Report a Bug

Incorrect car stats - please post them here!

245678

Comments

  • Hutch_BradHutch_Brad Member, Hutch Staff Posts: 77 Wrenchman
    Thanks all!

    Brad
  • DelinDelin Member Posts: 2
    mikes said:
    Ok. From what I remember. 

    1990 Acura GS-R - the picture is incorrect of the next generation Integra. The GS-R also didn’t come out until 1992. 

    1990 Acura NSX-T - the year should be 1997 as the stats and pics are for the 3.2 V6 1997 NSX-T. 

    1954 Buick Skylark - should be RWD

    2005 Buick Lactosse CXL - the picture is of a new Lacrosse, not the 2005

    2016 Cadillac CTS Coupe - photo is of the 556hp CTS -V coupe. 

    2015 Cadillac CTS-V - the image is of the 2013 CTS-V

    1967 Chevrolet Impala SS427 - picture is of an older Impala

    2017 Ford Taurus SHO - should be AWD

    2016 Honda Ridgeline - should be FWD or AWD

    2003 Subaru Forester Turbo - picture is of non-Turbo model. Performance numbers might be for non turbo model as well. 




    Also Ford Focus ST170 has a picture of Focus ST2
  • DelinDelin Member Posts: 2
    Also Ford Focus ST170 has a picture of Focus ST2
  • xtreemxtreem Member Posts: 102 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2017
    How is this car rated with low rideheight? The height is 1,5 and low. For example Mercedes benz gla 220d is also 1,5 but this car is high rideheight
    Post edited by xtreem on
  • Sherby90Sherby90 Member Posts: 258 ✭✭✭
    Hello,

    I want to report some errors about 2016 Nissan Juke Nismo. Here are the specs posted by your partner apparently, EVO:
    Basically every stat about it is wrong, power, torque, 0-60 (by quite some margin), top speed.
    These are also backed by the official Nissan UK webpage:

    Please rectify these.
    Thank you
  • kevwang97kevwang97 Member Posts: 245 ✭✭✭
    Forgot there was a dedicated thread for misrepresented cars. @Hutch_Brad SLS Electric should be 4WD. Actually it’s one of the few true 4WD cars in the game since it has an independent motor driving each wheel. Please fix this. Thanks
  • ReeN428ReeN428 Member Posts: 1
    Bitte um Hilfe !!!
    Ich kann kein 0 - 150 Rennen gewinnen weil ab 131 Ende ist, die Autos sollten das aber schaffen 
  • ATSR_997ATSR_997 Member Posts: 515 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2017
    The Ford GT (2004 model) is showing MEDIUM ride height which is certainly a mistake. It should be LOW of course. 


    Post edited by ATSR_997 on
  • silveradoman13silveradoman13 Member Posts: 1
    My camaro tops at around 130 but top speed is 158... am I missing something or is this wrong?
  • SleekSleek Member Posts: 142 ✭✭✭
    The gear ratios are probably awful on it so that it cannot even get near the speed it says it can do in the time and length of the test bowl. 
  • Yuk4wooYuk4woo Member Posts: 43

    That’s definitely not a 1997 A class. It’s a modern 2010





    The Outback in the pic isn’t a 2016 model, it’s an older 2008. 





    Suzukis in the showroom are showed in casual order, not in RQ order like all the others.





    This is a 2010 Wagon R, not a 1993. 




    I hope you can fix those little problems, that would make the game PERFECT.
  • xtreemxtreem Member Posts: 102 ✭✭✭
    xtreem said:
    How is this car rated with low rideheight? The height is 1,5 and low. For example Mercedes benz gla 220d is also 1,5 but this car is high rideheight
    This car has pretty high ground clearance in real life. Over 200mm
  • xtreemxtreem Member Posts: 102 ✭✭✭
  • prexprex Member Posts: 624 ✭✭✭✭

    - Mercedes-AMG C 55 was build from 2004 until 2007, but the card says 2008.

    - Shouldn’t the origin tag of the Opel Manta GTE and the Opel Vectra GSi be changed to "DE" as they are by German manufacturer Opel? Besides, it was called Opel Manta GT/E.

    - BMW 330d (1998) shows actually a picture of the 2003 version. But that was only a facelift, don't know how you handle this.

    And, is there a thread or a comment somewhere about why Fords are labeled with "GB"? Im interested in the reason.


    ReeN428 said:
    Bitte um Hilfe !!!
    Ich kann kein 0 - 150 Rennen gewinnen weil ab 131 Ende ist, die Autos sollten das aber schaffen 
    Welches Auto? Vermutlich aber liegt es daran, dass die Länge der Strecke begrenzt ist (ich glaube auf 3 Meilen). Das Auto muss es bis zum Ende der Strecke auf 150 schaffen. Das schaffen viele jedoch nicht.
  • Hutch_BradHutch_Brad Member, Hutch Staff Posts: 77 Wrenchman
    Thanks all for the corrections :)

    @prex - Ford UK models are are listed as GB but all others are listed as American.
  • mikasamikasa Member Posts: 89 ✭✭✭
    prex said:

    - BMW 330d (1998) shows actually a picture of the 2003 version. But that was only a facelift, don't know how you handle this.

    Also that "330d" picture is coupe model (and E46-coupes were manufactured with petrol engines only).
  • prexprex Member Posts: 624 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2017
    mikasa said:
    prex said:

    - BMW 330d (1998) shows actually a picture of the 2003 version. But that was only a facelift, don't know how you handle this.

    Also that "330d" picture is coupe model (and E46-coupes were manufactured with petrol engines only).
    That's correct before the facelift in 2003.
    #Edit: But you're correct. Coupe would be 330Cd. So this should show a sedan.
    Post edited by prex on
  • Flintski13Flintski13 Member Posts: 4
    My Lotus Sport will not go below 4.3 0-60 at max upgrades and I have raced against the same car with 4.1 0-60 
    Version 1.10.00
    on IOS10 


  • mikesmikes Member Posts: 3,066 ✭✭✭✭✭
    My Lotus Sport will not go below 4.3 0-60 at max upgrades and I have raced against the same car with 4.1 0-60 
    Version 1.10.00
    on IOS10 



    You upgraded 2.3/3.3/3.3
    If you upgrade 3.3/3.3/2.3 then it would be 0-60 in 4.1 seconds but handling is on 91 grip.
  • SleekSleek Member Posts: 142 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2017
    One of my opponents in the 70s challenge had this and I was like, that's in no way a 1970s car until I looked at the card and realized the picture is wrong. 

    The 1977 Ford Granada 2.8i S is the Mark III for the picture. This is a correct Mark II. 
    Post edited by Sleek on
  • SleekSleek Member Posts: 142 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2017
    Alright going to have a double post for this since it's a different incorrect stats type.
    This is about ride height.  Some of this is probably opinion and perspective but there is one pretty obvious set of errors that was mentioned in another thread  the Mustang GT Power Pack is rated LOW on ride height despite the normal 2016 Mustang GT and 2.3 having the same height (rules out suspension height change since the body is basically the same) and rated MEDIUM. Seems like someone messed up inputting data as the 2005 Ford GT which is very much a supercar i and judging by eye, probably doesn't deserve medium if relatively "practical" supercars like the Audi R8, GTR, and SLS are considered low despite being able to go over typical speed bumps without needing a lift assist or approaching at angle.  
    Another one I would like to note is why the Ford RS200 is low but the Audi Sport Quattro remains medium, their pictures don't seem to show much difference with ride height, the RS200 might be a little lower but seems to be just as tall as the Focus and Mustangs.
    Here is a photo from wikipedia with it next to a Quattro S1 in a corner. Clearly it should be capable of handling similar terrain. This should also go for the Renault 5 Turbo and R5 Maxi Turbo, Subaru XT(especially this one, the photo used in game is quite obvious on how much ride height it has), Nissan Silvia 240RS, and the Alpine A310 and GTA.

    The rally version of the Datsun 240z also seems lifted enough to perhaps warrant medium ride height treatment especially since it is a rally car, but I would assume it's considered low for balance like the XL7. On the other hand I don't think increasing the ride height rating of the other rally cars I listed will really cause any imbalance. The RS200 with medium will pretty much just perform like it did before if you compared it to cars like the WRX STIs just without being gimped horribly on city streets. Though medium ride height might warrant it to be RQ21 like the 2016 STI instead of RQ20. 
    There is also the Civic Type-Rs being medium while the quite visibly equal Intgras, at least for DC2 generation ones are considered low. Same goes for the both of the S2000s.
    There is also the Juke R being in the high section but it doesn't really seem any taller than the low GTRs. It definitely is much lower than the other Jukes. On that note the 200SX is not really a low car when stock nor are the GTR R32, R34, and the R35 even.  The R33 does seem a bit low from this picture below.

    Also the 350z could maybe be considered medium since it has more height than the 270z and seems relatively similar to the Mustang and Camaro. 
    There is also the G37, doesn't look low at all and not really much lower than the medium G35. And looking at other photos the G37 lacks the splitter the 370z has as well as not having the bumper reaching down the wheel as much.
    The Corvette C2 396 and C3 ZR1 probably should be medium height, they are definitely not low to the ground. 
    I guess I can sum it up with medium seems to be an appropriate height for most of the sports cars(Mustangs, Camaros, 350z, 200SX, and BMW Z cars for example), grand touring cars(SLS and AMG GT being prime examples since they don't look much lower than the CLK DTM and Black Series), rally cars, and even some supercars like the Aud R8, R35 GTR, and maybe even the 2005 Ford GT.
    Low should only be for race cars, hardcore track cars(Lotus/KTM/Caterham), and supercars. 
    That being said, the speed bump section of City Street areas probably could use some reworking since it seems medium height passes over a tad bit quick for the height they are.
    I tested a bit and the EK9 Civic Type-R(stock) passes over them around 35mph, this seems a bit too quick, maybe 20-25 is more reasonable. Meanwhile the low rated height Subaru XT(stock) has to slow down to around 15mph which I am sure it can take at also 20-25 considering it is just as tall if not taller than the Type-R. My BMW M4(1.3/1.2/1.0) took them around 35-38 and the 2016 Mustang GT (3.3/3.3/3.2) took them around 28-40. At the same time rally cars can take these bumps at much higher speeds with minimal damage so maybe they should get a bonus for those and continue at the speeds the medium rating can do now. Maybe as a durability perk. 
    Post edited by Sleek on
  • IntrovertDuckIntrovertDuck Member Posts: 16
    Sleek said:

    The rally version of the Datsun 240z also seems lifted enough to perhaps warrant medium ride height treatment especially since it is a rally car, but I would assume it's considered low for balance like the XL7. 
    I think the Dastun 240Z should have medium ride height, the wheel base might gave away some of it, but i still would consider it a medium.
    Sleek said:

    There is also the Juke R being in the high section but it doesn't really seem any taller than the low GTRs. It definitely is much lower than the other Jukes. On that note the 200SX is not really a low car when stock nor are the GTR R32, R34, and the R35 even. The R33 does seem a bit low from this picture below.
    The Juke R has the same suspension setup as a GTR, so a low ride height will fit perfectly.
    I dont know about the R32, probably should be medium. But the R33 and R34 should be low because of the front splitter that came with it. Its lower than average sportscar if you see it in person.
    Sleek said:

    I guess I can sum it up with medium seems to be an appropriate height for most of the sports cars(Mustangs, Camaros, 350z, 200SX, and BMW Z cars for example), grand touring cars(SLS and AMG GT being prime examples since they don't look much lower than the CLK DTM and Black Series), rally cars, and even some supercars like the Aud R8, R35 GTR, and maybe even the 2005 Ford GT.
    I would disagree with Z28 Camaro (that thing is pretty low, especially with the splitter), GT Cars (they're lower than they look), and some of the supercar you said, especially the 2005 Ford GT. If you look on an old Top Gear challenge video, the car scrapes as much as a F430 and the Zonda.


    If i have time, i would review cars one by one to post its correct specs, because there so many of them are wrong. I didnt even play the game on daily basis, but these mistakes makes me want to go and fix them :smiley:  I'll just response to these comments for now :)
  • SleekSleek Member Posts: 142 ✭✭✭
    While the Datsun is something I would consider a medium ride height, it doesn't need to be even stronger than it is right now. Sometimes gameplay should be taken over realism. 

    The photo shows that the R32 and R34 are relatively similar in ground clearance despite the splitter. Even the R35 is only a tad bit lower than the R34. The R33 is indeed quite low and should probably stay as a low car. 

    When I put Camaros in the sports car section I was talking about all of them except the newer Z/28.  Which right now is medium despite having a lower ground clearance than the GTRs from what I can see. The Z/28 has a ground clearance of 4.3in/110mm at the splitter and 3.5in/90mm at the catalytic converter according to Chevy. The GTR R32 has a ground clearance of 5.3in and the R33 apparently is actually 5.7in according to MotoRex which didn't list the R34's or mm. According to Carfolio the R35 has a ground clearance of 4.3in/110mm matching the Z/28. This is a clear mistake if one is considered low and the other is medium. 

    Might as well use Carfolio and various other sites for more data.
    2003(2005) Ford GT: 5in/127mm -impressive despite what TG ended up showing. Also possibly inaccurate. 
    2012 Camaro SS:  4in/102mm -I don't think this is accurate since there really shouldn't be a way that the SS is lower than the Z/28
    1998 200SX: 5.7in/145mm 
    2002 350z: 4.7in/119mm
    2011 370z: 4.96in/126mm
    1992 Acura Integra GS-$: 4.7in/120mm
    2000 Acura Integra Type-R 5.3in/135mm -Couldn't find results on the JDM Honda and also this may be more accurate than the GS-R's info. 
    2016 Acura NSX: 3.7in/94mm
    2015 Audi R8: 4.3in/110mm
    2013 Audi R8: Also 4.3in/110mm -according to one of the dealers
    2011 Mclaren MP4-12C: 4.7in/120mm -according to official McLaren specs pdf
    2017 BMW M4 4.7in/120mm  -BMW USA specs pdf

    Some research does show a few rather surprising results like the McLaren being higher than the Audi R8 and that is with official results. 
  • SleekSleek Member Posts: 142 ✭✭✭
    Made a big post with data about ground clearance only for the site to bug out and wipe it  :s

    Anyway from what I will bother salvaging.
    2012 Mclaren MP4-12C: 120mm -source
    First gen Audi R8: 110mm Forums for the owners seem to have them saying the dealers tell them the R8 has 110mm
    BMW M4: 4.7in/119mm -source
    2015 Camaro Z/28: 110mm at splitter but the lowest point is 90mm at the catalytic converter -source
    GTR R35: 110mm -http://www.denker.cz/data/1227729908_specifikace.pdf
    GTR R34 V-Spec II: 130mm -http://www.japanesesportcars.com/skyline/specs/r34_gtr_vspec2.php
    GTR R33: 5.7in/145mm -http://www.skylinegtr.com/SPECS.html
    GTR R33 V-Spec: 5.3in/135mm -http://www.skylinegtr.com/SPECS.html
    GTR R32: 5.3in/135mm -http://www.skylinegtr.com/SPECS.html
    GTR R32 V-Spec: 5.5in/140mm -http://www.skylinegtr.com/SPECS.html
    2018 AMG GT: 3.7in/94mm -source

  • shadowdragonshadowdragon Member Posts: 13
    Isn't 1.5 high enough to be rated as medium
  • JakeKJakeK Member Posts: 120 ✭✭✭
    Was looking at the Chevys for the upcoming event and couldn't help but notice that the corvette stingray z51 has a woefully slow 0-60 time given its horsepower and weight.looks like a more accurate 0-60 time would be 3.8, according to Evo:http://www.evo.co.uk/corvette/zr1/7324/2014-chevrolet-corvette-stingray-z51-review-price-and-specs
  • SleekSleek Member Posts: 142 ✭✭✭
    Isn't 1.5 high enough to be rated as medium?
    The height listed there seems to be a measure of total height and not ground clearance. 

    A bit of a list of various ground clearances of some cars:
    Mclaren MP4-12C: 120mm -source
    First Gen Audi R8: 120mm -source
    Current Gen Audi R8: 105mm -source
    BMW M4: 4.7in converts to 119mm -source
    Mercedes AMG GT: 3.8in converts to 97mm -source

  • Flintski13Flintski13 Member Posts: 4
    edited November 2017
    Version 1.10.00 (newest)
    on iPhone IOS
    This is a picture of the Corvette ZR1 not Z06
  • G_anlucaG_anluca Member Posts: 237 ✭✭✭
    Honda Accord Hybrid (D - rq10) should be hybrid, but the info on the back says petrol.
  • ATSR_997ATSR_997 Member Posts: 515 ✭✭✭✭
    The 2016 Cadillac CTS has the size specs wrong. This car is 1.828m wide (not 1.6)


This discussion has been closed.