Drag/Acceleration Kia Stinger 1/4 Mile Times

[Tonkabob]

As I said before, I'm not interested in being the dragy policy. My post above referenced the numbers on your slip. If you'd prefer people reference another slip then use that one instead in your list. It matters little to me. Tork was the one making the exaggerated comparison in the first place.

As to dragy slope it's definitely +- a couple feet, but my track is always very consistent. I can start my runs so it's always -0.99 slope if that is what we're all going to do.

If you need a -.99 slope to get your car to 12.12 please do so. We dont have many flat spots you can drive 120 near seattle so i take what i can get. I've only found 2 spots so far and you don't seem to like either.

 

[washguy]

I love reading tbese posts after my night time meds have kicked in lol
Hey whats a couple of tenths difference between friends? Haaahaa Wash

 

[ryan1stinger]

This can all be settled on the track. Next summer we need a showdown between the ECU tune and the piggyback tune. That would be a fun meet up. My money is on the ECU tune.

 

[brancky3]

It is insteresting how similar they are, yet so much distance between the Dragy results

There's barely any distance between the Dragy results. Your cars are launching better, that's it. Faster ET, slower trap - there are no surprises here.

 

[Angel]

Um, GTR, M4, M2 and some Lambo's while we are at it.

I have to say this once ..... MERICA !!!!!! I am with this I want my rice cooker to Fock some shed up lol ... why not go for the supercars .... if anyone can get this car to run solid 11’s on stock turbo’s that is amazing ..... if we can get this car in the 10’s I will jizz my pants ...

 

[Angel]

This can all be settled on the track. Next summer we need a showdown between the ECU tune and the piggyback tune. That would be a fun meet up. My money is on the ECU tune.

Dude I have a full bolt on AWD with JB4 I will run anyone with an ecu tune .... I don’t have an ego I will whoop some ass or get my ass whoop either way I want to find out ....I have a friend that will be getting an ecu tune after the winter and once he does I will race him ....

 

[Bryan3.3]

I got a new best time in my 2.0 over the weekend with a 13.73 @ 101.97 trap. I think it would have done a little better as I late shifted into third. The track was so busy, I couldn’t wait for another run and left. If the form could please be updated.

 

[Tonkabob]

There's barely any distance between the Dragy results. Your cars are launching better, that's it. Faster ET, slower trap - there are no surprises here.

Not that simple. The mods and tune are different and rwd should trap higher with 200 lbs less weight and less power loss. Torks mods are different too and his 11.98 was before the beta tune testing we have done. New tune is much faster.
If you give Terry my launch I'd still beat him by a tenth on 17.4 psi,15.5 degrees advance and 12 AFR and 200 extra lbs. I can't read his logs accept for ignition at 20, AFR above 12 and boost in the 18-19 range. The piggyback can't handle the boost spike or torque limits during shifts so has to cut throttle. He is tuned to the edge and can now work on traction and weight reduction, (or add an ecu tune) while Tork is on his way to 11.7 or 11.8 with the new tune and lower when he adds WMI.
Adding more mods has deminishing returns as more and more power is pulled on the shifts.
@Klrstinger running 12.13 on the box but fix the shifts and better launch and he is 11.7, 11.8s.

 

[Tonkabob]

View attachment 15769 View attachment 15770 I got a new best time in my 2.0 over the weekend with a 13.73 @ 101.97 trap. I think it would have done a little better as I late shifted into third. The track was so busy, I couldn’t wait for another run and left. If the form could please be updated.

Already updated your time on the leader board the other day buts its burried under last nights lively debate.

 

[Tonkabob]

View attachment 15769 View attachment 15770 I got a new best time in my 2.0 over the weekend with a 13.73 @ 101.97 trap. I think it would have done a little better as I late shifted into third. The track was so busy, I couldn’t wait for another run and left. If the form could please be updated.

Already updated your time on the leader board the other day but its burried under last nights lively debate.

 

[Tonkabob]

Back to the numbers talking...

Here are the top times as of Nov 27th 2018.

RWD:
11.98 @TorkMe @119.0
12.13* @Terry@BMS @ 119.3
12.17 @STINGER/ Kia Bahrain
12.29 @Jonnytig @ 114
12.35 Eli W @117

AWD:
11.95* @Tonkabob @117.4
12.07* Michael L. @ 114.0
12.13 Jesse P / turbokits.com @116.8
12.13* @KLR STINGER @116.6
12.33 @sym @115.4

2.0 RWD :
13.73 @Bryan2.0 @102.0

* dragy times, reality may vary.

MODS:
Torkme – 18GT, Tork ECU tune, Tork intake, muffler delete, no cats and fmic
Terry@BMS –18GT, JB4, intake, Water/Methanol injection, Drag radials, 2 light wheels
Stinger –, Lap3 pro, junbl cat back, 100 octane
Jonnytig - Lap3 uncle, JT intake, JT stage one cooler, JT catback,
Eli W –18GT Intake, Tune/Chip, catback, down pipe

Tonkabob – Tork ECU tune, catback, JT intake, Ultimate Perf FMIC
Michael L. - Lap3 pro Map3, Injen Intake, no cats
Jessie P - Lap3 pro Map 3, Intake, FMIC, no cats
KLR Stinger - JB4 map2, JT FMIC, Lap3 primary dp, Jun Bl Mid (no cats), Magnaflow Catback, Intakes, Velossa snorkels
Sym - JB4, Stillen intake

Bryan2.0 – JB4, Velossa snorkel, NGM Sri, custom axle back.

 

[Bryan3.3]

Already updated your time on the leader board the other day but its burried under last nights lively debate.

Thank you Sir.

 

[Terry@BMS]

I feel like my IQ dropped a little reading all of this mornings posts here, lol.

 

[Terry@BMS]

View attachment 15769 View attachment 15770 I got a new best time in my 2.0 over the weekend with a 13.73 @ 101.97 trap. I think it would have done a little better as I late shifted into third. The track was so busy, I couldn’t wait for another run and left. If the form could please be updated.

Awesome work for a 2L!

 

[Allmanb]

I feel like my IQ dropped a little reading all of this mornings posts here, lol.

Exactly what i thought as well going through it all.

 

[Terry@BMS]

Hmm, I hear some frustration in your comments. Terry, you introduced Dragy to this community, we took you on your word, and now??? We have to verify octane levels DA correction, air temps, and what next... a video of us at the gas station filling up and a shot of the interior of the car, lol. I didn't hear anyone in the community complaining about any of this when you got on here posting your logs and Dragy results

I am going to address this with you one timex and one time only. I choose to not share log information. I will not be harrassed or insulted by you because I choose not to share my logs. I am sure you will say something about transparency or some other BS about being reputable. I have my reasons, and if you have a problem with that, then you will have to buy a tune, and log it yourself.

Honestly I find your posts here and on the Facebook threads really entertaining; what's that saying about giving someone enough rope?

If your logs were impressive, or existed in the first place, I'm sure you'd be loudly pushing them. Customers should be wary to run any flash tuning with such limited data provided. From what I've seen of your tunes posted I have a few concerns. But I also don't see the need to crawl around in the mud and clue you in to what they are.

Regarding Dragy it's an awesome tool, I think everyone should have one. Would you believe just months ago some idiots were posting speedo videos of their cars to make performance claims? lol.

 

[Terry@BMS]

New tune is much faster.
If you give Terry my launch I'd still beat him by a tenth on 17.4 psi,15.5 degrees advance and 12 AFR and 200 extra lbs. I can't read his logs accept for ignition at 20, AFR above 12 and boost in the 18-19 range. The piggyback can't handle the boost spike or torque limits during shifts so has to cut throttle. He is tuned to the edge and can now work on traction and weight reduction, (or add an ecu tune) while Tork is on his way to 11.7 or 11.8 with the new tune and lower when he adds WMI.
Adding more mods has deminishing returns as more and more power is pulled on the shifts.
@Klrstinger running 12.13 on the box but fix the shifts and better launch and he is 11.7, 11.8s.

You're really not able to read JB4 logs? You're even manually emulating the same format to make your own lower resolution versions. So when I post things like "raised timing at the shift where boost drops", for example, you don't understand that I set timing to 20 degrees only for that moment that boost was down to 12psi? If you don't possess basic analysis skills here I wonder why you're continually chiming in the first place? Or are you just parroting John hoping that what he's saying is rational? My last two timeslip logs posted to refresh your memory.

Regarding your performance analysis, the big factors are DA (density altitude), a function of barometric pressure, air temperature, and humidity, and of course traction. My private track is around 900' elevation, 60-70F temperatures, normally has a DA of around 1500'.

On traction generally 60' time improvements knock 1.5x off your ET. So if I could get that 2.05 down to your 1.89, I expect to pickup 0.24ths. But generally speaking trap speeds are what tell you how well the modifications are working. And as John said back half trap gains are an easy way to evaluate power to weight.

Ignoring the slope differences I pickup 26.05mph in the back half, compared to your 23.97mph, so objectively speaking my car is a lot faster. And probably in worse DA, but also carrying less weight as you mention. But being faster isn't really the goal. The goal is to provide our customers with the best possible JB4 mapping. And since we're doing water/meth integration development right now with the best, safest, and fastest possible WMI implementation.

 

[Tonkabob]

You're really not able to read JB4 logs? You're even manually emulating the same format to make your own lower resolution versions. So when I post things like "raised timing at the shift where boost drops", for example, you don't understand that I set timing to 20 degrees only for that moment that boost was down to 12psi? If you don't possess basic analysis skills here I wonder why you're continually chiming in the first place? Or are you just parroting John hoping that what he's saying is rational? My last two timeslip logs posted to refresh your memory.

Regarding your performance analysis, the big factors are DA (density altitude), a function of barometric pressure, air temperature, and humidity, and of course traction. My private track is around 900' elevation, 60-70F temperatures, normally has a DA of around 1500'.

On traction generally 60' time improvements knock 1.5x off your ET. So if I could get that 2.05 down to your 1.89, I expect to pickup 0.24ths. But generally speaking trap speeds are what tell you how well the modifications are working. And as John said back half trap gains are an easy way to evaluate power to weight.

Ignoring the slope differences I pickup 26.05mph in the back half, compared to your 23.97mph, so objectively speaking my car is a lot faster. And probably in worse DA, but also carrying less weight as you mention. But being faster isn't really the goal. The goal is to provide our customers with the best possible JB4 mapping. And since we're doing water/meth integration development right now with the best, safest, and fastest possible WMI implementation.

View attachment 15772View attachment 15771

In my graphs i add data labels to key points so you cans see what the value is. I also do a version without speed so the scale is bigger and you can actually see the many lines down in the 10-20 range. Its not that i cant read your graphs they are simply unreadble. Line colors are too similar and too many bunched on top of each other and with out labels you cant tell 12.1 afr vs 12.5 afr or 17 vs 18 lbs of boost. I would say at least the graphs are pretty but they really are not.
Graphing fidelity set to .1 like yours- done. I'm not selling graphs. Mine is a $15 solution and yours is $150.
Which is more readable?

 

[ryan1stinger]

Here's what it boils down to. Terry likes to push buttons, he knows it, and it works in looking at the responses from John and TonkaBob. Your responses continue to fuel him no pun intended. Let your results speak for themselves. Once you have the fastest 60 foot, 0-60, 1/8, 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile there will be nothing left to be said. But in the end Terry will find something else to say as this is his style whether you like it or not, but once this has been accomplished in the back of Terry's mind he will know you won. In the end competition is good, this 1/4 mile thread is great, and posting times is fun and keeps everyone wanting to push the envelope that much more.

 

[Terry@BMS]

When viewing JB4 logs in the mobile app interface you can pinch to zoom in and out, in the windows interface also can use the cursor to see the individual sample points. Maybe you spent $15 on your logging but it's a slow manual process doing what you're doing. The JB4 logs automatically to your phone in the back ground any time you're racing around. No need to set it all up ahead of time, and no need to format and prune it after. Overall logging is just a small fraction of what you can do on the JB4 mobile app but it's quite robust.

Regarding my logs in specific I think the phrase I was looking for above was you're acting willfully ignorant and best, disingenuous at worst. To say I'm running 20 degrees of timing and 19psi of boost when the log clearly shows otherwise for example, really tipped your hand. If you're dishonest about that frankly your credibility has taken a hit in my eyes, as I said before data is only as good as its source.