Will Kia Stinger really flog an SS?

[panhead]

Boring



.

 

[monty_vfssv]

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.

Comparing an NA engine to a turbo charged engine is apples and oranges, there is no fair way to compare them. Simply put, there is huge power gains to be had with a turbo and you can still maintain fuel economy while not on boost. Thats what i call efficient!

 

[monstar]

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.

Ok got a list engines, but what do you mean by “match” them?
They are all boosted, the way to match them is using volumetric efficiency to determine effective capacity (vs performance). BMEP is another means, more to the point. But FFS you two can’t seem to get over the fact a small boosted vessel is by no measure more effective at delivering performance than unboosted vessel of same effective capacity.
Eg:
RB30ET i6 @7 PSI (0.5 ATM) = 4500cc
VK45DD v8 @0 PSI = 4500cc
They don’t compare well.

2JZ-GTE i6 @9 PSI (0.6 ATM) = 4836cc
2UR-GSE v8 @0 PSI = 4969cc
They don’t compare well.

BARRA 245T i6 @6 PSI (0.4) = 5752cc
BOSS 315 v8 @0 PSI = 5400
Again, not a favourable comparison.

Comparing an NA engine to a turbo charged engine is apples and oranges, there is no fair way to compare them. Simply put, there is huge power gains to be had with a turbo and you can still maintain fuel economy while not on boost. Thats what i call efficient!

But of course there is, muppets use the unpressurised capacity all the time. Which is ludicrous.
Compare the capacity using volumetric efficiency (I assume you didn’t read the link) and you at least rule out perceived magic involved.

 

[monty_vfssv]

Ok got a list engines, but what do you mean by “match” them?
They are all boosted, the way to match them is using volumetric efficiency to determine effective capacity (vs performance). BMEP is another means, more to the point. But FFS you two can’t seem to get over the fact a small boosted vessel is by no measure more effective at delivering performance than unboosted vessel of same effective capacity.
Eg:
RB30ET i6 @7 PSI (0.5 ATM) = 4500cc
VK45DD v8 @0 PSI = 4500cc
They don’t compare well.

2JZ-GTE i6 @9 PSI (0.6 ATM) = 4836cc
2UR-GSE v8 @0 PSI = 4969cc
They don’t compare well.

BARRA 245T i6 @6 PSI (0.4) = 5752cc
BOSS 315 v8 @0 PSI = 5400
Again, not a favourable comparison.

But of course there is, muppets use the unpressurised capacity all the time. Which is ludicrous.
Compare the capacity using volumetric efficiency (I assume you didn’t read the link) and you at least rule out perceived magic involved.

Why use capacity as a measure of performance?? You can have great volumetric efficiency but with a choked up exhaust perform like **** yeah??

 

[monstar]

Why use capacity as a measure of performance??

Effective capacity informs BMEP calc used in torque calc used in power calc.

 

[monty_vfssv]

Effective capacity informs BMEP calc used in torque calc used in power calc.

All theoretical averages.. why not talk real world results? Our NA engines just can't compete with boost when it comes to performance. Its pretty simple.

 

[Immortality]

Well yes and no, it's all relative.

In laymans terms a 3 litre boosted motor operating at 2 bars of boost (twice that of atmospheric pressure) would be the same as a 6 litre motor running n/a in terms of volumetric capacity and if the n/a motor was working at 100% efficiency (which fairly much no n/a street spec engine does expect may Monstars beast) would produce the same power but the boosted engine would always have a better overall power/torque curve.

 

[Hyperduc]

Well yes and no, it's all relative.

In laymans terms a 3 litre boosted motor operating at 2 bars of boost (twice that of atmospheric pressure) would be the same as a 6 litre motor running n/a in terms of volumetric capacity and if the n/a motor was working at 100% efficiency (which fairly much no n/a street spec engine does expect may Monstars beast) would produce the same power but the boosted engine would always have a better overall power/torque curve.

Hi Immortality,

Is that Kiwi english?

 

[monstar]

All theoretical averages.. why not talk real world results? Our NA engines just can't compete with boost when it comes to performance. Its pretty simple.

No, physics and the laws that govern the real world. Yes simple if you bother your arse to learn but what you are arguing is not engineering or physics.
I showed you the best example in a video, I linked to the science of engineering we are discussing, listed specific examples of common engines at the same effective capacity by same manufacturer.
Posted in a list are boosted engines and model names of their naturally aspirated counterpart.
I assumed that to argue pressurised engines are always best that people were familiar with the stock output(s) of the hero cars, but it’s pretty simple to Google factory specs and see for yourself, there is no comparison.
But seriously if you don’t get the pressurised vessel analogy either read up the info in the link provided or stop posting same stuff in this thread. Start another thread, plenty of people in your shoes confusing efficiency and capacity and magic of boost. Not here as infinitum please, I started this thread OP to discuss before official release whether a Stinger will flog a Stock SS.
Objective real world local proof is still out there, best quality real world information I have says the stock of each output is matched:
Kia Stinger GT 3.3T RWD
Base: 248.56 kW / 507.6 Nm
FBO & reflash
Stage 1: 307.95 kW / 617.2 Nm

Kia Stinger GT 3.3T AWD
Base: 225.1 kW / 505.3 Nm
FBO & reflash
Stage 1: 284.96 kW / 598.3 Nm

Awfully close to a shitty stock NA V8, not a lay down Meziere both with FBO and tune either.

 

[gtsfan]

It's Australia day....I drive an Australian made car.....a Commodore.....
I enjoy giving it a squirt now and then...........
And I don't really give a flying ' flog ' about what a Kia 'Springer" does.....!