RaceChip USA Kia Stinger Tuning

[MurlinatoR]

2 MPH is not going to affect the time that much. If we take the Kia quoted time of 4.7s, a 1:1 comparison of 60 to 62MPH gives you only another .15s to hit 62MPH at 4.85s. But since we've seen the Kia perform better in the quarter mile than others compared to how it performs 0-60, I'd venture to say it's closer to the 4.8s mark for 62MPH.

This isn't even going into the fact that most reviews are clocking 0-60 under Kia's 4.7 time.

I agree completely. I did say that "part of it" was the speed. ;-)

Kia's very first report was 4.9 from 0-100kph. That translates to 0-62mph. LOL

Another detail that I found out was that some places clock their 0-60 times with a ROLLING start. I was really surprised to learn that. Makes you wonder who is and who's not.

Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk

 

[Kazz]

4.7s to 5.2s is too huge a difference to be accepted as "normal" in my mind. A full half of a second if you don't take into account the 4.4s and 4.5s timings of some reviewers. But the real issue is that the chip yields a 4.7s time. On paper, same as OEM, meaning no change. It's like the joke we used to make about the Famous Barr (eventually acquired by Macy's) department store when it moved into the local mall: their sale prices were the only times their prices got as low as other stores' non-sale prices.

 

[mldavis2]

Most "legitimate" car reviewers will use standardized conditions for testing. I'd trust C&D, RT, Edmonds, Motor Trend and other long time testers, especially when they have been around for decades. 4.7 seems a touch conservative, but that's respectable and a way for Kia to CYA and make sure they don't over-sell the car.

 

[RaceChip]

2 MPH is not going to affect the time that much.

Yes, it makes a difference, but it is very small. Car manufacturers face the same issue. They generously round down to their desire or just use the same number, because the 2 mph difference is so small.

Another detail that I found out was that some places clock their 0-60 times with a ROLLING start. I was really surprised to learn that. Makes you wonder who is and who's not.

It really does not make any sense to compare a rolling start with a normal 0-60 start.

Nearly every review I've seen/read has clocked 0-60 as fast or faster than Kia's quoted time of 4.7s. Road and Track even clocked it at 4.4s. 5.2s is really slow comparatively, I'd see what they were doing.

4.7s to 5.2s is too huge a difference to be accepted as "normal" in my mind. A full half of a second if you don't take into account the 4.4s and 4.5s timings of some reviewers. But the real issue is that the chip yields a 4.7s time. On paper, same as OEM, meaning no change. It's like the joke we used to make about the Famous Barr (eventually acquired by Macy's) department store when it moved into the local mall: their sale prices were the only times their prices got as low as other stores' non-sale prices.

Most "legitimate" car reviewers will use standardized conditions for testing. I'd trust C&D, RT, Edmonds, Motor Trend and other long time testers, especially when they have been around for decades. 4.7 seems a touch conservative, but that's respectable and a way for Kia to CYA and make sure they don't over-sell the car.

I am sorry for the misunderstanding. This video was not made to make a statement how fast the Stinger can be, when equipped with a RaceChip. We did not try to make a new benchmark for ?how fast the Stinger GT can be?. The video was intended to show the difference a RaceChip makes. Thus, it was not important to conduct this test under perfect conditions. However, it is important that the conditions of the stock measurement and the RaceChip measurement were exactly the same.
You also don?t always have perfect conditions while driving your Stinger. Though, you want to get the best performance possible.

Still, the question is very interesting:
Why were the stock Stinger GT and the RaceChip Stinger GT much slower than in many other test results?

Let me take one more step back:
What are good conditions to achieve good results?

1. Perfect track condition:
   • Even surface, so no slope at all
   • Dry ground
   • Warm temperature (not to hot, not to cold)
2. Good tires
3. Other conditions (such as AWD vs. RWD, launch control, ...)

How were the conditions of the other tests?
I don?t know, but I guess they were quite close to perfect conditions. At least I would make sure that the conditions are perfect, if I wanted to measure the fastest time possible.
I hope they did not do rolling starts.
E.g. in the cited article (http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/a13819415/kia-stinger-gt-by-the-numbers/) they write following:

?Stinger achieves its best off-the-line performance using launch control, which according to Kia is about 0.2 seconds quicker. In our testing, the rear-wheel-drive model was 0.2-second quicker than the all-wheel-drive variant.?
Furthermore, they were using ?Michelin Pilot Sport 4 summer tires?​

The conditions during our test were following:

1. Track condition:
   • The ?track? was a random part of the street. I have no clue whether there was any slope
   • The ground was wet (you can even see the rain in the video)
   • Temperature: 3 degree Celsius, which is 37,4 Fahrenheit
2. Good tires: Well, the car was equipped with random winter tires
3. Other conditions: We measured the Stinger with AWD (we also would not have been able to be 0.2 seconds faster using RWD like in the article, since we would not have had enough traction)

Again, my colleagues were interested in the stock vs. RaceChip performance.
However, I am quite curious now, how a RaceChip Stinger GT would perform under perfect conditions. Please contact me if you are interested in doing an independent test.

 

[Berzerker]

Yes, it makes a difference, but it is very small. Car manufacturers face the same issue. They generously round down to their desire or just use the same number, because the 2 mph difference is so small.

Which is why I said "not that much." I gave a 1:1 comparison, which is obviously going to be slightly off depending on how close to the max output revs you are (6000). Again, not as much of a difference as 4.7 to 5.2, though.

I am sorry for the misunderstanding. This video was not made to make a statement how fast the Stinger can be, when equipped with a RaceChip. We did not try to make a new benchmark for ?how fast the Stinger GT can be?. The video was intended to show the difference a RaceChip makes. Thus, it was not important to conduct this test under perfect conditions. However, it is important that the conditions of the stock measurement and the RaceChip measurement were exactly the same.
You also don?t always have perfect conditions while driving your Stinger. Though, you want to get the best performance possible.

I don't think that's the major point of our issues. You're basically saying, without any context, that a RaceChip Stinger GT does 0-60 (62) in about as fast as a stock model.

Still, the question is very interesting:
Why were the stock Stinger GT and the RaceChip Stinger GT much slower than in many other test results?

Let me take one more step back:
What are good conditions to achieve good results?

1. Perfect track condition:
   • Even surface, so no slope at all
   • Dry ground
   • Warm temperature (not to hot, not to cold)
2. Good tires
3. Other conditions (such as AWD vs. RWD, launch control, ...)

How were the conditions of the other tests?
I don?t know, but I guess they were quite close to perfect conditions. At least I would make sure that the conditions are perfect, if I wanted to measure the fastest time possible.
I hope they did not do rolling starts.
E.g. in the cited article (http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/a13819415/kia-stinger-gt-by-the-numbers/) they write following:

?Stinger achieves its best off-the-line performance using launch control, which according to Kia is about 0.2 seconds quicker. In our testing, the rear-wheel-drive model was 0.2-second quicker than the all-wheel-drive variant.?
Furthermore, they were using ?Michelin Pilot Sport 4 summer tires?​

The conditions during our test were following:

1. Track condition:
   • The ?track? was a random part of the street. I have no clue whether there was any slope
   • The ground was wet (you can even see the rain in the video)
   • Temperature: 3 degree Celsius, which is 37,4 Fahrenheit
2. Good tires: Well, the car was equipped with random winter tires
3. Other conditions: We measured the Stinger with AWD (we also would not have been able to be 0.2 seconds faster using RWD like in the article, since we would not have had enough traction)

Again, my colleagues were interested in the stock vs. RaceChip performance.
However, I am quite curious now, how a RaceChip Stinger GT would perform under perfect conditions. Please contact me if you are interested in doing an independent test.

So you basically ran a non-standard test compared to everyone else, but offered no information behind it. The Michelin Pilot Sport Summers are the standard tires the Stinger comes with off the lot, and "random winter tires" and "in the rain," are a little bit of important details to leave out. You mention you can see the rain, but that's not something easily noticeable or something people usually pay attention to when there's a giant timer taking up most of the video.

If you want this test to be meaningful, you should be showing improvement over a situation that is well known to the community. That means a control group that performs exactly like the expected times and performance that most reviewers and Kia themselves show. Honestly, RWD and AWD shouldn't make too much of a difference, it can be noted if your test is different in that sense, but it should be compared with Michelin Pilot Sport Summers, on dry road, in optimal temperature so that your control group gets as close to that 4.7s mark as possible.

I'm sure you guys have a great product and it does give you a noticeable improvement, but 0-62 in 4.25s improved from 4.7s looks a lot nicer than 4.7s improved over a slower-than-quoted 0-60.

 

[RaceChip]

Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate it!
That's the reason why I joined this forum. To get feedback like yours.
Next time, we will try to do better.

 

[Kazz]

Let's be clear. The product knocked the time down by around 9.6%. This is great. We just don't understand why the car was so slow to begin with. Conditions can explain it. Another comparison - perhaps independent - needs to be done is all.

 

[RaceChip]

Dyno of RaceChip Stinger GT





I?m sorry for the German language and the metric figures. This is a Maha MSR500/3 dyno. These dynos are the ones used by the German car manufacturers and many other manufacturers.

Power:

Stock: 365 HP (370 PS)
RaceChip: 422 HP (428 PS)​

Torque:

Stock: 376 lb-ft (510 Nm)
RaceChip: 508 lb-ft (689 Nm)​

The product will be available in our online shop in about two weeks.

Read the full story! Go to https://press.racechip.us/kia-stinger-gt-performance-tuning/

 

[kamauxx]

508 ft lbs of torque?!? Is that a typo?

How does the dyno measure the HP at the crank instead of the wheel?

 

[robz32]

Very impressive numbers. Can you please list any modifications done to the Stinger? If any

Also can you post the AFR graph and boost?

 

[CajunStinger]

Excellent numbers guys.

 

[DBurd]

Can the drive train handle that torque?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RaceChip]

Very impressive numbers. Can you please list any modifications done to the Stinger? If any

Also can you post the AFR graph and boost?

Except for the RaceChip, the Stinger GT was in stock condition. No modifications.

Figures (measured on the MAHA MSR 500):

Boost pressure Stock 0.9 bar
Boost pressure Tuned 1.2 bar

Lambda Stock 0.87 @3000 rpm / 12.79 AFR
Lambda Stock 0.80 @4000 rpm / 11.76 AFR
Lambda Stock 0.72 @5000 rpm / 10.58 AFR
Lambda Stock 0.72 @6000 rpm / 10.58 AFR

Lambda Tuned 0.86 @3000 rpm / 12.64 AFR
Lambda Tuned 0.80 @4000 rpm / 11.76 AFR
Lambda Tuned 0.70 @5000 rpm / 10.29 AFR
Lambda Tuned 0.70 @6000 rpm / 10.29 AFR​

 

[RaceChip]

508 ft lbs of torque?!? Is that a typo?

How does the dyno measure the HP at the crank instead of the wheel?

Excellent question. In Europe, it is standard to measure the engine output, which is roughly speaking wheel horsepower plus powertrain loss.

So how is the power loss measured?
Many dynos just calculate the power loss, which is inaccurate. Only few dynos, such as our MAHA dyno, really measure the power loss. Therefore, directly after the wheel horsepower measurement, a coast down test (deceleration test) is conducted. This test measures the power loss accurately. Naturally, several factors affect the power loss (e.g. AWD or how firm the vehicle is fixed on the dyno). Anyway, comparing the results of different dynos is vague. Only a real before-and-after comparison under exactly the same circumstances creates reliable results. Moreover, please keep the standard factory model variation in mind. A stock Stinger does not necessarily have exactly the same power output as another stock Stinger. Needless to say, we take this into account during product development.

 

[RaceChip]

Can the drive train handle that torque?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. When investigating the power reserves of a car, we naturally consider the whole drive train.
Almost any car has power reserves. However, the Stinger GT has a lot of power potential. Please check our news article for more information: Performance tuning: RaceChip unleashes true potential of the Kia Stinger GT
For instance, a lack of service & maintenance and badass driving habits have a worse effect on the longevity of the drive train.

By the way, you can select different mappings on your RaceChip (roughly speaking a lower map results in less torque) or, if you purchased the App Feature, you can select differend driving modes:

 

[MurlinatoR]

Except for the RaceChip, the Stinger GT was in stock condition. No modifications.

Figures (measured on the MAHA MSR 500):

Boost pressure Stock 0.9 bar
Boost pressure Tuned 1.2 bar

Lambda Stock 0.87 @3000 rpm / 12.79 AFR
Lambda Stock 0.80 @4000 rpm / 11.76 AFR
Lambda Stock 0.72 @5000 rpm / 10.58 AFR
Lambda Stock 0.72 @6000 rpm / 10.58 AFR

Lambda Tuned 0.86 @3000 rpm / 12.64 AFR
Lambda Tuned 0.80 @4000 rpm / 11.76 AFR
Lambda Tuned 0.70 @5000 rpm / 10.29 AFR
Lambda Tuned 0.70 @6000 rpm / 10.29 AFR​

Wow, so the ECU held the AFR virtually on point. Impressive!

Also, how adjustable is this chip?

 

[RaceChip]

Wow, so the ECU held the AFR virtually on point. Impressive!

Also, how adjustable is this chip?

It depends on the product you choose.

E.g. the RaceChip GTS comes with 7 fine tuning mappings. The maps depend on several variables (e.g. tuning dependence on rpm, power increase, torque increase), but as a rule of thumb you can say the higher the map the racier the tuning.

With the optional app feature, you can select three different stages or switch the tuning off (see picture in my previous post). However, if you wish to make fine-tuning adjustments to these settings, we?re able to adjust the settings for you - by simply providing them as a download file.

​

 

[kamauxx]

What are the fuel requirements? Spark plugs recommendations? Cost? And date available?

 

[Gadfly]

Any love for the 2.0L Turbo?

If you wanted to mod it, why go for the base engine. You will spend a lot more in mods to get to stock 3.3 performance than just buying the 3.3 in the first place; and you will void your power train warranty in the process.

 

[Gadfly]

It depends on the product you choose.

E.g. the RaceChip GTS comes with 7 fine tuning mappings. The maps depend on several variables (e.g. tuning dependence on rpm, power increase, torque increase), but as a rule of thumb you can say the higher the map the racier the tuning.

With the optional app feature, you can select three different stages or switch the tuning off (see picture in my previous post). However, if you wish to make fine-tuning adjustments to these settings, we?re able to adjust the settings for you - by simply providing them as a download file.

View attachment 496​

'
Does it include the required software so that custom maps can be made, or are we just stuck with your box tunes?

Candidly.... e-tunes, email tunes, or whatever you want to call them are a really bad idea; many have tried, and it NEVER works well.

The question is, is your product a real piggy back ECU, complete with ability to modify fuel, timing, and boost maps, and the tuning software to go with it, or is it just another cheap sensor manipulator / "performance chip"?

If it is the later, save your snake oil.