RaceChip GTS Black w/ App for 2.0 Review

[mandasol]

Been waiting for the RaceChip availability for our 2.0 turbos and it's finally here. I went on vacation for a couple weeks so I the ordered the GTS Black with App Control to have it arrive when I got back. Also ordered the HKS M45XL Spark Plugs and they both arrived today. We have 93 octane here so that's what I always use.

I want to preface by mentioning for me and my driving style and the traffic I have to deal with the 2.0 is actually better suited to my needs than the 3.3 and I'm pretty much happy with it, except the turbo lag is pretty bad. Also, I deal with so much traffic I rarely have the chance to go WOT but when I do I'll admit it could use some more power. The only other complaint is that the fuel mileage is erratic and not quite a good as I was hoping, on my daily mostly city hour each way commute some times I'll average around 26-27 and some days it'll be 23-24, driving the same route and basically the same way. I was hoping the RaceChip would help with all these.

Installation: Super easy. Finally the 2.0 has a major advantage over the 3.3. Replacing the spark plugs are almost as easy as replacing a light bulb (well 4 light bulbs). I checked anyway but HKS plugs came gaped to 0.024-0.028 already so it was just plug and play. This video is for the optima 2.0 turbo, but it's exactly the same except the engine orientation

.
Also want to mention I used a torque wrench to tighten the spark plugs to spec 20-25 nm. The RaceChip install is also easy. However, the instructions are for the Optima so the locations of the sensors for the harnesses are different. It took me longer to find the correct sensor locations than it did to actually install the whole thing. App setup was easy enough but I had to go back and write down the serial number so I would have it available. Everything went smoothly and car started up fine and no issues.

Driving Impression: It's late in the evening so I just had time for one shake down ride about 20 minutes. I started out easy to make sure the engine gets up to temp and no malfunctions. Everything seemed fine. RaceChip starts out in Sport mode and I left the car in Comfort mode to start. Already I could tell a better response, and less lag. After cruising around I put the RaceChip into Race mode and the car into Sport. At first I wasn't really sure I could tell a difference with this combo, so I drove around a little more. Went out onto the express way and gave it about 3/4's and that's when I noticed the speed coming quicker than I was used to. Got back off the highway and headed back home. Came up to a red light so thought I would try out a WOT pull from a stop with launch control. By coincidence a 6th gen 4 or 6 cylinder camaro came charging up to the light next to me. Normally on paper the 6th gen will be quicker than the 2.0 Stinger so it was a good matchup to test the RaceChip. I'm still getting use to the timing for launch control, so the camaro took off a half second before I did, but then the Stinger kicked in and it charged noticeably harder than before. I caught up to and passed the camaro. There was another traffic light coming with cars stopped already so we both let off while I was still ahead. Granted I don't know how hard the camaro was going, but I was pretty impressed by how the car felt. I really don't think I could have even caught up to the camaro before the tune. I drove around easy for a few minutes to let things cool, so I tried Efficiency mode. There is noticeable difference between the modes.

I'll need to drive it some more to see how reliable this setup is. Hopefully, I won't have any of the dreaded spark plug issues since I upgraded to the recommended plugs.

On to the next mod. I have Eibach springs and rear sway on order.

 

[robz32]

Very nice. Sounds like there were major improvements. I guess time will tell how good and consistent they are.

 

[Rufus]

Thanks for posting your initial impressions and please keep us posted!

 

[mandasol]

I had a lot of errands to run yesterday and I spend nearly 4 hours driving so I think I have enough saddle time for a follow up.

One of the main reasons I think most of us bought the 2.0 was for better gas mileage, and in stock form IMHO it's not really so great. I drove all over Atlanta Metro yesterday and I noticed drastically higher fuel mileage numbers based on my car's instrument read out. The numbers are so much higher that I'm wondering if the RaceChip somehow distorts the cars calculations. They advertise 20% fuel mileage improvement which sounds ridiculously optimistic but if my car's computer is correct then I am seeing about that much. I may calculate actual on the next few fill ups to confirm though.

I mostly left the RaceChip in Race mode. With the car's drive mode in Comfort I see noticeably better response in regular driving. It doesn't feel as lazy as it normally does, which is why I had almost always put it in Sport mode, except I feel in Sport mode (pre-RaceChip) the shifting is a little jerky for normal driving. With the RaceChip even in Comfort it's like the car is in Sport mode with less jerky shifting. With the RaceChip in Sport mode oddly enough in the lower RPM range it feels less responsive, almost as if the programming shifts the power/torque from the lower end to favor the high end. Pre-RaceChip the car does feel peppy but the power drops out above 5000ish rpm. With the RaceChip in Race mode and car in Sport the car feels like it starts out with less torque in the lower RPM's but after about 4500 rpm it pull HARD all way to red line. Really hard. I don't think there have been any dyno numbers shared yet, but if their claimed 100 lb-ft increase is true then it's likely in the higher rpms per my butt dyno. It feels like a different car. It feels way more aggressive. So much so, that at least for now I don't want for more power.

I drove aggressively for an extended time and no warnings lights popped up. Engine ran smooth and idles smooth. Granted this has been only over a couple days with a couple hundred miles.

Since the locations of the connections are different in the instructions I took some pictures for our cars.

This is looking at the engine bay from the driver's side fender with the engine cover removed (it just pops off).

 

[RaceChip]

Thank you for your review and the pictures. I appreciate it!
Sorry for the slightly different pictures. I sent the feedback to my colleagues and told them to adapt the instructions. However, we have a long list of engines waiting to get specific instructions so I don't know how long it will take. The installation in the 2.0 is quite easy even with the slightly different pictures, so they might do other engines first.
It is always good to give the drive train (especially the transmission) some time to adapt to the increased power.
Regarding the fuel economy: We recommend to measure and calculate the MPG yourself, because the numbers you see are always just calculated. We do not manipulate the calculation, but this does not mean that the numbers are 100% correct. Also in stock condition they are not 100% correct.

 

[TJH]

Thank you for your review and the pictures. I appreciate it!
Sorry for the slightly different pictures. I sent the feedback to my colleagues and told them to adapt the instructions. However, we have a long list of engines waiting to get specific instructions so I don't know how long it will take. The installation in the 2.0 is quite easy even with the slightly different pictures, so they might do other engines first.
It is always good to give the drive train (especially the transmission) some time to adapt to the increased power.
Regarding the fuel economy: We recommend to measure and calculate the MPG yourself, because the numbers you see are always just calculated. We do not manipulate the calculation, but this does not mean that the numbers are 100% correct. Also in stock condition they are not 100% correct.

Did you manage to get any before and after dyno charts and before and after 0-60mph or 0-100kmph times from your colleagues in Germany?

 

[RaceChip]

Did you manage to get any before and after dyno charts and before and after 0-60mph or 0-100kmph times from your colleagues in Germany?

No, I only saw a chart a few months ago. Now, I asked them to send me one, but they only have the data they used during development. That is nothing we want to show (nothing I am allowed to show). I already told them many times to simply make some normal charts, too, after the product is developed. You know, they are engineers, they don't care about the marketing.
All in all, I have to wait until the next customer comes in. Then they will do charts for me. Maybe also installation pictures, we will see.

 

[mandasol]

Just another update. This morning I took my car to a shop to have my roof and some trim wrapped so I wanted to make sure the RaceChip was turned off before I dropped it off. I decided to turn it off half way there just for kicks. After driving it a few days with the RaceChip I was shocked at how anemic the car became in stock form. It's night and day difference. I wasn't even driving fast, just putting around in morning traffic you can feel it.

The stock 2.0 has bad turbo lag IMHO so if you're cruising along and you need to make a sudden maneuver or speed change, or cut in to traffic or make a left turn with oncoming traffic, or such, sometimes I would hesitate because of that delay. The RaceChip practically removes all of that delay or hesitation, so it makes the car a lot more confidence inspiring in even normal everyday driving. It's been a long time since I test drove the 3.3 so I can't really compare to judge if it comes close to it, but I kinda don't have regrets anymore for not getting it. I kind of feel like I have the best of both - better fuel economy and now good performance - well, except I'll admit the GT still does look better. If they come out with a 2.0 with GT body (like in almost every other country) then in combination with a tune like the RaceChip, this would be my ideal Stinger.

However, before I can say I recommend it, I feel like I would need to put at least a couple thousand miles on it with no issues then I'll feel more comfortable endorsing it.

 

[mandasol]

Dyno results on a Dynojet. Ran 93 octane. Outdoor temp was 85 deg didn't check humidity, but it was raining so it was high. 5th gear. Stability, traction, and ABS off. 5000 on the odometer. HKS M45XL spark plugs.

Did two runs with the RaceChip off and numbers were close each time, so stock it was 199.7 hp and 199.37 tq.

Next run was with RaceChip on in Race mode and we got 233.04 hp and 225.67 tq, so gain of 33.34 hp and 26.30.

We tried couple more runs with the RaceChip on but the transmission starting going nuts and wouldn't stay in 5th (I had the shifter in manual mode which worked fine for 3 runs then it just didn't want to stay in 5th when giving it full gas).

Interestingly enough the numbers are very similar to another forum member's dyno run with LAP3 on a Mustang Dyno:
Dyno Results: Kia Stinger 2.0 LAP3

It was a warm day and obviously very humid since it was raining, as I understand that can have a negative effect, so I'm guessing that may be why my base numbers were close to the results from the Mustang Dyno, when I hear Dynojet should read higher.

Wish I had more than one usable run with the RaceChip on to compare but have to go with what we got for now. I may try it again when the weather gets cooler and it's less humid. However, I don't see it gaining a tremendous amount and certainly not the numbers touted by RaceChip - +60hp and +100 ft lb torque.

So even after seeing the results of the dyno I do feel there is a noticeable seat of the pants improvement so I would still probably get a RaceChip if I were to do it over again, but I would probably just go for the RS and save a few bills.

 

[Rufus]

Appreciate the objective as well as subjective info!

 

[Rufus]

Dyno results on a Dynojet. Ran 93 octane. Outdoor temp was 85 deg didn't check humidity, but it was raining so it was high. 5th gear. Stability, traction, and ABS off. 5000 on the odometer. HKS M45XL spark plugs.

Did two runs with the RaceChip off and numbers were close each time, so stock it was 199.7 hp and 199.37 tq.

Next run was with RaceChip on in Race mode and we got 233.04 hp and 225.67 tq, so gain of 33.34 hp and 26.30.

We tried couple more runs with the RaceChip on but the transmission starting going nuts and wouldn't stay in 5th (I had the shifter in manual mode which worked fine for 3 runs then it just didn't want to stay in 5th when giving it full gas).

Interestingly enough the numbers are very similar to another forum member's dyno run with LAP3 on a Mustang Dyno:
Dyno Results: Kia Stinger 2.0 LAP3

It was a warm day and obviously very humid since it was raining, as I understand that can have a negative effect, so I'm guessing that may be why my base numbers were close to the results from the Mustang Dyno, when I hear Dynojet should read higher.

Wish I had more than one usable run with the RaceChip on to compare but have to go with what we got for now. I may try it again when the weather gets cooler and it's less humid. However, I don't see it gaining a tremendous amount and certainly not the numbers touted by RaceChip - +60hp and +100 ft lb torque.

So even after seeing the results of the dyno I do feel there is a noticeable seat of the pants improvement so I would still probably get a RaceChip if I were to do it over again, but I would probably just go for the RS and save a few bills.



View attachment 10229

View attachment 10230

Looking at the graph, it appears there is an approximate 30lb ft gain at 4750 rpm, which is a nice shove right where my stock 2.0 feels like it hits an accelerative wall...

 

[mandasol]

Looking at the graph, it appears there is an approximate 30lb ft gain at 4750 rpm, which is a nice shove right where my stock 2.0 feels like it hits an accelerative wall...

Yeah, that's why I still think there is a useful benefit from tunes like the RaceChip, but I think more testing and a better representation of actual improvement would be useful to potential buyers so we can make a more informed purchasing decision. If the RS chip has similar real world results for half the price, that is probably the better deal.

 

[Rufus]

Yeah, that's why I still think there is a useful benefit from tunes like the RaceChip, but I think more testing and a better representation of actual improvement would be useful to potential buyers so we can make a more informed purchasing decision. If the RS chip has similar real world results for half the price, that is probably the better deal.

Of everything I've seen on this forum and others regarding the Stinger 2.0, the RS RaceChip is where I'm leaning so far. I'd love to get to 250whp/250wtq without switching turbos or cracking the ECU. I suppose if I need more I'll be better off from there just getting a GT and let the fun really begin! Gotta say, though, there's something about wringing a smaller mill for all she's worth. Just not on a daily driver with my kid on board. That's what a "project" car is for

 

[RaceChip]

Dyno results on a Dynojet. Ran 93 octane. Outdoor temp was 85 deg didn't check humidity, but it was raining so it was high. 5th gear. Stability, traction, and ABS off. 5000 on the odometer. HKS M45XL spark plugs.

Did two runs with the RaceChip off and numbers were close each time, so stock it was 199.7 hp and 199.37 tq.

Next run was with RaceChip on in Race mode and we got 233.04 hp and 225.67 tq, so gain of 33.34 hp and 26.30.

We tried couple more runs with the RaceChip on but the transmission starting going nuts and wouldn't stay in 5th (I had the shifter in manual mode which worked fine for 3 runs then it just didn't want to stay in 5th when giving it full gas).

Interestingly enough the numbers are very similar to another forum member's dyno run with LAP3 on a Mustang Dyno:
Dyno Results: Kia Stinger 2.0 LAP3

It was a warm day and obviously very humid since it was raining, as I understand that can have a negative effect, so I'm guessing that may be why my base numbers were close to the results from the Mustang Dyno, when I hear Dynojet should read higher.

Wish I had more than one usable run with the RaceChip on to compare but have to go with what we got for now. I may try it again when the weather gets cooler and it's less humid. However, I don't see it gaining a tremendous amount and certainly not the numbers touted by RaceChip - +60hp and +100 ft lb torque.

So even after seeing the results of the dyno I do feel there is a noticeable seat of the pants improvement so I would still probably get a RaceChip if I were to do it over again, but I would probably just go for the RS and save a few bills.
View attachment 10229

View attachment 10230

Thank you for sharing this!
The HP gain is not bad (given the climatic conditions). Please keep in mind that the numbers on our website are not whp.
On our website you find 250 hp in stock and up to 310hp tuned (both at the crank)
So, when you measure 199.7 whp you should expect round about 247.6 whp (assuming that the loss in percentage is the same, which is just only approximately). It is not easy to compare hp and whp.

Of course, 233.04 hp is still less than expected. We can make your Race mode more aggressive if you want. (Please let me know if you want an update. However, you should only use premium gas in Race mode afterwards). This and even better fuel and better climatic conditions should give you at least 10 whp more.

We'll wait for some more feedback. If it turns out that nobody in the US gets 310 hp or 248 whp, we'll change the numbers on our website.

What really surprises me is your low torque gain. Okay, after 4,300 rpm the increase is really nice, but still I would have expected a higher torque gain.

 

[mandasol]

Thanks for the follow up. I always use 93 octane premium fuel, if a higher grade fuel is needed for a more aggressive tune I don't believe I have it locally, but either way I may wait till I have more miles to make sure I don't run into issues. I've put about 1000 miles on the car since the racechip. So far no problems that I can perceive so it's looking positive.

I will say that gas mileage is really unpredictable. I thought I was seeing better mileage from the first few days using the chip, but in the longer term the Stinger 2.0 is proving that gas mileage is very unpredictable. Some days it seems I'm getting good mileage and others very poor, driving the same route and same style. Overall, I can't really tell if I'm getting better mileage with the tune or not.

I received files from the shop so posting these so they show up better.

 

[RaceChip]

Thanks for the follow up. I always use 93 octane premium fuel, if a higher grade fuel is needed for a more aggressive tune I don't believe I have it locally, but either way I may wait till I have more miles to make sure I don't run into issues. I've put about 1000 miles on the car since the racechip. So far no problems that I can perceive so it's looking positive.

I will say that gas mileage is really unpredictable. I thought I was seeing better mileage from the first few days using the chip, but in the longer term the Stinger 2.0 is proving that gas mileage is very unpredictable. Some days it seems I'm getting good mileage and others very poor, driving the same route and same style. Overall, I can't really tell if I'm getting better mileage with the tune or not.
I received files from the shop so posting these so they show up better.
View attachment 10704
View attachment 10705

93 octane is perfect.
Do you measure the real gas mileage by looking at the distance driven and the gallons purchased at the gas station?
The gas mileage calculated in the dashboard is never very reliable.

 

[TJH]

Thank you for sharing this!
The HP gain is not bad (given the climatic conditions). Please keep in mind that the numbers on our website are not whp.
On our website you find 250 hp in stock and up to 310hp tuned (both at the crank)
So, when you measure 199.7 whp you should expect round about 247.6 whp (assuming that the loss in percentage is the same, which is just only approximately). It is not easy to compare hp and whp.

Of course, 233.04 hp is still less than expected. We can make your Race mode more aggressive if you want. (Please let me know if you want an update. However, you should only use premium gas in Race mode afterwards). This and even better fuel and better climatic conditions should give you at least 10 whp more.

We'll wait for some more feedback. If it turns out that nobody in the US gets 310 hp or 248 whp, we'll change the numbers on our website.

What really surprises me is your low torque gain. Okay, after 4,300 rpm the increase is really nice, but still I would have expected a higher torque gain.

Yes, from @mandasol's dyno charts, it seems there are no torque gains at all below 4200rpm. Yet, that is where I would be some 90% of the time; so, for me, the lack of low and mid-rpm gains would be a concern.

I've seen your Racechip dyno charts with the i30N which show good torque gains at low and mid-rpm; but I'm not sure whether you'd get similar results with the 2.0 Stinger, despite the engines being similar in these 2 cars. So, the bottom line is -- can you show other dyno charts with your Racechip on the 2.0 Stinger? Do they also show no low and mid-rpm gains, as with @mandasol's dynos?

 

[Shellshock22.0]

@mandasol Have you done any other upgrades to the car since you installed the Race Chip?

 

[mandasol]

@mandasol Have you done any other upgrades to the car since you installed the Race Chip?

I installed a K&N intake a few months ago but took it off. I doubt it added any power but it certainly added a lot of turbo noise. If I had a louder aftermarket exhaust I think it would balance the noises out better, but with lots of turbo noise and near silent exhaust makes for an odd driving experience. I'm very weary of messing with exhaust because I really don't want drone and EVC exhausts are just too much, at that point it would make more sense to consider trading in for a GT.

Regarding the RaceChip, I recently had my ECU replaced under recall and funny enough it cured my issue with the turbo lag. It's so much more responsive in the low to mid range. I drove it a few days without the RaceChip and then a few days with and decided I like it better without the RaceChip with the updated ECU. Low to mid range response is better without the chip, which is much more useful in regular driving around town. There certainly is more power in higher rpms with the chip but 99% of my driving is bumper to bumper city driving so opportunities for high rpms are small. Also, with the chip the turbo lag in the low to mid range seemed to return.

 

[RaceChip]

I installed a K&N intake a few months ago but took it off. I doubt it added any power but it certainly added a lot of turbo noise. If I had a louder aftermarket exhaust I think it would balance the noises out better, but with lots of turbo noise and near silent exhaust makes for an odd driving experience. I'm very weary of messing with exhaust because I really don't want drone and EVC exhausts are just too much, at that point it would make more sense to consider trading in for a GT.

Regarding the RaceChip, I recently had my ECU replaced under recall and funny enough it cured my issue with the turbo lag. It's so much more responsive in the low to mid range. I drove it a few days without the RaceChip and then a few days with and decided I like it better without the RaceChip with the updated ECU. Low to mid range response is better without the chip, which is much more useful in regular driving around town. There certainly is more power in higher rpms with the chip but 99% of my driving is bumper to bumper city driving so opportunities for high rpms are small. Also, with the chip the turbo lag in the low to mid range seemed to return.

Thank you for your feedback. Very interesting. We should get a Stinger with the new ecu to check this.
For much better responsiveness at very low rpms, we developed the XLR. Still, the chip should improve responsiveness as well and not the opposite.