash Tune Hyundai Kona 1.6L Turbo 175HP | VRT-HY-KNA-175
Your talking about a bone stock Kona that is rated at 175 crank horsepower by Hyundai themselves making 195 whp. That's an extremely big variance from crank to whp @ around 15% over the OEM rating. It goes the other way around as you lose 50-75 horsepower as the power is transferred from the crankshaft to the wheels
The only reason that is the case is because they are flooding the cylinder with an "over the top" fuel to air ratio of gas to prevent detonation and include non-aggressive timing advance. Add to that, another % more fuel when they found out about LSPI. No wonder the tail pipes of DI turbos have soot in them and an oil sump full of gas.
As far as running 87 octane in a 10:1 compression turbo, it ONLY can be done by a "compromised retarded ignition algorithm". There has to be 20 PLUS hp left on the table, along with gas mileage because of it. We still don't know if the Kona's adaptive learning gives more ignition advance to an aggressively used car over the long term. Seeing I have detonation with 87 octane and my foot has been in it since day 5. 87 octane will never see my tank. 89 during the winter and I try to do 91/93 during the summer since I can hear slight detonation in the summer with 100% 89 octane.
93 octane definitely helps maintain both mileage and the oh so damaging predetination (pinging) as well as improved hp and throttle response. I have a PWM monitor w/a little known secret that the AEM (made by K&N) and not the current Injen intake from previous 1.6T model years fits just fine and is much better than injen. The people who talk about blow off valves (100k/10yr killer) is 100% absolutely unnecessary. The AEM w/K&N filter, reusable and well oiled, allows the stock diverter valve to work just as well. Then a little footprint less addition using a splitter so both can be integrated has yielded 250 hp on 93, 225 hp on 87. Mileage on hwy is up to 36 (1 person and cruise at 60-65 mph) on 93 and 31mpg on 87 and same conditions. The top tier is a must so no Delta or Johnny’s gas, if no ethanol is available it is absolutely recommended. The AFR is far better maintained at 14.6:1 with 93 octane, however, the one catch are the plugs. Iridium plugs and high octane gas don’t mix well. They will look like they came out of a race engine after 5k miles. With the right resistive material to ensure warranties are upheld as well as the appropriate temp range plugs, this can be avoided as the electrode gap getting burnt up by high test will cause nothing short of chasing your tail with misfires and other gap required spark specs/tolerances. The bottom line is 93 is the.best for TGDI engines, not required, but the compression ratio supports high test but must balance it all out just like anything else, you change one parameter without changing others and doing what normally would be considered the “clean and efficient” method may result in unintended, unexpected consequences rather than the well intended benefits of running hotter burning, higher quality, and more expensive fuel. This is coming from someone who has been in the turbo game since the TSI AWD Talon where 93 was on the cluster panel as “must use premium gas” and plug and play EEPROM flashing or sending the ECU/ECM to a tuner so they can put a one size fits all and expensive lesson if it blows up still holds, but isn’t recommended. Today vs 1992-96 (6 bolts not crank walkers) turbo engines were not as they are now, designed for efficiency rather than power , where the manufacturer balances between the power and efficiency where each is maximized with respect to the other. Thus leaving little room for adjustment without losing the power of the warranty, which the intake, improved fuel quality, and other minor improvements do make a difference, especially the AEM vs junk Injen intakes. Hope this helps on my experience today, having owned one of the older turbo 4 bangers, the 2.0 TGDI, and multiple 1.6 TGDI platforms where the power plant using high test has been a positive, but also requires applying old and new
ways to make 93 work best with the fewest possible negative trade offs.
.
93 octane definitely helps maintain both mileage and the avoidance of oh so damaging predetination (pinging) as well as improved hp , throttle response and more on a basic level. I have a PWM monitor w/a little known secret that the AEM (made by K&N) and not the current Injen intake from previous 1.6T model years fits just fine and is much better than Injen as a short ram cold air intake. The people who talk about blow off valves (100k/10yr killer) is 100% absolutely unnecessary. The AEM w/K&N filter, reusable and well oiled, allows the stock diverter valve to work just as well and the 18 year old in everyone will be the same as if a $400.mistake were under a non-visible hood. Then a little footprint less addition using a splitter so both the monitor and DCT savior can be integrated simultaneously has yielded data that I would love to know how to apply Apple car play so it demonstrates on the built in screen each time maxing out at 250 hp on 93, 225 hp on 87.
Mileage on hwy w/93 is up to 36 (1 person and cruise at 60-65 mph) and 31mpg on 87 and same conditions. The top tier is a must so no Delta or Johnny’s gas, if no ethanol added is available it is absolutely recommended, additives can be bought to chemically negate the ethanol. The AFR is far better maintained at 14.6:1 with 93 octane, however, the catch which has a casual nature for additional concerns when burning hotter and what doesn’t change within the walls of material science is stored quietly within the plugs. Iridium plugs and high octane gas don’t mix well. They will tell you they do, they don’t. I have plugs that look like they came out of a race engine after 5k miles on 93. With the right resistive material to ensure warranties are upheld as well as the appropriate temp range plugs, this can be avoided as the electrode gap getting burnt up by high test will cause nothing short of chasing your tail with misfires and other gap required spark specs/tolerances. So this is one of many 93 questions, is it worth it?
The bottom line is 93 is the best for TGDI engines, keeps carbon build up (top enemy of GDI engines in general) at a minimum, but not required. The compression ratio does support high test but must include the owner balancing all other critical areas, just like anything else, where you change one parameter without changing others problems start flying. Putting 93 in and doing what is quite normal, as running premium is and has been considered the “cleanest and most efficient” method overall, however, doing so can and very well may result in unintended, unexpected consequences. Rather than the well intended benefits, which appears to be the preference in why running a hotter burning, higher quality, more expensive fuel is worth paying a bit more in the moment while saving in the long run.
This is coming from someone who has been in the turbo game since the 1st gen TSI AWD Talons where 93 was unmistakably written in RED on the cluster panel as “Premium gas only” and plug and play EEPROM flashing, then sending the ECU/ECM to a tuner, or the best way to customize and ensure the cookie cutter doesn’t get you is to put the vehicle on an AWD dyno and have a pro tune your engine at a very expensive rate with very expensive controls and add ons that 93 gas was not an option. So this $500 one size fits all and expensive option/lesson if your engine blows up still holds, but isn’t recommended and certainly won’t be covered if footprints are leading to the cause. Today vs 1992-96 (6 bolts not crank walkers) turbo engines are now widely available unlike the 90’s, is due to their design purpose or basis; efficiency rather than power, where the manufacturer balances between the power and efficiency where each is maximized with respect to the other and why a sport button (previously eco, normal, sport now only normal and sport) is provided but still minimal even with 93 and the allowable mods which compared to 87 and nothing is better.
Thus leaving little room for adjustment without losing the power of the warranty, which the intake (I don’t get how AEM isnt mentioned from previous years as it works even better with the low scoop vs the previous hood level as the temp sensor is 10-20 degrees less with this lower air inlet design) , improved fuel quality, and other minor improvements do make a difference and do balance out just changing the octane of the fuel burnt. Everything from mpgs to boost pressure transitions to vacuum and lag are noticeably improved with AEM using 93 vs junk Injen intakes. Hope this helps on my experience, having owned older turbo 4 bangers and learned so many hard lessons, where letting go of money pits and grasping the reality of modern application changes with initially owning a 2.0 TGDI, the. multiple 1.6 TGDI platforms, where the power plant using high test has been a positive, but also necessary ability to apply both old and new
ways to make 93 work best with the fewest possible negative trade offs. When the warranty is expired, the vehicle is paid off, then have the “fun” of exceeding the current limits. Good luck!
I would say the tuner in Puerto Rico doesn't know what he's doing or isn't very reputable at all. Needless to say, there are good tuners and then the rest. Just because they say it so doesn't make it so.
Blessings and Peace
[/QUOTE]
