Motor Trend - How the 2018 Buick Regal GS Stacks up Against the Kia Stinger GT

[StungBlueGT2]

I’ll try and do a couple runs tomorrow. From most articles that I’ve seen...the Stinger should be able to do 4.6/4.7 0-60. Considering that I have AWD, I should have a quicker launch than RWD (street tire to street tire). RWD Stingers should catch up quicker though.

What I’ll try and do is a couple 0-60 runs, then add in some launch control and finally some decently high rpms launches.

A buddy of mine said the app keeps the history of each run, so I can hopefully post on each result.

The app also can track all 1/4 miles as well. So when the track opens in a couple days...I’m hoping to get some 1/8, at minimum, runs and see how close the app is.

Just to show no runs so far, but what it’s capable of tracking:
View attachment 3857

Sounds good and thanks for posting the info on the app. Looking to get one too.
I've seen anywhere from 4.4-4.7 for RWD and 4.6-5.1 for AWD which actually shocked me. I assumed the AWD would be faster like most cars due to grip but heard the Stinger AWD transfers 100% to rear wheels on hard launches. That transfer of power should be instant but may have something to do with the time difference. 150lbs more for AWD isn't much and shouldn't make 0.2-0.4 difference.I bet real world times will be even closer and look forward to your follow-up tests.Keep up the good work and info!

 

[mldavis2]

It is also interesting to note that the best times (C&D, etc.) were obtained without using Launch Control. It doesn't make sense that the AWD gives all power to the rear. If the rear begins to slip the computer should transfer power to the front and drive all 4 wheels. the 150# difference is negligible and shouldn't make 0.01 sec. difference. Many AWD models have the smaller 18" wheels on the rear, so watch that as well.

 

[Grayt 8]

Sounds good and thanks for posting the info on the app. Looking to get one too.
I've seen anywhere from 4.4-4.7 for RWD and 4.6-5.1 for AWD which actually shocked me. I assumed the AWD would be faster like most cars due to grip but heard the Stinger AWD transfers 100% to rear wheels on hard launches. That transfer of power should be instant but may have something to do with the time difference. 150lbs more for AWD isn't much and shouldn't make 0.2-0.4 difference.I bet real world times will be even closer and look forward to your follow-up tests.Keep up the good work and info!

Motor Trend got a "slow" 0-60 of 5.0 for a RWD in car of the year testing. They may have had preproduction cars or a bad driver or conditions? The AWD and RWD were virtually identical in low speed acceleration, but the RWD was a bit quicker at higher speeds, as you'd expect.
Kia Stinger: 2018 Motor Trend Car of the Year Finalist - Motor Trend

 

[Grayt 8]

Motor Week got 4.5 from their AWD. So I've seen 4.4 to 5.0 for RWD and 4.5 to 5.1 for AWD. Quarter mile for RWD 12.9 to 13.5 and AWD 13.1 to 13.6.

 

[xot1]

What is that article... no comparison on handling, ride quality. They only compare 0-60 times and cargo space... Motor trend

 

[Bear]

I could be wrong, but I believe while in Sport mode, 80% is transfered to the rear, not 100%. Launching the car would give AWD the upper hand. Of course that is based on street tires because the RWD will spin more while the AWD still has 20% up front. If you put slicks on, the RWD has the win because of the AWD not having 100% transfer to the rear.

 

[Kamauxx]

I could be wrong, but I believe while in Sport mode, 80% is transfered to the rear, not 100%. Launching the car would give AWD the upper hand. Of course that is based on street tires because the RWD will spin more while the AWD still has 20% up front. If you put slicks on, the RWD has the win because of the AWD not having 100% transfer to the rear.

It depends on how the car is launched.

IIRC AWD with launch control is 100% rear wheel. In sport mode without launch control it's 80/20.

 

[Kamauxx]

It is also interesting to note that the best times (C&D, etc.) were obtained without using Launch Control. It doesn't make sense that the AWD gives all power to the rear. If the rear begins to slip the computer should transfer power to the front and drive all 4 wheels. the 150# difference is negligible and shouldn't make 0.01 sec. difference. Many AWD models have the smaller 18" wheels on the rear, so watch that as well.

In no way is 150lbs negligible in a test of acceleration.

 

[mldavis2]

In no way is 150lbs negligible in a test of acceleration.

Depends on your definition of negligible. Driver weights and fuel tank capacity can amount to 150 lbs. Some tests are run with a front seat passenger. I'm not saying you can't gain 0.01 sec by playing with the factors, but in testing figures that vary as much as these so-called "professionals" you have to take a lot of variable into account. For street use, the 150 lb. difference is negligible. If you want to put it on the track, you strip it down.

 

[Todd Piefer]

AWD with 18" should be quickest to 60 on cool pavement. The 18" wheels have less rotational inertia so they're quicker from a standing start. AWD will provide better grip off the start. In a 0-60 race, quickness off the start is huge because there's so little time to catch up. So a base GT (not a GT1 or GT2) without the extra weight of the added features with AWD and 18" wheels should be quickest to 60 on cool pavement. In warmer weather the 19" summer tires should be able provide adequate grip to offset the AWD.

 

[StungBlueGT2]

AWD with 18" should be quickest to 60 on cool pavement. The 18" wheels have less rotational inertia so they're quicker from a standing start. AWD will provide better grip off the start. In a 0-60 race, quickness off the start is huge because there's so little time to catch up. So a base GT (not a GT1 or GT2) without the extra weight of the added features with AWD and 18" wheels should be quickest to 60 on cool pavement. In warmer weather the 19" summer tires should be able provide adequate grip to offset the AWD.

Good points and I agree with all you are saying which is why I’m still confused.If the AWD should launch better then why do all the different road tests show an avg of 0.2sec advantage on both 0-60 and 1/4m to the RWD version? I know we’re splitting hairs over a “split” second, but the presumed physics and the confirmed numbers from multiple sources don’t match. I’m not trying to knock the AWD at all as I almost got one and they’re both damn fast, I’m just trying to understand what is causing that difference on every test?

 

[Chris]

Besides the AWD being 150# heavier, it will also lose a little speed becuase it has to turn more weight through the front wheels. Rwd will only lose torque and hp spinning the transmission, rear driveline, rear diff/axle. The AWD also has to spin a transfer case and the front diff/axle. The difference between hp at the crank and the wheels will be greater on AWD than the RWD.

 

[Clearly Canadian]

The only thing that concerns me is that my car (awd) is a sub 5 second car. Or at least that’s what I’ve been telling myself!

 

[westcoastGT]

The only thing that concerns me is that my car (awd) is a sub 5 second car. Or at least that’s what I’ve been telling myself!

sleep tight you're mid 4.5's easily !

 

[mldavis2]

AWD with 18" should be quickest to 60 on cool pavement. The 18" wheels have less rotational inertia so they're quicker from a standing start. AWD will provide better grip off the start. In a 0-60 race, quickness off the start is huge because there's so little time to catch up. So a base GT (not a GT1 or GT2) without the extra weight of the added features with AWD and 18" wheels should be quickest to 60 on cool pavement. In warmer weather the 19" summer tires should be able provide adequate grip to offset the AWD.

Are you sure about that? The circumference of both the 19" and 18" tires should be the same. Since the 18" tire has more rubber in the sidewall it will be slightly heavier than the "empty" space of the larger 19" rims. I'm not sure, either, but something to consider. One could weigh an 18" and a 19" wheel for an approximation of differences in mass and hence rotational inertia.

 

[xot1]

One could weigh an 18" and a 19" wheel for an approximation of differences in mass and hence rotational inertia.

18" front 12.8kg(28.2lbs) rear 13.9kg(30.5lbs)
19" front 14.2kg(31.3lbs) rear 15.3kg(33.7lbs)

 

[mldavis2]

18" front 12.8kg(28.2lbs) rear 13.9kg(30.5lbs)
19" front 14.2kg(31.3lbs) rear 15.3kg(33.7lbs)

Thanks! I think there are 2 different 18" tires depending on the trim level aren't there? That begs the question of whether the extra weight of the bigger, wider 19" rear tire gives enough additional traction compared to the 18" to offset the additional mass. Interesting stuff.

 

[Todd Piefer]

Good points and I agree with all you are saying which is why I’m still confused.If the AWD should launch better then why do all the different road tests show an avg of 0.2sec advantage on both 0-60 and 1/4m to the RWD version? I know we’re splitting hairs over a “split” second, but the presumed physics and the confirmed numbers from multiple sources don’t match. I’m not trying to knock the AWD at all as I almost got one and they’re both damn fast, I’m just trying to understand what is causing that difference on every test?

I've never seen a review with a comparison using the conditions from my post. The reviews always seem to be with GT2s with 19" wheels. I also mentioned pavement temperature as a factor in my comparison.

 

[mldavis2]

I think these are all good posts here and bring out several important points that are not always given in testing.
1) RWD vs. RWD w/ LSD, vs. AWD
2) Launch Control used or not (the C&D numbers on their first report were without)
3) 19" vs. 18" tires
4) What tires (make and model - there may be more than one supplier of tires for the car depending on the market)
5) And as others have pointed out, ambient temperature, surface grip and temperature, etc.

As I've mentioned before, I would expect some times to be better than 4.7 sec. 0-60mph because in order to advertise that time, it would have to apply to all versions and combinations or Kia would have to issue a disclaimer for drivetrain and/or tire variations as they did with the top speed. I don't think Kia's lawyers would allow them to advertise a result that all 3.3TT's couldn't reach.

 

[xot1]

As I've mentioned before, I would expect some times to be better than 4.7 sec. 0-60mph because in order to advertise that time, it would have to apply to all versions and combinations or Kia would have to issue a disclaimer for drivetrain and/or tire variations as they did with the top speed. I don't think Kia's lawyers would allow them to advertise a result that all 3.3TT's couldn't reach.

The advertised 4.9s @ 0-100 is for the 3.3T RWD with 19" summer tyres using launch control.