Report a Bug

Incorrect car stats - please post them here!

123457»

Comments

  • flight4590flight4590 Member Posts: 525 ✭✭✭
    edited September 28
    Holy **** guys.  I don't know how this one went unnoticed for so long but.

    The El Camino is the wrong year!! 


    Here's a 1969, pay attention to that front.

    And here's a 1970.

    Now the card itself back at launch, the stats remain the exact same bar the RQ which is 14 (soon to be 15).  The front is the same as that 1969.  The stats are correct for an SS 454, so all that needs done is an image change.  (I admit, I will miss the front facing image and the older look, but at least we'll likely be able to see the rear a bit now.

    Edit: I mean no offense with the whole "I'm amazed this went unnoticed" I'm amazed we never caught it since it was kind of a small thing.

    Edit 2: Shoutouts to my pal Tri who caught this one.
  • mauro07mauro07 Member Posts: 1,351 ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 5
    a question about low/medium ride.. why nissan Skyline have low and Mitsu Evo have medium?
  • Destroyer2k11999Destroyer2k11999 Member Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The HP and torque of this camaro are correct but the picture and weight is of the 2015 version not the 2017, the weight should be 1671kg not 1783kg 
  • mikesmikes Member Posts: 2,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The Beretta GTZ stats are off. It does 0-60 in 7.5 seconds, not 11.1. Handling should also be higher. I believe the performance stats were taken from a base car and not the GTZ.

    Here's a retro review from 1990 for proof. 



  • mikesmikes Member Posts: 2,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 11
    The Lumina should be a bit quicker to 60. Around the 7.2 second range. Also, this car is FWD, not RWD.



    Post edited by mikes on
  • mikesmikes Member Posts: 2,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The 0-60 for the Caprice should be closer to 10 seconds. Even the heavier wagon pulled off a 10.5 second run in 1991. Here's the video.




  • mikesmikes Member Posts: 2,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The Berlinetta is slow, but it's not THAT slow. 0-60 should be around 10.0 seconds. Here is a comparison from 1983. Click the 'Test results' box on the right of the screen for the magazine's performance results.

  • mikesmikes Member Posts: 2,820 ✭✭✭✭✭


    These specs are for the Durange RWD SXT or GT (or even Citadel). The SRT is AWD and has very different performance figures.


  • flight4590flight4590 Member Posts: 525 ✭✭✭
    Can't really post the picture but this one is such a hilarious screw up.

    The Neon SRT 4 isn't even named properly...  I'm just laughing so much about this one.
  • krystiankrystian Member Posts: 394 ✭✭✭
    It is hilarious for car with 205 bhp do 158 mph top speed :D
  • mikesmikes Member Posts: 2,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The Blazer should have all surface tires. It’s a true body on frame SUV with a two speed transfer case. 


  • Ivo_KamburovIvo_Kamburov Member Posts: 420 ✭✭✭
    Dodge Viper ACR 0-60 is much lower than 4.0s!
  • Ivo_KamburovIvo_Kamburov Member Posts: 420 ✭✭✭

    This one has the best stats out of all non-reward-only corvettes, but is only RQ25. 
  • mikesmikes Member Posts: 2,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This car is FWD, not RWD. 


  • mikesmikes Member Posts: 2,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This car should be 1971, not 1981. 


  • mikesmikes Member Posts: 2,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 13
    The IROC-Z didn’t appear until 1985. The year and specs associated with this card would suggest the 1984 Camaro Z/28. The image and name need to be corrected. 


    Post edited by mikes on
  • mikesmikes Member Posts: 2,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Some oldies that might have fallen through the cracks:

    *2015 Cadillac CTS-V*: The picture is correct for a 2015 CTS-V, but all of the stats are for the next generation 2016 CTS-V. The 2015 CTS-V made 556 hp while the new 2016 CTS-V made 640 hp.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_CTS-V

    Year should be 2016 and photo should be this:


    2016 Subaru Outback This is the previous generation in the photo. Should be the picture below the card.


    Porsche 924 This is the turbo pictured. Should be a non-turbo like the image below the card (no hood intake, no upper grille)

  • mikesmikes Member Posts: 2,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Can't really post the picture but this one is such a hilarious screw up.

    The Neon SRT 4 isn't even named properly...  I'm just laughing so much about this one.
    It's named properly. For the 2004 model year, when power was increased and a LSD was finally added, Dodge dropped 'Neon' from the car's name. The specs though are off.

    For the 2004 model year (as pictured and listed on the card)
    HP = 230
    Torque = 250
    0-60 - 5.2 seconds
    Top Speed - 153 mph
    Handling - should be much higher than 73. Probably about 80 or so
    Height - 1.42


    And yes, that is the 2004 model shown. It was a very popular Chrysler press photo that year https://driving.ca/chrysler/neon/reviews/road-test/road-test-2004-dodge-srt-4-2






  • HeissRodHeissRod Member Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭✭✭
    mikes said:
    The Berlinetta is slow, but it's not THAT slow. 0-60 should be around 10.0 seconds. Here is a comparison from 1983. Click the 'Test results' box on the right of the screen for the magazine's performance results.

    Your link to the article is missing.  Here you go.

    https://www.caranddriver.com/archives/1985-chevy-camaro-berlinetta-vs-1985-ford-mustang-svo-comparison-test-chevrolet-camaro-berlinetta-page-2
  • Ofirm84Ofirm84 Member Posts: 361 ✭✭✭
    edited October 15


    Both cars has the same height and width yet only one of them is medium height.
    furthermore, as stock the Camaro SS stats should be better than the Camaro Convertible version.
  • Ivo_KamburovIvo_Kamburov Member Posts: 420 ✭✭✭
    edited October 15


    0-60 should be slightly faster, but the mid-range acceleration is horrible on this car...
    I just recorded a 0-150 time of 39+ seconds on the second part of the Challenge with my 699 Viper RT/10...
    http://fastestlaps.com/models/dodge-viper-rt-10-1996
  • Destroyer2k11999Destroyer2k11999 Member Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 18
    Ran the times for the 2012 Camaro ZL1 and its far worse in game

    In game times:
    0-100 = 9.50 sec. For reference a stock 2004 M5 in game runs 9.53

    1/4mi. = 12.4 @ 112 mph
    Test bowl 165mph @ 45.20
    1 mi. = 32.10 @ 153mph

    Compare with info from this link http://fastestlaps.com/models/chevrolet-camaro-zl1-2012

    0-100 = 8.7sec
    0-150 = 22.9sec
    1/4mi = 11.9 @ 116mph

    This link backs up that data

    https://www.motortrend.com/news/stock-2012-chevrolet-camaro-zl1-runs-11s-in-the-quarter-mile-201921/

    Where they say it's 1/4mi is 11.93-11.96

    They themselves managed similar times with higher trap speeds... The lateral acceleration and figure 8 results are a clear indication that handling should gain a few points as well. The Ford GT was adjusted, and this should be as well

    https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrolet/camaro/2012/2012-chevrolet-camaro-zl1-vs-2013-shelby-gt500/
  • Ivo_KamburovIvo_Kamburov Member Posts: 420 ✭✭✭


    In real life the Porsche Carrera GT has no traction control. 
  • TopDrives20409TopDrives20409 Member Posts: 171 ✭✭✭

    Apologies if this has already been raised (did a search but couldn’t find anything) but this model, year and picture don’t tie up. 
    1. The WRX model didn’t exist as a UK model in the first generation Impreza. It was called the Impreza Turbo. I know because I bought a brand new one from a UK dealership in 1999!
    2. This isn’t the 1993 version, it’s the later 1990s face-lifted version (hence the V-plate which was from Aug 1999 to February 2000). 
    3. There were various Special Editions of the first gen Impreza, some with WRX designation. This picture isn’t one then. 
    4. The official Subaru 0-60 time for the stock UK version when I bought mine was 6.3 seconds (remember like it was yesterday!). Parkers list it as 6.1, and top speed of 144. 
123457»
Sign In or Register to comment.