2.0T Are there any performance numbers for the 2.0T Stinger?

[Jenny Wang]

Have I missed them or forgotten? I see 0-62 in 5.1 seconds for the turbo V6 but nothing about the 2.0T. I want to keep my payments low and I also want to use less gas so I'm not buying the V6 but I'm still curious about how the Stinger will perform compared to my Optima.

 

[hej]

Without resorting to the Googles, I have vague recollection of seeing some mention of something a little over the 7 second mark. Even if I'm imagining that, that's pretty much where I'd expect it to fall given the power & weight.

 

[app_master]

0-60 I recall figure of 5, 6, 8.5 sec for the four, V6 and diesel respectively. I'll dig the article up later...

 

[Bamm1]

0-60 I recall figure of 5, 6, 8.5 sec for the four, V6 and diesel respectively. I'll dig the article up later...

Yes, those are the estimates that are floating around in several articles.

Seems to line up with other models offering similar engines:

• Jaguar XE S 3.0 (supercharged) AWD: 4.8 sec
• Jaguar XE 25t RWD: 6.6 sec
• Jaguar XE 20d AWD: 8.4 sec

 

[ballistic]

6 seconds to 60 for the four cylinder? that's not bad at all! that's going to be a legitimately quick car with a light tune.

 

[hej]

6 seconds to 60 for the four cylinder? that's not bad at all! that's going to be a legitimately quick car with a light tune.

Not bad at all, and also suspiciously low to me. It would seem to make the V6 pretty hard sell if the 4 cylinder is that quick.

 

[Bamm1]

Not apples to apples but........

The FWD 3584lb 245/260 2.0T 6-speed auto Kia Optima SXL goes 0-60 in 6.8 seconds (tires are 10mm wider than the base Stinger’s).

The RWD 3,615 lbs 255/260 2.0T 8-speed auto Kia Stinger being 0.8 sec. faster to 60 seems like a stretch.
The RWD platform may have better weight transfer and that combined with the 8-speed should knock off a few tenths. The 10 extra hp could help as well.

The 340i is about 1 sec faster to 60 than the 330i. Same for the 430i vs. 440i and the A5 Sportback vs. S5 Sportback
But all those engines are underrated.

I am hoping for 60 in the 4's for the Stinger GT. So that gives a pretty big gap between the 4 and the 6 (for both the times and the corresponding engine sizes).

 

[Jenny Wang]

Okay, I don't have to worry about my 2.0T being slow. It's actually plenty powerful for me. From what I've been reading I feel pretty confident that the Stinger GT will do 0-60 in under 5 seconds.

 

[Bamm1]

Okay, I don't have to worry about my 2.0T being slow. It's actually plenty powerful for me.

I think the non-GT is going to be a good balance of performance and economy.

From what I've been reading I feel pretty confident that the Stinger GT will do 0-60 in under 5 seconds.

Looking at other similar vehicles also leads me to the same conclusion. For example:

The 325/380, 4128 lb, 6-speed Auto, AWD Ford Fusion Sport goes 0-60 in 5.1 sec. More horsepower, same torque, less weight, 8-speed trans.....

 

[Jenny Wang]

Damn, that's pretty quick for a Ford Fusion. But yes I don't see how our Stinger wouldn't be faster.

 

[Bamm1]

Damn, that's pretty quick for a Ford Fusion. But yes I don't see how our Stinger wouldn't be faster.

More food for thought:

• The 325/354, 4003 lb, 6-speed Auto, AWD 2012 Volvo V60 Wagon goes 0-60 in 4.9 sec.
• The 362/384, 4256 lb, 9-speed Auto, AWD Mercedes GLC43 SUV goes 0-60 in 4.5-4.7 sec.

 

[Larry Denen]

Well I'm entirely convinced we'll see, at the very worst, 0-60 in 4.8 seconds. I don't know what magic Mercedes used to get 4.5 out of the GLC. That's pretty impressive to me. I think those horsepower and torque numbers are under rated.

 

[Kia Stinger]

I hope they tune the 2.0T to a higher standard than they do the Optima and other Hyundai/Kia vehicles. I have a feeling they will...

 

[app_master]

Here's my guess's for final production performance 0-60, pure speculation, what you say? ...
GT V6; 4.6sec
4 turbo; 6.3sec
4 diesel; 8.2sec

 

[Kia Stinger]

Here's my guess's for final production performance 0-60, pure speculation, what you say? ...
GT V6; 4.6sec
4 turbo; 6.3sec
4 diesel; 8.2sec

That sounds pretty reasonable to me!

 

[Bamm1]

That sounds pretty reasonable to me!

I don’t have any evidence (speculative or otherwise) to refute your estimates. So I am on board!

I really think if Kia wants to exceed expectations with “conquest buyers” from luxury brands (430i/440i; A5/S5 Sportback; etc.) they are going to have to “go beyond” their standard formula of “better content for a lot less money”. The Stinger is going to have to have performance that is very, very close (if not identical) to its competitors at a bare minimum. Kia can’t let performance fall by the wayside and your "guesstimates" would put it right in the mix.

 

[Brian Keenan]

I don’t have any evidence (speculative or otherwise) to refute your estimates. So I am on board!

I really think if Kia wants to exceed expectations with “conquest buyers” from luxury brands (430i/440i; A5/S5 Sportback; etc.) they are going to have to “go beyond” their standard formula of “better content for a lot less money”. The Stinger is going to have to have performance that is very, very close (if not identical) to its competitors at a bare minimum. Kia can’t let performance fall by the wayside and your "guesstimates" would put it right in the mix.

Yes. It definitely needs to be a legitimate performance competitor. None of this "almost" because there will surely be various other things that register in the "almost there" category...

 

[Bamm1]

Yes. It definitely needs to be a legitimate performance competitor. None of this "almost" because there will surely be various other things that register in the "almost there" category...

I think the performance aspect becomes even more important when you take into consideration the likely fuel economy numbers.

• 430i: 23/34/27
• 440i: 21/32/25

I don't see the Stinger exceeding the above numbers nor do I foresee a tie. The Stinger will likely fall short in both the base and GT configurations.

A "slower" car that gets "worse" fuel economy is a hard sell.

 

[Kia Stinger]

I think the performance aspect becomes even more important when you take into consideration the likely fuel economy numbers.

• 430i: 23/34/27
• 440i: 21/32/25

I don't see the Stinger exceeding the above numbers nor do I foresee a tie. The Stinger will likely fall short in both the base and GT configurations.

A "slower" car that gets "worse" fuel economy is a hard sell.

Yes, without a really, really good price (for reasoning) it'll be difficult to move these against it's competitors if the fuel economy figures are going to be bad. At this point it's all in the tune. In some cases increasing boost can save fuel by requiring less strain on the engine to get the car moving. At least that's how it's been for me in the past.

Of course, if you beat on it - you're going to get worse fuel economy than you would have with less boost...

 

[Bamm1]

Yes, without a really, really good price (for reasoning) it'll be difficult to move these against it's competitors if the fuel economy figures are going to be bad.

I hope the ratings don't fall into the "bad" category. Here are some more competitors for discussion (I will use the AWD versions as worst case):

• BMW 340i AWD 21/31/25
• Jaguar XE 3.0 AWD 20/29/23
• Mercedes C43 AWD 20/28/23
• Infiniti Q50 Red Sport 400 AWD 19/26/22
• Lincoln MKZ 3.0 AWD 17/26/20

The Jaguar and Mercedes offer performance right on par with the BMW with lower fuel economy (but not what I what I would call "bad"). So I will look to other attributes to frame my comparison.

The Infiniti may fall into the "bad" category for HWY mileage depending on your perspective. It only has a 7 speed trans (determent to fuel economy) BUT it runs high 12's in the 1/4 mile at 110+ mph. So it can stay in the mix.

Now, the Lincoln. It gets what I would call "bad" fuel economy AND it is "slower" (in numerous performance measures) than most of the other cars on the list. So its out!

If the Stinger GT can come in with say Jaguar-like performance along with similar fuel economy (say 19-20/27-29) but undercut its price by 10-15 grand with BETTER content Kia may have itself a winner.

At this point it's all in the tune. In some cases increasing boost can save fuel by requiring less strain on the engine to get the car moving. At least that's how it's been for me in the past.

Of course, if you beat on it - you're going to get worse fuel economy than you would have with less boost...

In my experience with forced induction as long as you stay out of boost (wastegate doesn't even open) you can eek out OK fuel economy numbers. As soon as you are in boost (even moderate), forget about it. This holds true even with a tune where the boost has been increased. I have also found that compression ratio comes into play for fuel economy when out of boost (the higher the better).