Yes, its time to talk about the Koup's engineering vs other contenders

5168 Views 41 Replies 29 Participants Last post by trevorusn, Mar 3, 2011

KorsaBlue

Discussion Starter · Jul 13, 2010 (Edited)

Ok! Why is the 2.4L Koup achieving 174 horsepower, while the 2.0 Si gets 190 with a Cold air intake standard?

And ive heard of old saturns able to get a 0-60 time of ~8.4 seconds (like our Kia) with 20 less HP.

Chevy cobalt LT... not the SS version :

thats a 2.2.

A basic VW golf has 170 hp with a 2.5 and according to their website - 0-60 in 7.8 seconds.

The Corolla XRS in 2009 has a 2.4L and 160~ horsepower... and does the 0-60 in 7.8.

2009 Toyota Corolla XRS - Quick Test - Motor Trend

Now dont get me wrong, I love my car. But seriously, what the [email protected]#$.

ARG.

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

SubtleStyle

· #2 · Jul 13, 2010 (Edited)

I would say it's probably because of the gearing. At the end of the day it's a combination of horsepower, torque, weight, and gear ratios.

Rainyraven

· #3 · Jul 13, 2010

x2.. on the gearing

MFury

· #4 · Jul 13, 2010

Torque differences too. That VW 2.5L is a 5 cylinder. Si is v-tec. I want the Fortes to have GDI, should even things up.

corytate

· #5 · Jul 13, 2010

2.4 due to gearing, thats one of the reasons there isn't that big of a difference between the 2.0 and 2.4 output

ForteGT2

· #6 · Jul 13, 2010 (Edited)

SI is a different animal...made for performance. It has high compression -- 11.0:1 up to 12.0:1 compression.and needs premium fuel. It also has serious gearing to help it get going - I think 4.78:1 -- all depending on model year...and they don't get really good gas mileage -- at least when compared to 1.6L Civics!

The Forte engines have advertised 10.5:1 compression and 3.06 gearing (although the 5-speed and 6 speed trannys have really low (high numerically) 1st gears it won't out perform a car with accelleration-type gears overall.

Our cars are made for regular fuel and not really performance cars. I look forward to the 200 HP 2.4L and some others hope for a turbo...but both will probably require premium fuel too. BUT if Kia keeps the non-performance final gears they still won't perform as well as similar cars.

A790

· #7 · Jul 13, 2010

Take a physics class. Please.

FEARtheFOX

· #8 · Jul 13, 2010

My question is: How does our Fortes compare to these similar engines in fuel economy? Do we get the so called "Happy Medium" in fuel economy vs performance?

Dekz

· #9 · Jul 13, 2010 (Edited)

A790 said:
Take a physics class. Please.

This.

Engine size is one of HUNDREDS of factors that determine how much horsepower an engine produces.

Horsepower is one of HUNDREDS of factors that determine how fast a car is.

Dekz

· #10 · Jul 13, 2010

corytate said:
2.4 due to gearing, thats one of the reasons there isn't that big of a difference between the 2.0 and 2.4 output

Uhhhh, what?

corytate

· #11 · Jul 14, 2010

Dekz said:
Uhhhh, what?

kinf of like the sti 6 speed v wrx 5 speed
different gearing, different accel thru gears and such
someone on here posted that his wife's 5 speed auto beat his 6 speed manual, both sx's, 5 speed was sedan

KorsaBlue

Discussion Starter · #12 · Jul 14, 2010

FEARtheFOX said:
My question is: How does our Fortes compare to these similar engines in fuel economy? Do we get the so called "Happy Medium" in fuel economy vs performance?

I would be interested in this as well. After all, since the 2.4 engine yields extra horsepower that doesn't add much to speed, id be interested in seeing if at least the car maintains real driving fuel economy comparable to other cars with similar engines. Right now, I get about 26 combined mpg, which is OK by me.

Dekz

· #13 · Jul 14, 2010

corytate said:
kinf of like the sti 6 speed v wrx 5 speed
different gearing, different accel thru gears and such
someone on here posted that his wife's 5 speed auto beat his 6 speed manual, both sx's, 5 speed was sedan

I understand that gearing affects the speed of a car, especially 0-60 times where a 6 speed usually has one more shift than a 5 speed.

However gearing has NOTHING to do with engine size or horsepower, hence my confusion regarding the quoted post.

ForteLX+

· #14 · Jul 14, 2010 (Edited)

Look at the weight differences.
2010 Forte Features & Specifications
If you have all the extras it does add some weight.

The Koup even heavier.
http://www.kia.ca/pages/showroom/Features_Specs.aspx?model=ForteKoup#

havoc_32

· #15 · Jul 15, 2010

Two videos showing the 0-60 speed

Manual

Automatic

Both look a lot closer to the mid 7's to 8 sec if you ask me. I had a Cobalt LS before this, with 0-60 around 8.5 sec maybe more, and I can tell you after driving that and driving the Koup, the Koup is definitely faster, by how much, I can't say, I am still in the 'break-in' period and I don't feel like beating on my car

corytate

· #16 · Jul 15, 2010

havoc_32 said:
Two videos showing the 0-60 speed

Manual YouTube - 2010 Kia Forte Koup 0-60 Run

Automatic YouTube - 2010 Kia Forte SX 2.4L 0-60

Both look a lot closer to the mid 7's to 8 sec if you ask me. I had a Cobalt LS before this, with 0-60 around 8.5 sec maybe more, and I can tell you after driving that and driving the Koup, the Koup is definitely faster, by how much, I can't say, I am still in the 'break-in' period and I don't feel like beating on my car

5 or 6 speed manual?

came to about 8 seconds i believe
that was with 2 other people in the car though, I've figured out a rig for my camera and I'm going to get around to one by myself soon hopefully lol

havoc_32

· #17 · Jul 15, 2010

well both said they were the SX version, so it would have to be a 6sp manual and the 5sp auto. regardless, i didnt take this videos i just found them online. they also say they are stock so no CAI or anything else done to it.

Tebore

· #18 · Jul 15, 2010

KorsaBlue said:
Ok! Why is the 2.4L Koup achieving 174 horsepower, while the 2.0 Si gets 190 with a Cold air intake standard?

And ive heard of old saturns able to get a 0-60 time of ~8.4 seconds (like our Kia) with 20 less HP.

Chevy cobalt LT... not the SS version :

YouTube - Cobalt stock 2.2L - 8 sec. - 0-60 MPH

thats a 2.2.

A basic VW golf has 170 hp with a 2.5 and according to their website - 0-60 in 7.8 seconds.

The Corolla XRS in 2009 has a 2.4L and 160~ horsepower... and does the 0-60 in 7.8.

2009 Toyota Corolla XRS - Quick Test - Motor Trend

Now dont get me wrong, I love my car. But seriously, what the [email protected]#$.

ARG.

First you gotta know what you're talking about.

Those old Saturns are super light. Those polymer panels are feather light but expensive and can't be repaired like metal. They lack things like 6 airbags, most of those really fast ones are lacking most power features, A/C and the seats are very bare.

Our is around 7.8 seconds. So we're on par with a Corolla but we do it in style, not to mention we're slightly heavier and get better MPG.

The Cobalt again lacks 6 airbags and forget about side impact safety.

Our car is geared for MPG and not acceleration but the engine is tweaked for low end torque you can feel this. At around 1500-2500RPM the engine is able to pull the car fairly strong it wakes up at 3500-6000RPM.

Hyundai didn't give us GDI and tweak the car for speed because it would take away from their attempt at positioning Hyundai as the premium brand and Kia as the value brand. Give it the GDI 2.4 and it would totally eat in to the Genesis and Elantra sales. In fact they would be hard pressed to move any Elantras.

See less See more

A790

· #19 · Jul 15, 2010

At the end of the day, what you bought was a bottom-rung entry-level sport compact, with an emphasis on economy and driveability. You did not buy a fast car. Hell, you didn't even buy a quick car. I'm sorry to disappoint you. If you don't agree with me, give your head a shake, look at the numbers (again), and then come to terms with it.

My Forte Koup SX has been reliable for the four months I've owned it. If I get another two years out of it in that fashion I will be more than happy.

The Civic Si is Honda's top-end Civic platform, with all the bells and whistles thrown in to make it "fast". The iVTEC engine is immensely high strung, reliable, and loves to be revved to shit. Honda has had YEARS of engineering experience in that regard to make an engine like that. Kia is new to that game, sorry to say.

BUT, none of those things are bad. Vendors like TurboKits are making aftermarket available for the Forte. Hell, the Forte is probably the first Kia anyone's even THOUGHT about modifying, so give it time. Do you remember 10 years ago, when Hyundai was a joke among tuner circles? Now, thanks to the last and current generation Tiburon, and especially thanks to the Genesis, people are taking Hyundai seriously. Kia still has to pay its dues.

So, to recap: you didn't buy a car meant for speed, so don't expect it to be fast.

If you want a fast car, the '11 Camaro and '11 Mustang both have 400hp+, the Genesis has over 300hp (hell, the 2.0T has 210hp), the WRX has 265hp, and all of the other hot haches, souped up compacts, and sports cars are there for you to enjoy. I sggest you buy one.

If you want a car that's somewhat quick, gets excellent fuel economy (I average a combined 36.5mpg), looks great, and is absolutely swooned at by women (always a plus), keep your Kia and enjoy it. After all, for what you paid for it, it doesn't owe you anything.

</rant>

See less See more

CorsaKoup

· #20 · Jul 15, 2010

As much as I dislike the recent Civic (mainly the looks), I have to give them props for engine and transmission design. Honda has been praised for decades for their slick-shifting manuals, and their 1.5, 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 sing sweet songs high up in the rev range. Our engines sound like blenders in comparison. My 2 Si's (1986 & 1991) were excellent cars in every regard and I only wish my Forte made the same sounds or shifted as smoothly as any Civic Si. But our cars blow the current Civic out of the water in regard to style and content. From the ends of the doors-rearward, the profile of the Koup makes the Civic Coupe look like something fell on it. Bland for days. I'm very happy with my choice, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't jump on the chance to have Honda's 2.0 and their manual transmission in my car.

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.