There is no magic in tuning and racing. Whatever the difference is will show in the data logs.
Drag/Acceleration Kia Stinger 1/4 Mile Times
- Thread starter Tonkabob
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 1/4 mile quarter mile stinger times
- Status
There is no magic in tuning and racing. Whatever the difference is will show in the data logs.
Tonkabob
2500 Posts Club!
I'm showing that dragy thought a 1% slope was a 36% slope. It obviously gets confused sometimes. I'll be the first one to the track when it opens.
StingerNYC
Active Member
I don't see going to the track will prove much. Even comparing track times is purely for fun, unless all track times are at the same track at the same elevation, same temperature, and same humidity there will be significant variations.
______________________________
Tonkabob
2500 Posts Club!
He is in LC correctly. He launches at 2250 and 2 PSI. The car takes a shit right at the 1-2 shift just before the 60 foot mark. Some knock and throttle pull on the 1-2 shift.
DaBears4Lyfe
1000 Posts Club!
Thats it we are settling this. Terry is paying for everyone to ship our cars to vegas for a weekend. We will all race at the same track. Thanks Terry!
From interior to exterior to high performance - everything you need for your Stinger awaits you...
Don't take it the wrong way but I place no value in your tuning analysis. He can post the log here, in the JB4 thread, or email it in, and I'll be happy to help get him running as quickly as he should be.
Kamauxx
5000 Posts Club!
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2018
- Messages
- 5,508
- Reaction score
- 2,738
- Points
- 118
Did anyone die during this attempt?
Tonkabob
2500 Posts Club!
I think he already sent you the logs but here are some graphs. That knock and bad shift are right before the 60 foot mark. (36 MPH)
Tonkabob
2500 Posts Club!
No shit, you would think i drove off a cliff!
StingerNYC
Active Member
______________________________
From interior to exterior to high performance - everything you need for your Stinger awaits you...
Not that I know of. Just attach the JB4 CSV file here, I view them in the JB4 interface.
So let's all relax a tad.
Since that log is out there, here is all the info for it attached.
This was just a first test attempt, I wasn't going to bring it out because I had to let off before the quarter, and because the launch felt REALLY bad. Since it's out there, I will include all of the data with it so at least everyone has the data.
I also wanted to say, it could be partly an octane issue. I filled up at costsco instead of shell last tank. So this morning, I went and topped up with Shell 92 from 1/4 tank of the costco stuff. I want to get more solid data and numbers before I come to any conclusions. I am going to go out tonight and do A BUNCH of at least 0-60 testing, if not 1/4 mile. I will report back with dragy results and FULL logs with the new firmware.
Since that log is out there, here is all the info for it attached.
This was just a first test attempt, I wasn't going to bring it out because I had to let off before the quarter, and because the launch felt REALLY bad. Since it's out there, I will include all of the data with it so at least everyone has the data.
I also wanted to say, it could be partly an octane issue. I filled up at costsco instead of shell last tank. So this morning, I went and topped up with Shell 92 from 1/4 tank of the costco stuff. I want to get more solid data and numbers before I come to any conclusions. I am going to go out tonight and do A BUNCH of at least 0-60 testing, if not 1/4 mile. I will report back with dragy results and FULL logs with the new firmware.
Attachments
Whatever, it's just a log. Who cares. 
But need the CSV itself to evaluate it.
OK I see the CSV and dragy slip, 2.3 60', yikes that is bad! Should be in the 1.9s at least on an AWD launch.
No signs of timing pull at the launch or down low, not that you'd expect any under low load. Some timing movement up top in a couple cylinders but to be expected on 92 octane. I'd say the octane is probably fine here for map2. You *might* even be able to try map3.
No obvious sign in the log of why the 60' time is so bad. I'd do a few more runs to evaluate if it's a trend or an outlier on the launch. If it's a trend of slow 60' times then next steps:
1) Try a run on map0 and map5 for comparison. For map5 just do the 60' and 0-60, not staying in it the full 1/4 mile, to see what sort of effect it has on boost off the line.
1a) Depending on the results of 1) I might suggest a boost reduction in 1st gear of 1 or 2psi.
2) Try adding octane booster or E85 to rule out fuel/timing issues.
3) Since you have cold weather and exhaust mods, may benefit from the IAT wire to get boost up and timing target down, email in if you want to give that a whirl.
But need the CSV itself to evaluate it.OK I see the CSV and dragy slip, 2.3 60', yikes that is bad! Should be in the 1.9s at least on an AWD launch.
No signs of timing pull at the launch or down low, not that you'd expect any under low load. Some timing movement up top in a couple cylinders but to be expected on 92 octane. I'd say the octane is probably fine here for map2. You *might* even be able to try map3.
No obvious sign in the log of why the 60' time is so bad. I'd do a few more runs to evaluate if it's a trend or an outlier on the launch. If it's a trend of slow 60' times then next steps:
1) Try a run on map0 and map5 for comparison. For map5 just do the 60' and 0-60, not staying in it the full 1/4 mile, to see what sort of effect it has on boost off the line.
1a) Depending on the results of 1) I might suggest a boost reduction in 1st gear of 1 or 2psi.
2) Try adding octane booster or E85 to rule out fuel/timing issues.
3) Since you have cold weather and exhaust mods, may benefit from the IAT wire to get boost up and timing target down, email in if you want to give that a whirl.
Last edited:
Whatever, it's just a log. Who cares.
Updated post to include Dragy and log, I'm vroomz on N54! Also, once again, this was just a test to make sure everything was up and running for this weekend, I only shared it on N54 because I saw some ugliness and wanted to know if it was okay to keep testing this.
Oh OK, hard to keep track of people between different forums and email.
From interior to exterior to high performance - everything you need for your Stinger awaits you...
No worries. I made that account really early on and didn't expect to use it so just made a throwaway name, but then started chiming in lol.
For anyone interested, I'm taking this out of the 1/4 mile thread for now and into the JB4 thread. I don't want to derail the thread completely. Just wanted to keep a trail for anyone coming up on this later and those who are curious!
Last edited by a moderator:
______________________________
Angel
1000 Posts Club!
Agreed but I would take a track over a draggy time any day ..... just saying
Ahawk1968
Active Member
I think everyone forgets that! I've had 20 years of 1/4 mile racing, at various tracks. BIG time variables.
Angel, I dunno what you have it in for with the draggy, but the comparisons we have seen here from timeslips to draggy times is unreal. Most are within .005 with the draggy reading slower than the timeslips.
StungBlueGT2
Sustaining Member
Thank you for clarifying your experience but it’s obvious you’ve only roll raced once, because your knowledge of how a roll race would work in the real world is extremely lacking...
You can’t take results from a 1/4m run that starts from a dig and accurately use it to represent a roll race. Since your car had the AWD traction advantage you were already accelerating faster to 60mph. Terry had to limit boost in gears 1-2, so acceleration in your comparison isn’t equal and can’t be used to represent a roll race.
However your numbers do prove Terry was already gaining on within your 60-90 example. During the 60-80 time your 0.1 quicker, but the 60-90 time is cut in half to 0.05 difference. So at full boost after 2nd gear(60mph) he’s already gaining on you. Meaning, if you both really started from a roll at 60mph he’d immediately start walking away from you. And by 130 the .76sec difference would be car lengths!
I’m sorry to keep disproving your “indisputable data”, but it’s misleading when you keep trying to make up facts.
You should be happy you’re the quickest Stinger on record with the best 0-60 & 1/4m ETs. But your AWD advantage is a disadvantage in any roll race and no matter what you show in your logs/graphs will prove otherwise. Terry or any RWD Stinger with a JB4 and similar upgrades(intake, WMI, drag radials) will walk on you in a roll race. It’s just how physics work.
Again, I’m not trying to take sides or take anything away from your records or accomplishments. I’m simply trying to clarify what each set of statistics represent, and what the true differences are between your AWD Tork tune and a RWD JB4 chip. Both are amazing & have extremely similar performance improvements, but according to the results in this tread the facts are simple.
AWD with Tork tune & multiple bolt-ons makes the “quickest” 0-60 & 1/4m ET Stinger, but RWD with JB4 & WMI with less bolt-ons makes the “fastest” Stinger to date. That being said, tuned AWD Stingers will be quickest for dig or stoplight racing which RWD Stingers will be extremely jealous of(me included). But tuned RWD Stingers will win the roll races with AWD Stingers like yourself, wishing they could compete.
Don’t take this the wrong way and no disrespect, but please be happy with your multiple records
and just leave the inexperience with the “fastest” Stinger and all the “roll racing” talk go. From interior to exterior to high performance - everything you need for your Stinger awaits you...
- Status
