Stock Stinger HP numbers: Kia is massively underestimating power.

[Dr_jitsu]

I have been out of the scene for nearly 9 years. Back then, at the Supra Nationals I would see hundreds of cars on the dyno.

 

[Chucky]

LMFAO!!!!

 

[StungBlueGT2]

The factory HP numbers on the Kia are hugely under-reported.

Typically, flywheel HP numbers are 20% more than whp numbers.

So, an automatic car with 365 flywheel power will normally make about 280-290 at the wheels. Based upon the dyno's the stock Stinger puts 327 to the wheels. This number does not reflect the massive powerband, and or torque.

That is why the 3.3 Stinger will walk the Infinity Q50 RED SPORT 400, even though the Stinger has less reported HP.

True, Kia significantly underrated our HP/TQ numbers and many dynos have proved we are closer to 400bhp/460btq stock.

I believe modern day autos are more efficient and likely closer to 15% drivetrain loss, but probably somewhere in between 15-20%. So at 15% we’re about 25whp/85wtq underrated and at 20% it’s 45whp/110wtq below factory specs. Either way that’s a significant difference and similar to the understated power BMW & Mercedes are know to show for their cars.

However, we are very closely matched to the Q50 RS 400 and like others said run very similar numbers. I’ve played with a couple and usually took about 1/4 car length lead but neither of us could walk away from the other.

Nonetheless, I’m happy we are underrated because that makes the big boys even more upset when they lose to a Kia and look up our specs.

 

[Metalmania82]

For whatever reason, whether someone telling me or reading it somewhere, I always though a RWD loss was 10%-15% and AWD was 15%-20%.

 

[Dr_jitsu]

True, Kia significantly underrated our HP/TQ numbers and many dynos have proved we are closer to 400whp/460wtq stock.

I believe modern day autos are more efficient and likely closer to 15% drivetrain loss, but probably somewhere in between 15-20%. So at 15% we’re about 25whp/85wtq underrated and at 20% it’s 45whp/110wtq below factory specs. Either way that’s a significant difference and similar to the understated power BMW & Mercedes are know to show for their cars.

However, we are very closely matched to the Q50 RS 400 and like others said run very similar numbers. I’ve played with a couple and usually took about 1/4 car length lead but neither of us could walk away from the other.

Nonetheless, I’m happy we are underrated because that makes the big boys even more upset when they lose to a Kia and look up our specs.

JB4 and you would get a huge boost w/ your CAI.

 

[StungBlueGT2]

JB4 and you would get a huge boost w/ your CAI.

I know and agree 100%.

 

[Dr_jitsu]

We have seen several stock dynos. I think the numbers are around 320 something. It bears repeating that I have almost never seen such a large powerband. The Porsche Metzger had a wide band, making good power at 3k rpm's...but the 3.3 is ridiculous, I have never seen that kind of power and torque (relative to HP) at 1300 rpms. Maybe in a diesel. The 2JZ needs 5k to make big power. It takes skill to get the most out of a high revving motor. The 3.3 is just "there."

If I were to step back I would say that this motor is designed for towing. Imagine a motor home being pulled by a Stinger.

 

[StungBlueGT2]

We have seen several stock dynos. I think the numbers are around 320 something. It bears repeating that I have almost never seen such a large powerband. The Porsche Metzger had a wide band, making good power at 3k rpm's...but the 3.3 is ridiculous, I have never seen that kind of power and torque (relative to HP) at 1300 rpms. Maybe in a diesel. The 2JZ needs 5k to make big power. It takes skill to get the most out of a high revving motor. The 3.3 is just "there."

If I were to step back I would say that this motor is designed for towing. Imagine a motor home being pulled by a Stinger.

FYI- Most of the stock dynos are about 325-345whp & 380-390wtq.

 

[laynevans]

Dyno numbers can vary wildly from different dynos and different environmental conditions so I rarely really look at dyno numbers as a comparison between cars, mainly as a tuning tool. One thing I'm wondering is I keep seeing stock 1/4 mile times of 12.9 but my stock Stinger has only done 13.3. Wondering if anyone has actually been able to repeat a 12.9 in a stock stinger or the figures quoted so often are repeated from one test somewhere that someone managed a 12.9 somehow and very few review sites ever go and run their own times.

 

[GRStinger]

They're close enough that in the real world it comes down to driver and the individual cars. That being said, paying 10k more for a Red Sport that looks more generic and with what has to be the hands-down worst interior and infotainment of any car over 50k..hell, 35k..Hard pass. The capabilites of the VR30 and ability to tune it are nice but to me, the rest of the car is a bunch of meh.

Red Sport - great car
Stinger - All the mash, more panache, and $10k in my pocket.
If I had a mic I'd drop it.

 

[StungBlueGT2]

Dyno numbers can vary wildly from different dynos and different environmental conditions so I rarely really look at dyno numbers as a comparison between cars, mainly as a tuning tool. One thing I'm wondering is I keep seeing stock 1/4 mile times of 12.9 but my stock Stinger has only done 13.3. Wondering if anyone has actually been able to repeat a 12.9 in a stock stinger or the figures quoted so often are repeated from one test somewhere that someone managed a 12.9 somehow and very few review sites ever go and run their own times.

That all depends on what type of dyno you are referring to. Load bearing dynos like Mustang dynos can be adjusted for different conditions and sometimes vary significantly. They are generally more accurate for before and after results on the same car for tuning, but cannot be compared from car to car or different environmental conditions like a dynojet. The main reason dynojet is the most popular dyno is because it’s standardized and is the best way to compare power from different cars and/or environments. On dynojets we almost always run between 325-335whp stock which is less than a 3% variance from dynos across the world.

That’s really more comparable than the 12.9 vs 13.3 times you’re quoting. Actually Stock Stingers have ran as quick as 12.6 in ideal conditions and depends on several variables to replicate those lower times. What year, trim level, tires and differential do you have?

 

[cncBilly]

Exactly my point. The Stinger isn’t walking the Red Sport. If anything, the Red Sport has the slight edge with slightly quicker 0 to 60 and 1/4 mile times.

Are you blind?

 

[Gleis25]

Are you blind?

What part of what I said isn’t accurate? I don’t understand why people get so defensive over the Stinger lol. There will always be faster and nicer cars. I stated facts from multiple sources.

 

[Travis Wills]

What part of what I said isn’t accurate? I don’t understand why people get so defensive over the Stinger lol. There will always be faster and nicer cars. I stated facts from multiple sources.

There are definitely faster cars than the Stinger. I just have not seen any evidence that a stock Q50 is one of them.

 

[Gleis25]

There are definitely faster cars than the Stinger. I just have not seen any evidence that a stock Q50 is one of them.

Perhaps rather than disagreeing because I said something is faster than the stinger, or resorting to insults like the previous guy, educate yourselves and do the research. You will see exactly what I’ve been saying on here.

 

[StungBlueGT2]

Perhaps rather than disagreeing because I said something is faster than the stinger, or resorting to insults like the previous guy, educate yourselves and do the research. You will see exactly what I’ve been saying on here.

Most of us have already done the research and have had real world experiences with Redsports. Me and multiple of my Stinger buddies have gapped them so we know they are slower. And if you don’t believe it, here is some proof from the exact same magazine & equipment showing those facts.

The Stinger is quicker to 60mph & 1/4m by 0.1sec, and 0.7sec on a roll from 30-50mph. That is huge on a roll race and we easily leave them in the dust.

 

[Soca Boy]

Most of us have already done the research and have had real world experiences with Redsports. Me and multiple of my Stinger buddies have gapped them so we know they are slower. And if you don’t believe it, here is some proof from the exact same magazine & equipment showing those facts.
View attachment 36923 View attachment 36924
The Stinger is quicker to 60mph & 1/4m by 0.1sec, and 0.7sec on a roll from 30-50mph. That is huge on a roll race and we easily leave them in the dust.

Plus the Stinger is heavier and even has a spare tire.

 

[Toddasaurus]

^And room for more bodies in the trunk.

<:0)

 

[cncBilly]

Finally!! Crickets from the blind boy.

 

[Lord3Putt]

Most of us have already done the research and have had real world experiences with Redsports. Me and multiple of my Stinger buddies have gapped them so we know they are slower. And if you don’t believe it, here is some proof from the exact same magazine & equipment showing those facts.
View attachment 36923 View attachment 36924
The Stinger is quicker to 60mph & 1/4m by 0.1sec, and 0.7sec on a roll from 30-50mph. That is huge on a roll race and we easily leave them in the dust.

Not sure if you know this, but your "roll from 30-50mph" is in fact a 'top gear' pull. According to your "facts", the Stinger trapped 111mph compared to the Infiniti's 112mph...which is more indicative of rolling races...not et's.

I have an actual buddy who does in fact own a 18' Q60 RS. We did maybe 6-7 different pulls when I was bone-stock. It pretty much comes down to who gets the initial jump.