Kia Forum banner

SX Interest Fading

10K views 85 replies 21 participants last post by  ThisGuy 
#1 ·
I have been been test driving the EX & SX and from the enthusiasm some of you have for the SX I have been leaning more that way.

But a couple threads here are very discouraging on the 2.0T engine in the SX :

" '17 Sportage SX Engine issues (3rd time) "

" 2.0 Turbo GDI engine roughness " (bad plugs)

These issues clearly have a lot of agreement and support from quite a few of you. I don't see any complaints about the 2.4 engine here though. Maybe the EX 2.4 is the better way to go?
 
#3 · (Edited)
i understand your reticence concerning the SX. You'd be nuts if you didn't have some concerns.

However, I have put 27k km on mine over the past year and if I were in the market I'd buy another 2.0T without hesitation given my experience with this one. Mine runs beautifully smooth and quiet and doesn't appear to use virtually any oil between 6-8000 km change intervals I practice using 100% synthetic. And by that I mean you can't see any drop on the dipstick.

I still feel the plug problems being experienced are due to running low octane fuel in the engine as I had a couple crack while running 87 octane before changing to exclusively 91+. However, others disagree with me on that (at least one with no practical experience running the engine at all) and incredibly, I've been told I should point out that others disagree, if you can believe that.

ThisGuy's case is certainly disconcerting but that is the only case presented here of actual engine failure in the SX to the best of my knowledge. Cause of the failure in that case is as yet undetermined I think it would be fair to say at this point. In addition, all engine manufacturers suffer engine failures on occasion unfortunately. This is not something unique to KIA.

The final decision is obviously yours, it's your money after all. Do your due diligence and then proceed as you see fit. All the people here can do is relate their experiences and opinions.
 
#5 ·
The EX far outsells the SX but this board gives you a skewed point of view since it is more likely that an SX owner would be an enthusiast and post here. That said, the 2.4 is an older engine design which will be replaced next year. It is probably a bit smoother since it is more mature. While you've seen negative posts on the SX, I believe the engine issues mentioned are neither widespread or should rule out your choice. They are both very decent options. If you want better mpg, a slightly smoother engine, and a slightly better ride, go with the EX. If you want more power and slightly better handling, go with the SX. Personally, since I take this car on trips, I chose the EX. But if I were to drive it more on shorter trips and back roads, the SX would be more fun. Also, there is no reason to use premium fuel in either car so I wouldn't let that get in the way. They are both very good options, so make your decision based on your objectives. One caveat, however.... I drive my EX in sport mode all of the time so it has the pick-up I desire. I find that normal mode is lacking. If sport mode were not available in the EX, I would have gone for the SX even if it had a harder ride.
 
#7 ·
These issues clearly have a lot of agreement and support from quite a few of you. I don't see any complaints about the 2.4 engine here though. Maybe the EX 2.4 is the better way to go?
The 2.4l engine have now an extended warranty coverage for the actual owners of 10y/200 000km because it can lap or clank. I've seen much more problems on the 2.4 than the 2.0T but I believe both engine have revised insides to prevent future failures.
 
#8 · (Edited)
You should be careful about some of the advice you are getting with respect to fuel octane that is best for the SX engine. There are members here, who with admittedly zero experience operating the 2.0T in the SX feel they are qualified to offer advice on the octane required for the SX engine. You can of course assign whatever credibility to that advice you feel it warrants.
 
#11 · (Edited)
I have plenty of experience running 87 in a 2.0t, and running anything higher is not called for in the owners manual at all. 91 octane is throwing your money down the drain. Spend the savings on better oil and proper used oil analysis, and verified good change intervals. That will do far more for the longevity than anything else.
I have attached a photo of the sonata the day I picked it up, brand new. Spring 2011, sold it August of 2013 with 121,000 miles on the clock. Bought a 3.8 track genesis coupe brand new August 2013, just traded that on the sportage, it had 125,000 miles on it at trade in. Yes, I drive a lot.
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: rvoll
#10 ·
We have the 2017 EX with the 2.4 and even though it's under 10k miles...no issues, smooth etc. But I also have the 2016 Optima SXL with the 2.0 Turbo and I believe (but do not know for sure) that is the same engine in the 2017 Sportage SX. On two of the forum sites I do visit about the Optima, I have seen zero complaints about the 2.0 as if no one is having any problems at all. I also have no issues with the 2.0 in the Optima and love the engine. Just my 2 cents worth is all.
 
#13 ·
A key thing here is for those experiencing the issue to get Kia involved in finding the true cause. Without getting corporate engineers involved it will be difficult to get to the bottom of it.
 
#15 ·
Do you guys have any idea the extensive amount of testing goes on during the design phase to ensure their designs are sound and will provide reliability? Before these engines hit production there were hundreds of thousands of miles of testing performed by both Hyundai and Kia. If the engines would benefit from higher octane fuel than specified they would have tuned it appropriately and advertised the higher figure and said 87 was required and 91 was optional to gain more power. In this case they did not. They have done this on some vehicles, like the genesis coupe with the GDI 3.8 v6 engine, 87 minimum, 91 octane provided a few more horsepower.

I am awestruck that the octane myth has you guys so tied up, it's not even funny. I will drop the issue for now, But I am confident 87 octane is going to be just fine on my Sportage SX, just like it was on my previous sonata with the 2.0t. I am speaking from the position of experience, as this is my fourth turbocharged four cylinder engine I have owned and with proper maintenance none of them has failed, provided you use the fuel specified, and perform the proper maintenance on schedule.

My first turbo car was a 1986 lotus esprit S3 4 cylinder turbo.
second was 2007 mazdaspeed 3
third was sonata 2.0t
fourth is now sportage t-gdi 2.0

The most interesting to me was the 86 lotus, as I was told how unreliable that would be, and I retired it 12 years later with 256,000 miles on it. It died from a shop over-tightening the valves during an adjustment. One of the best cars I ever owned. It did require a lot of maintenance though.
 
#19 ·
and I don't think anyone would have any trouble understanding your position ThisGuy. It's too bad you had these sorts of troubles and even worse the way KIA have treated you over it, because Kia produce a very good product in my opinion. But they missed the strike zone with yours no doubt about that.
 
#18 ·
With due respect to the scientific method with which I am not unfamiliar, I do not use my SX as a test bed to see if the use of Regular gas will kill it. It ran okay on Regular when I first got it but it seemed to me to be a 'forced' recommendation to avoid recommending higher octane - a corporate decision in the best interests of KIA. Then the 'spark plug' stories started to appear and I started to use Mid-grade as my default fuel with sometime use of premium (Shell) as the mood struck me. I like the way it runs on V-Power and along with the recent change to Pennzoil Synthetic, it seems to have picked up 1 to 2 mpg. I fully understand the reasoning vis-à-vis the use of regular but being strangely even in my 'left-brain/right-brain' thinking, the reasoning stinks on ice to me in the case of this particular vehicle - call it a gut decision, but in the final analysis the only thing harmed by my use of Mid and premium will be my bank account. It may well be that the reverse, using only regular, would have more risk involved. It is also very possible that another major factor has not been explored at all - the difference in E-10 that many of us have to use and straight gasoline that many others have access to, and how it may affect the question of whether a higher octane may be beneficial. I'll see if I can find any studies on how E-10 affects spark timing compared to 'real' gas.
 
#23 ·
1. Agree with PCGuy that using a car as recommended by manufacturer is NOT a test bed situation.

2. My mpg has increased over the first 5000 miles without any changes in gas or oil.

3. Using regular was not a "forced" outcome -- the car was designed that way.

4. In one of my car clubs, we tested the psychological effects of perceived changes. We took someone's Porsche and ran a dual test. First, he ran it around the track for the best time he could get. Then we took the car from him, told him we made some modifications, and had him do it again. He achieved a better time. Funny thing is that we did nothing to the car. When he thought the car was "modified", he was just more aggressive. That taught me a lesson to believe the numbers and not the perception.

5. If it makes you feel better to run premium, then do it. Heaven knows I spend money on things I don't need that float my boat....
 
#20 ·
One thing to always keep in mind regarding forums is that people typically come here to ask questions about a problem they are having. Very few people will post a thread like "2015 Forte EX, 24k miles and zero issues!" As a result, it always looks like people are having a ton of issues. That's not to say that the issues don't occur, because they obviously do, but just keep in mind that on a forum you'll always see a ton of problems with every vehicle.
 
#25 ·
Also have them report the manufacture date and location. There is always the possibility of a bad batch of plugs. As far as I can tell, only two of you had a cracked plug and the vast majority of SX owners use regular gas. There are always more part and assembly problems when a model is first made and you two may have received early models. My big problem with using premium to fix the problem is that I just don't understand the theory of the case. If the knock sensor is working properly, you shouldn't have any detonation even if running low octane gas as the spark will be retarded. KIA has said that the car was designed to use regular gas WITHOUT RETARDING THE SPARK. If you have a non-functioning knock sensor or a mis-programmed ECM, then you could make a case for that, but that is a specific problem with YOUR car and it should be fixed. I've researched cracked spark plugs and in almost all of the cases it was either a bad plug or a bad install by either not putting it in straight or over torquing it. The only time it is even mentioned on the web is from owners posting anecdotal data. I really believe this is one of those cases where it is coincidence and not causality. Now, I can always learn something new or change my mind, but I'd need some reasoning other than "it works for me". I see these types of things posted all over car forums and in most cases, it is very misleading to others reading the posts. That said, I think it is an issue worth pursuing and I'm glad you are pursuing it. It should always be reported to the manufacturer because it is worth finding a solution. I'd not only complain to your dealer, but to customer service at KIA headquarters. They promised you a car that would run on regular and that's what you should get!!!!!! They also promised you a car that could withstand oil changes at 7500 miles and you deserve that as well.

Good luck...
 
#29 ·
So 3 people so far had broken spark plugs....
I kind of feel the same way about the octane...

Detonation

The spark plug's worst enemy! (Besides fouling)
Can break spark plug ceramic insulators or break off ground electrodes. Most frequently caused by insufficient octane rating and hot spots in the combustion chamber.
Detonation occur as propagating flame front further squeezes the yet unburned mixture in the combustion chamber to the point of self ignition and detonate => the unburned mixture self ignite spontaneously generally from a side of the piston which tends to be the hottest part in the combustion chamber. Sometimes the pre-ignition starts at the side of the piston and than the spark plug ignite secondary flame front. As the two flame fronts collide in the combustion chamber prior to the TDC maximum pressure and temperature occurs with the piston still trying to go up.
As the piston is being forced upward by mechanical action of the connecting rod, the pre-ignited explosion will try to force the piston downward. If the piston can't go up (because of the force of the premature explosion and or detonation) and it can't go down (because of the upward motion of the connecting rod), the piston will rattle from side to side. The resulting shock wave causes an audible pinging sound. Most of the damage than an engine sustains when "detonating" is from excessive heat and pressure.
The spark plug is damaged by both – the elevated temperatures and the accompanying shock wave, or concussion. Prolonged pre-ignition and/or detonation will burn a hole trough the piston; bend rod and can completely destroy the engine.
 
#30 · (Edited)
#46 ·
rvoll, take 10 minutes and have a cruise through this thread....from 4 years ago

if those plugs weren't mangled because of detonation then what exactly in your esteemed opinion did mangle them?

post in 2.0 GDI engine roughness also has a link to it that appears to work, Dunno why this one doesn't
OK, even though your link was "broken", I found the thread and read through it. First of all, KIA's quality control in the past was not very good, but I'm sure you knew that. No one said they had pinging, which is a sign that detonation is a problem. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that quality control 6 years ago was not as good as today and tolerances were a problem. The current turbo was developed in conjunction with Hyundai so testing and programming is far more extensive. Nowhere in that thread was there any consistency in how the problem appeared. With only two of you having a broken plug (I don't count the guy with bad pistons as premium would never solve that problem), and no one else saying they had that issue, I would have to say you are anomalies. In the old days when I would modify engines and put on superchargers, of course detonation was an issue. But if you live in the past, you will use old information to make current decisions.

This is an interesting discussion that I've found on virtually every forum I've been on.... There is always an enthusiast segment that will find an excuse to run higher octane gas. But this is never backed up with facts or numbers or with technical analysis of causality. Cars always seem to run faster, better, and longer with higher octane fuel with these people. Premium fuel is NOT a panacea for engine problems. But if it makes you feel better by using it, go for it.
 
#35 ·
another factor to consider here is the price differential between regular and premium. I can't speak for markets elsewhere, but here in central florida there is a significant gap between regular and premium. The smallest margin in price from regular to premium I have seen is around 31 cents per gallon. Far more typical is a gap of 50 cents or more per gallon between them. This often leads to a tank of premium 91 octane costing from 8 - 9 - 10 dollars more than the same tank of regular. Over the course of 100,000 miles of driving, that would cost you approximately $2,650.00 for the choice to run premium fuel. While that is not a big hit to the pocket book on a weekly basis, it certainly adds up to more than "nothing at all"
 
#40 ·
How do you know if it's really 87 octane? Just because it says it on the pump? Maybe it's really 85, or less octane? That might be a problem. Did anyone think of that? I recently read on the Sorento forum, that they were pushing 85 octane in Canada someplace, don't remember the exact story, sorry. But, faster igniting gas is harder on the engine. IMO, higher then rated octane is not good for the engine either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: User-Name
#41 ·
I found BP gas to give me more power, better mileage, and a louder exhaust, with my 290hp 3.3 V6 6spd. AWD Sorento EX, whether it's reg, plus, or super, over most all of the other brands up here in N. Jersey. But, my car gets more sluggish around town with Plus, or Super, even though it gets more power, and better mileage on the highway! I don't bother to use plus, or super anymore, because it's not rated for that. It actually sounds like it's gonna Blow up when I really get on it with these! :eek: I guess it's because it's a slower igniting, longer burning fuel. It might also be causing more heat during combustion as well? Factory specs are 7.2sec. 0-60, on reg. gas and I think it's quicker with the synthetic oil, & the ESC/TC off. Close to a Sportage SX AWD 0-60 time I believe? Yeah, I'm an old Motorhead ;) You want better mileage, & more power? Turn Off the ESC/TC it almost killed me 3 times over the yrs with my Hyundai/Kia vehicles, you instantly unexpectedly lose all power! :(
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top