2.0T Stinger - here's what I think

[scharn]

I thought I remember seeing the 2.0T had 0-60 in the 5 seconds arena... that is pretty damn quick for the vast majority of people out there (and realistically the vast majority of driving situations).

 

[Waynerm002]

You are correct, it is listed under 6 seconds and is more than sufficient for most folks. Once you drive the GT though, it's hard to step back. For me, I would prefer if it looked like the GT with the trim being similar in color or black and not the chrome/brushed nickel look.

 

[MerlintheMad]

5.9 to 60 versus 4.7 to 60, is what the books say, iirc (not looking). One of the guys at my dealership said he knew of a guy who put a different "chip" in his, and more air intakes, and is running around with c. 425 hp. Yikes! But the "4.3 to 60" assertion was for a stock Stinger 3.3tt, AWD, iirc. I believe the skinny is that AWD will beat the factory numbers, which are for RWD.

 

[Kamauxx]

5.9 to 60 versus 4.7 to 60, is what the books say, iirc (not looking). One of the guys at my dealership said he knew of a guy who put a different "chip" in his, and more air intakes, and is running around with c. 425 hp. Yikes! But the "4.3 to 60" assertion was for a stock Stinger 3.3tt, AWD, iirc. I believe the skinny is that AWD will beat the factory numbers, which are for RWD.

The reverse is true. AWD 3.3s are slower to accelerate than RWD. This has been stated by Kia and proven by independent testers.

AWDs should do better on courses of course, but I've seen no solid data to back that up.

 

[MerlintheMad]

The reverse is true. AWD 3.3s are slower to accelerate than RWD. This has been stated by Kia and proven by independent testers.

AWDs should do better on courses of course, but I've seen no solid data to back that up.

I've heard both now. But I haven't read any proven claims yet. Originally, I assumed the RWD was the faster off the line, because of less friction or interference. But I was told by someone who sounded as sure as you do that moving the car from four points of power gets the mass moving quicker. That made sense too. So I decided that my original supposition had been wrong. Now I am wrong aaagain. *sigh*

 

[shaggystinger]

LOl. I know, Wayne, but a lot of people look at the two cars and scratch their heads (not everyone is a car enthusiast). They know the Stinger looks nice, costs more, and that it has a version with a bigger engine, but otherwise it doesn't compute. Ask your Kia dealer if I'm not right.

And when you can get a Stinger and Optima both with virtually the same engine, lots of people aren't willing to spend the extra dough for the Stinger. Yes, you and I know the differences in the chassis, drivetrain, etc., but you might be surprised how many people do NOT know (or care about) those differences. For them, it's two cars that look similar, but one of them costs more.

I still maintain that Kia should have separated the Stinger from the Optima by baking more horsepower into the Stinger's 2.0T. Then there would have been a clear difference. People who don't understand anything else think they understand horsepower. "Oh, okay, they have different tail lights and the Stinger thing has more horsepower. Okay, got it." Lol.

I guess I somehow missed or forgot that there is already a 2.5T in development. But it's still unlikely I'd get the 3.3. I've had my share of performance cars, several with more ponies than the GT, and I guess I've outgrown it. I can terrorize the streets with a 2.0-liter turbo, and I'm losing interest in forking over $50k+ on cars these days. And frankly, unless a new engine shows up, I'm slowly losing my initial excitement about the Stinger.

This is my thought process as well. Though I haven't given up on getting a Stinger by any means, I am wrestling with the trim levels. Coming from a Ford fusion 2.0T, and having test driven both the 2.0 and 3.3 the power delivery in the 2.0 seems very similar to my fusion but the driving dynamics are 100% in the Stingers favor, no comparison there. If I could get a base GT with say a "sun and sound" package that many other automakers have which includes an upgraded sound system and sunroof then this would be a no brainer. The money delta between a premium and GT1 is just too much of a jump. Couple that with the crazy discounts the 2.0's currently have and the decision is even more difficult. KIA definitely needed to give the 2.0 more power and hopefully they rectify that in the future. For now, my wrestling match continues....

 

[scharn]

I've heard both now. But I haven't read any proven claims yet. Originally, I assumed the RWD was the faster off the line, because of less friction or interference. But I was told by someone who sounded as sure as you do that moving the car from four points of power gets the mass moving quicker. That made sense too. So I decided that my original supposition had been wrong. Now I am wrong aaagain. *sigh*

Some interesting info about some of that that in this thread with more concrete info
New video AWD vs RWD test

As for my experience (mine is rwd and stock) i've had no issues launching when it comes to traction so I doubt awd would make much of a difference off the line. Obviously inclement weather or conditions it would absolutely be better.