Will Kia Stinger really flog an SS?

[monstar]

Hate to say it you can't beat boost Stingers got 510nm at 1300rpm so clearly making plenty of low down torque, see if the LS3 makes that doubt it, my modded LS1 makes that but i have to wait for 4000rpm.

As posted previously, as far as I gathered before all the outrageous claims were scripted and bought through media and PR up the wiki, is the claim comes from this highly accurate wave diagram / screen dyno log from three years ago

 

[monstar]

Why compare the kia to a stroked 416ci LS3??

Because I am comparing the Hyundai engine at full boost, and it is a much bigger engine than the LS3. Not smaller, not more efficient, not better in any sense really.
I made a slight mistake thinking KIA unboosted was 3 litres but it is 3.3 litres. So what’s the point of comparison if it is not stock apples vs stock apples: KIA 455 ci effective vs LS3 376 ci effective, little NA V8 still competes favourably.

 

[commodore665]

Why are we going on about the Stinger? in a year or 2's time there will be an updated Stinger that will absolutely thrash the SS it's called evolution, does that mean the SS is a bad car...No, it is what it is, the best Aussie Holden.

Exactly right , but keep in mind that in two years there will no SS Commodore , but there will be a updated Camaro , set to be the SS Commodore replacement , maybe GM will introduce a twin turbo V6 Holden as a replacement , that'll be a good comparison . (not an Insignia either ) .

 

[shaness8]

Because I am comparing the Hyundai engine at full boost, and it is a much bigger engine than the LS3. Not smaller, not more efficient, not better in any sense really.
I made a slight mistake thinking KIA unboosted was 3 litres but it is 3.3 litres. So what’s the point of comparison if it is not stock apples vs stock apples: KIA 455 ci effective vs LS3 376 ci effective, little NA V8 still competes favourably.

No matter how you twist your figures around Kia's engine is 200ci, just because its boosted capacity doesn't grow 2 1/2 times.

 

[monty_vfssv]

Because I am comparing the Hyundai engine at full boost, and it is a much bigger engine than the LS3. Not smaller, not more efficient, not better in any sense really.
I made a slight mistake thinking KIA unboosted was 3 litres but it is 3.3 litres. So what’s the point of comparison if it is not stock apples vs stock apples: KIA 455 ci effective vs LS3 376 ci effective, little NA V8 still competes favourably.

The 3.3L engine is obviously smaller.. and a turbo WILL make an engine more efficient.. thats how the 3.3L engine is pumping out 270kw.. you cant really compare an NA engine to one with boost. But to answer the original topic, yes the ss will get a flogging (in a straight line).. look how much power F1 cars are getting out of 1.6L.. efficiency at its best!

 

[monstar]

Exactly right , but keep in mind that in two years there will no SS Commodore , but there will be a updated Camaro , set to be the SS Commodore replacement , maybe GM will introduce a twin turbo V6 Holden as a replacement , that'll be a good comparison . (not an Insignia either ) .

Ag pleez deddy it’s been done alreddy! The same LFX 3.6 SIDI as we had since VE Series II went twin turbo RPO is LF3 released a few years back, put in the new smaller Camaro platform with AWD under the Caddy badge.

No matter how you twist your figures around Kia's engine is 200ci, just because its boosted capacity doesn't grow 2 1/2 times.

Funny, yes the effective capacity of any vessel depends on pressure.
I’m not trying to trick you, we have one vessel just over half the size of the other, but pressurised at 2.5 x the atmosphere. The other is exactly at one atmosphere.
There are pros and cons to having a smaller pressurised vessel are few like carrying up a mountain. But that’s not to say the smaller pressurised vessel with same effective capacity is always better.
Looking back at longevity of forced induction engines over past 30 years, versus same effective capacity NA equivalent, the performance, longevity and reliability (cost of ownership) favours NA.
In other words history proves boost doesn’t win (given equal volumetric flow) on the ground. It does climbing altitudes where increased pressurisation devices will always win.

 

[monstar]

The 3.3L engine is obviously smaller.. and a turbo WILL make an engine more efficient.. thats how the 3.3L engine is pumping out 270kw.. you cant really compare an NA engine to one with boost. But to answer the original topic, yes the ss will get a flogging (in a straight line).. look how much power F1 cars are getting out of 1.6L.. efficiency at its best!

I think we are talking at cross purposes here, what coefficient are you talking about to declare supercharging will make an engine more efficient than one at standard atmosphere?
Thermodynamically? Fuel? Energy density? Energy consumption vs power output? I can’t think of any way to compare any factors that led you to that. Happy to hear more detail on that rather than you keep comparing size of vessel before pressurised, like muppets who don’t even get the basics of Volumetric Efficiency.
Without the result of capacity x pressure you may as well be comparing apples to oranges. But have a read of that link first.

 

[shaness8]

.........

 

[commodore665]

Ag pleez deddy it’s been done alreddy! The same LFX 3.6 SIDI as we had since VE Series II went twin turbo RPO is LF3 released a few years back, put in the new smaller Camaro platform with AWD under the Caddy badge.

Okay , sorry I forgot about that one , and like the use of " Ag " too .

Funny, yes the effective capacity of any vessel depends on pressure.
I’m not trying to trick you, we have one vessel just over half the size of the other, but pressurised at 2.5 x the atmosphere. The other is exactly at one atmosphere.
There are pros and cons to having a smaller pressurised vessel are few like carrying up a mountain. But that’s not to say the smaller pressurised vessel with same effective capacity is always better.
Looking back at longevity of forced induction engines over past 30 years, versus same effective capacity NA equivalent, the performance, longevity and reliability (cost of ownership) favours NA.
In other words history proves boost doesn’t win (given equal volumetric flow) on the ground. It does climbing altitudes where increased pressurisation devices will always win.

 

[shaness8]

A short list of great turbo engine's over the past 25yrs tuff as nails, over engineered and do last and plenty still going strong today.
Rb30t
Rb25t
Rb26dett
1 @ 2jz turbo
Sr20 turbo
Barra T
I can't think of a N/a engine in a volume selling production vehicle that can match these.