GT vs Coyote Mustang ........................

[Ucinn]

13.3 - you're stock?

Yes, stock 2018 GT2 AWD

 

[Revvdmedia]

Low end torque is a significant difference between the Mustang and the Stinger. The 5.0 absolutely screams above 3500 rpm, but for a V8 I always felt it didn't feel overly torquey at low revs. The Stinger especially in sport mode feels much more torquey at low revs.

 

[Manaz]

For those looking at bigger turbos, be aware that the tradeoff for more top-end power will almost certainly be less low-rpm torque.

 

[19GT-AWD]

That low end torque is the single most fun thing about driving this car to me.

It goes way beyond fun, it's what makes the car perform above it's punching weight. The Chevy SS needed 50+ hp to match the Stinger's acceleration being exactly the same weight.

 

[19GT-AWD]

Low end torque is a significant difference between the Mustang and the Stinger. The 5.0 absolutely screams above 3500 rpm, but for a V8 I always felt it didn't feel overly torquey at low revs. The Stinger especially in sport mode feels much more torquey at low revs.

I had an S550 GT and can confirm that.

 

[StungBlueGT2]

Low end torque is a significant difference between the Mustang and the Stinger. The 5.0 absolutely screams above 3500 rpm, but for a V8 I always felt it didn't feel overly torquey at low revs. The Stinger especially in sport mode feels much more torquey at low revs.

That’s because the Stinger was dyno tested to make about 470tq at the crank or 50ftlbs more torque than the 5.0 and its available from 1300-4500rpm. The 5.0s only has 420tq and it doesn’t peak until 4600rpm. That high torque curve makes great HP, but doesn’t feel as strong or launch as hard as our Stingers.

 

[turboAWD]

That’s because the Stinger was dyno tested to make about 470tq at the crank

Do you have a reference for this? There's a facebook debate going on..

 

[StungBlueGT2]

Do you have a reference for this? There's a facebook debate going on..

Sure. Most tuners stock Stinger dyno results are around 390wtq or 460btq@15% drivetrain loss.

BMS results are around 393wtq.

And TORKs was about 386wtq.

 

[turboAWD]

Thanks. No point arguing anymore on facebook..

 

[StungBlueGT2]

Thanks. No point arguing anymore on facebook..

You’re welcome and nice knowing we are very underrated and actually making about 400bhp/460btq.

Also curious, what exactly were they arguing about?

 

[MerlintheMad]

I wouldn't know about any of that, but I like telling people, "Actually, Kia underrated this engine, it has over 400 HP and lb ft of torque." I never get any more specific than that and apologize for not being enough of a gear head.

But, ever since this thread started, I've wanted to know what possessed Ford's concept people to give a model two animal names. It looks daft to me. Why not call the Road Runner the "Coyote Road Runner"? Or how about a "Cougar Jaguar"; "Thunderbird Spider"?

The car naming department and the engine naming department need to coordinate better. lol.

 

[19GT-AWD]

That’s because the Stinger was dyno tested to make about 470tq at the crank ...

I'll believe that when an engine is actually removed from a Stinger GT, put on an engine dyno and tested at SAE J1349.

You’re welcome and nice knowing we are very underrated and actually making about 400bhp/460btq.

Also curious, what exactly were they arguing about?

Go to any car forum and witness the "amazing" whp/wtrq numbers their cars "actually" make. lol

Thank God for healthy intelligent debates!

... I like telling people, "Actually, Kia underrated this engine, it has over 400 HP and lb ft of torque."

I tell people chassis dyno results are only good for measuring performance improvements, and not much else.

... I've wanted to know what possessed Ford's concept people to give a model two animal names ...

Because FORD knows what they're doing, as observed by the "Coyote" moniker having been embraced across the board by both buyers and car communities alike.

Let's see if "3.3L Lambda II T-GDi" catches on with equal enthusiasm. lol

 

[turboAWD]

Because FORD knows what they're doing, as observed by the "Coyote" moniker having been embraced across the board by both buyers and car communities alike.

Let's see if "3.3L Lambda II T-GDi" catches on with equal enthusiasm. lol

This - it's all about branding. Merlin - ask your family what they think of when you say "Hemi". Pretty sure some of them will hit on Dodge/Chrysler/FCA. Then see if any of them can guess that 2jz is a very famous (in the car world) Toyota engine.

 

[MerlintheMad]

I doubt that FCA is what you meant.
Branding a Coyote engine with a Mustang just sounds funny to me. But, it is very facile for the memory and has become a meme. Meme creation is the straight road to brand recognition. But how to get it to happen? That is the conundrum-facing, for which promotional teams are hired.

 

[turboAWD]

FCA = Fiat-Chrysler-Automobiles, the new parent company of dodge, chrysler, etc..

 

[StungBlueGT2]

I'll believe that when an engine is actually removed from a Stinger GT, put on an engine dyno and tested at SAE J1349.

Go to any car forum and witness the "amazing" whp/wtrq numbers their cars "actually" make. lol

Thank God for healthy intelligent debates!

I tell people chassis dyno results are only good for measuring performance improvements, and not much else.

Because FORD knows what they're doing, as observed by the "Coyote" moniker having been embraced across the board by both buyers and car communities alike.

Let's see if "3.3L Lambda II T-GDi" catches on with equal enthusiasm. lol

I’m sorry I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Are you saying you disagree that we are underrated and don’t believe multiple different dyno results because they are WHP instead of BHP? What really matters is the power you put to the ground anyway...

Nobody is pulling a Stinger engine just to test BHP, so HP/TQ at the wheels is the closest and most accurate numbers we will get. There is a reason that non-load dynojets are widely used all over the world and that 15% drivetrain loss is the rule of thumb for modern day RWD cars. Even if you drop to a very conservative 12% drivetrain loss you’re still looking at around 450tq at the crank.

The TQ numbers don’t lie because we are easily beating lighter cars with more power. 5.0s, SRTs & SSs should smoke us but they don’t unless they are over illegal speeds.

Anyway you look at it Kia underrated their numbers for our engines because we are easily putting 10-15 more torque to the ground, then their conservative 376btq suggests. It actually makes perfect sense since the creators of the Stinger came from BMW M division & Audi both of which are know to drastically underrate their engines power. Im sure they tweaked it since the original 3.3tt lambada II motor and why Kia’s estimated 5.1sec 0-60 dropped down to 4.7 and then to 4.4 by the #1 auto enthusiast magazine C&D.

Either way, it’s great being underrated like the top European manufacturers because that just makes all the Ford, Chevy & Dodge guys even more upset when our little 365hp/376tq 3.3l V6 keeps embarrassing their V8s that are double the size and supposedly makes 75-100 more HP.

 

[Manaz]

It's not uncommon for manufacturers to under-rate engines (particularly early in their product lifecycles), and also to "de-tune" them or leave potential untapped. That way the engine can be "improved" over time by simply either providing more realistic output figures, or releasing additional performance through better tuning (rather than expensive re-engineering of the engine itself).

 

[westcoastGT]

It's not uncommon for manufacturers to under-rate engines (particularly early in their product lifecycles), and also to "de-tune" them or leave potential untapped. That way the engine can be "improved" over time by simply either providing more realistic output figures, or releasing additional performance through better tuning (rather than expensive re-engineering of the engine itself).

.........really ??? bawaaaaaaa this has been a common theme here for over a year now

 

[Manaz]

When you look at the build of the engine and transmission, it seems almost certain with the 3.3L turbo engine in the Stinger (I don't know enough about the 2.0L turbo engine to comment on it).

There's no need for forged internals at the current stock power levels - but apparently we have forged conrods, and the automatic gearbox is apparently rated for up to 1,000Nm. Engineering (and building) with those components and to those standards doesn't come cheap - if Kia didn't plan on getting more out of the engine, they wouldn't have gone to the effort.

People are apparently already seeing 700hp and above without opening these engines up - from an engine rated by Kia for < 400hp at the flywheel. OK, we don't yet know if those 700+hp engines are going to last 7 years - but you're talking about a power output increase of over 100% (by the time you factor in drivetrain loss) there on stock internals.

Kia aren't the only ones to do this - look at the incremental increases in power output over years of engines from lots of manufacturers - GM, Ford, Subaru, Toyota, etc etc. The same base engine ends up putting out more power and torque over time/generations of deployment, and whilst sometimes there's fiddling at the edges, in general the power comes at least partially from just running and tuning the engines more efficiently.

 

[TwistedOrca]

Yes, stock 2018 GT2 AWD

Good stuff. Most owners with a tune are wishing they had AWD now.

Right Dave?