Car Corrections (updated 18th December 2018)

1356718

Comments

  • HeissRodHeissRod Posts: 5,033 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Posting them without links to hard evidence is useless, though
  • Ivo_KamburovIvo_Kamburov Posts: 787 ✭✭✭✭
    Porsche 911 Carrera 2.7 RS 1973

    I called it out back then when it was given out that there's no way it could have low ground clearance:

    https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=24024#a_dimensions
    interesting, this would mean that a lot of older porsches are actually medium height. 911s 2.7 (15rq) for instance:
    https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=24013
    this is for 1974 - there doesn't seem to be a 1973 model so the year is also wrong
    Yeah I was just thinking the same and came to the forum. I am gonna look up the Turbo Martini and 911RS now
  • Hutch_TimHutch_Tim Posts: 623 admin
    Just to set expectations, I'm not planning to be active in this thread every day, as the top post says, the plan is to at least get things up to date once a week.

    It's awesome to see more sources coming in already, and a big shout out to @mikes for sourcing up a lot of the unsourced corrections (and sometimes finding they are not needed)!

    Regarding whether we change the name or the stats of a car where they don't match, I'm arguing the wider point, but perhaps not very clearly, so let me try to fix that:
    - Any time there is scope for something to be corrected in a few different ways (within our strict limitation of trying to accurately represent real-world cars), we will choose the way we think is best for overall game balance.
    - If a correction is suggested (e.g. RWD should be 4WD), but the car currently in game does exist in that form (e.g. a RWD model exists, especially if it's in the target market or UK), then we'll tend to stick with the current version, because generally changing things is disruptive to in-game balance.
    - If we gave out an Epic car (like a Caterham Seven 420) but it incorrectly had the name of a much lower performance car (like a Caterham Seven 270), we would choose to correct the name and not the stats, because it would be highly disruptive for game balance to have an Epic become Super-Rare. The same reasoning applies if the rarity was changing the other way.

    Just out of curiosity @Hutch_Tim if a 0-60 is done on a drag track is it still a viable source? Let me take the McLaren 720s for example, it seems you guys have used claim times for all the drag times, but now that the car has been released its proven to be much better. The new tested 0-60 is 2.5 seconds! And the drag times are far better then they are in game. But the 0-60 and 1/4 mile time were done on a drag strip. Would you still see this as a usable source or do the times have to be done of track like on a airport strip? 
    That's an interesting question. I don't think we can give a generic answer, because the available data for all the different cars we have can come from totally different locations and conditions. So, we always have to apply our own judgement to see if a time we use for one car is fair compared with the others. It does sound like the new 720s times would warrant some sort of change, so thanks for citing them.

    TopDives said:
    The rebalance due to all these cars changing stats and ground clearance especially will be a game changer. Seems there are a lot of changes that will affect the game. A lot of people will not be happy with all the resources they put in to upgrade their cars. 
    Bear in mind that this list is just suggested corrections. As has already been found in this thread, some of them are not correct, so won't be implemented.
  • ManUtdTobbeManUtdTobbe Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭✭✭
    HeissRod said:
    So it sounds like you're trying to tell us, without actually telling us, that the Durango SRT won't be fixed to what it should be, but rather that it will drop the SRT nomenclature and receive a new picture.
    I think it’s the right move. Hopefully they add the actual SRT aswell though.
  • TNThomasTNThomas Posts: 598 ✭✭✭✭
    @Hutch_Tim I already explained you my opinion about the Durango (with the shoe example). I like all changes you want to make, but the Durango is just not right...

    I would really prefer if you take the name and picture as the correct things instead of the stats. However, how much people here tell this, you are allowed to do what you feel is the best. Please consider if this is also the thing your clients want you to do.
  • hillclimberhillclimber Posts: 2,151 ✭✭✭✭✭
    HeissRod said:
    So it sounds like you're trying to tell us, without actually telling us, that the Durango SRT won't be fixed to what it should be, but rather that it will drop the SRT nomenclature and receive a new picture.
    if that should be the case I want my money back I spend to get in particular an SRT since wrong expectations were raised. 
  • mikesmikes Posts: 3,973 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Round 5? 6?

    B22 1997 Nissan Skyline GT-R (R33): R32 skyline beats R33 in long drags. It's helped me a ton, but it's silly. (Implication is MRA of R33 is too weak, or possibly R32 is too strong).

    ·        From EVO, the R32 and R33 have the same top speed and the R33 is faster to sixty.

    ·        https://www.evo.co.uk/nissan/skyline/gt-r-r33

    ·        https://www.evo.co.uk/nissan/skyline/gt-r-r32

     

    B22 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS Coupe: Ride height set at Medium (should be low, compared to the Camaro SS Convertible (same height?) Not sure which is correct.

    ·        102 mm, should be low. https://www.autoevolution.com/cars/chevrolet-camaro-ss-2010.html#aeng_chevrolet-camaro-ss-2009-62-v8-6mt-420-hp

     

    B21 2012 Chevrolet Camaro Convertible: Ride height set to low (should be same as above as the Height is the same for both cars)

    ·        See above

     

    B21 1993 Audi S2 Coupe: 0-60/top 5,5>5,8 154>150

    ·        These times differ from those above. Not sure which to trust. https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/may-1991/41/motor-sport-road-test-audi-coup-s2

     

    B21 2000 BMW Z8: 0-60 4,5>4,1

    ·        The number appears correct and doesn’t need a change.

    ·        I have 4.6 here https://s3.amazonaws.com/amv-prod-cad-assets/files/aston-martin-db7-vs-bmw-z8-ferrari-360-spiderthe-princes-of-performance.pdf

    ·        4.2 here https://www.motortrend.com/news/2000-bmw-z8/

    ·        4.5 here https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-comparison-tests/reviews/a18525/sibling-rivalry-bmw-m-roadster-vs-bmw-z8/

     

    B19 1999 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SS: MRA is too slow

    ·        Not sure how this matches up to what you have, but here is a 0 to 60 in 5.2 seconds and a 0-100 in 11.8 seconds.  https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrolet/camaro/2002/camaro-ss-mustang-cobra-comparison/


  • hillclimberhillclimber Posts: 2,151 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I get that and i was also hoping for it to become epic (have 3), but seems like many were expecting it to go to Epic and even feel entitled for it to become epic and i think that’s just wrong.

    The amount of whine and entitlement on this forum is starting to get to me.
    not sure if you are referring to me with whining but I was hoping we could keep this conversation on a respectable level.

    my point is: by hutch's own terms I acquired the right to use an Dodge Durango SRT for the next 5 years. from my perspective this right is given and can not been reduced to a SXT. 

    sorry for going here into a legal expression but I don't see any other way to make myself totally clear.
  • ManUtdTobbeManUtdTobbe Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I get that and i was also hoping for it to become epic (have 3), but seems like many were expecting it to go to Epic and even feel entitled for it to become epic and i think that’s just wrong.

    The amount of whine and entitlement on this forum is starting to get to me.
    not sure if you are referring to me with whining but I was hoping we could keep this conversation on a respectable level.

    my point is: by hutch's own terms I acquired the right to use an Dodge Durango SRT for the next 5 years. from my perspective this right is given and can not been reduced to a SXT. 

    sorry for going here into a legal expression but I don't see any other way to make myself totally clear.
    It wasn’t directed at you, sorry if it came across that way.

    it was more of a ”general state of the forum” post.
  • TNThomasTNThomas Posts: 598 ✭✭✭✭
    I am also sorry if I whine a lot, so I will pay attention to decreasing the amount of whine posts. Maybe we should all stop about the Durango and wait what Hutch does with it (and accept it). We should be more thankful for the free game and not whine so much. Please note that this post is not directed at anyone (maybe to myself a bit).
  • prexprex Posts: 647 ✭✭✭✭
    2013 Audi RS 6 Avant (RQ30)

    Top speed in game: 174 mph
    Stats suggested: 155 mph

    Reasoning: The RS 6 was delivered with a top speed capped to 155mph as standard. For an additional payment it’s possible to add either the Dynamic Package or the Dynamic Package Plus to increase the top speed to 174 mph or even 189 mph, respectively (see [1]). Based on the fact that this is the same for all newer Audis, it’s inconsistent to use the stats intended by the Dynamic Package for the RS 6 while not using any additional performance package for, e.g., S8 plus and RS 7.

    Sources: [1] https://www.audi.co.uk/content/dam/audi/production/PDF/PriceAndSpecGuides/modelpricelists/RS6-Avant-Pricelist.pdf
  • prexprex Posts: 647 ✭✭✭✭
    2005 Ford Focus ST Superchips (RQ18)

    Stats in game:
    150 mph // 6.5 s // 1317 kg // 222 bhp // 236 lb ft
    Stats suggested:
    155* mph // 6.2* s // 1317** kg // 255 bhp // 273 lb ft (* marked as estimate in [1]; ** not mentioned in [1])

    Reasoning: There is a bit of guessing in this as I wasn’t able to find a specific version featuring this name. But, as Hutch stated they are usually using Evo magazine as a source, a Google picture search bring me to Evo’s report [1], dating back to 2006, about a Superchips-tuned Focus ST using the same picture as in game. If Hutch is referring to the tuned version tested in this article, stats should be corrected as suggested above.

    Sources: [1] https://www.evo.co.uk/ford/focus/6403/ford-focus
  • MettitiMettiti Posts: 1,767 ✭✭✭✭✭
    RQ22 2016/2017 Porsche 718 Boxter and Porsche 718 Cayman should have the EXACT SAME performance figures

    0-60 should be 4.9 (if both on manual transmission)
    Handling should be the same (same weight + same tyres + same chassis )

    https://www.porsche.com/usa/models/718/718-boxster-models/718-boxster/featuresandspecs/
    https://www.porsche.com/usa/models/718/718-cayman-models/718-cayman/featuresandspecs/
    https://www.topspeed.com/cars/porsche/2017-porsche-718-boxster-ar164281.html

  • mikesmikes Posts: 3,973 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2018
    Next batch

    B19 2014 Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon: 0-60 6,8>6,5

    ·        Can’t find anything on a regular CTS Sport Wagon after the refresh and minor power bump to support or deny this change.

     

    C18 2011 Cadillac Escalade: 0-60 6,3>7,0

    ·        No need to change this. Even though this is the 2007 model, it was unchanged mechanically by 2011. With AWD, still hits 60 mph in 6.3 seconds. https://s3.amazonaws.com/amv-prod-cad-assets/files/2007-cadillac-escalade-awd2007-cadillac-escalade-awd-specs.pdf

     

    C17 1999 Audi S6: wrong stats, currently Has a motor from C4 model 1994. 1999 model has 4.2 V8 engine with 344 hp, ingame model using 2.2 turbo 230 hp, same engine like Audi S2 use

    ·        I can only fins stats for the S6 Avant (only body style offered in North America, but Europe also got the sedan.

    ·        340 hp, 310 lb-ft

    ·        0-60 in 6.3 seconds

    ·        0-100 in 15.8 seconds

    ·        155 mph top speed

    ·        https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/audi-s6-avant-quattro-short-take-road-test

     

    C17 1992 Porsche 968: 0-60 6,2>5,8

    ·        Hard to find an actual road test of this car, but the current 0-60 seems correct.

    ·        Here the 0-60 listed as 6.1 seconds https://www.carthrottle.com/post/why-the-porsche-968-club-sport-is-a-proper-90s-hero-car/

    ·        Here the 0-60 is listed as 6.5 seconds. http://programming.wmlcloud.com/multimedia/24578.aspx

     

    C16 2008 Subaru Forester: Body style is currently 'estate', should be SUV (also true of the other Subaru Foresters)

    ·        As mentioned, all Foresters should be classified SUVs. I would argue most should also have all-surface tires.

    ·        Here are examples of the Forester referred to as a SUV. Subaru officially markets it as an SUV. With 8.7 inches (220 mm) of ground clearance, it has more capability than a lot of similar sized suvs.

    ·        http://www.cars101.com/subaru/09ForesterAd1.jpg

    ·        http://www.cars101.com/subaru/subaruad09forester3a.JPG

    ·        https://www.subaru.co.uk/forester

     

    C15 1993 Nissan 200SX: Ground clearance 5.7in/145mm - should be medium

    ·        Ground clearance is 135 mm so it’s right on the bubble. http://www.automobile-catalog.com/auta_details1.php

    ·        I think the confusion here is that Nissan sold a 200SX in Canada and USA in the ‘90s that was based on the FWD Lucino.


  • MettitiMettiti Posts: 1,767 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Antoun said:
    @mikes Find time to breath man !!! That's impressive you are doing an amazing job on this thread...
    Thanks for that
    He's **** deep ...I love it ,keep it up
  • hajduk_fanhajduk_fan Posts: 293 ✭✭✭
    Mettiti said:
    RQ22 2016/2017 Porsche 718 Boxter and Porsche 718 Cayman should have the EXACT SAME performance figures

    0-60 should be 4.9 (if both on manual transmission)
    Handling should be the same (same weight + same tyres + same chassis )

    https://www.porsche.com/usa/models/718/718-boxster-models/718-boxster/featuresandspecs/
    https://www.porsche.com/usa/models/718/718-cayman-models/718-cayman/featuresandspecs/
    https://www.topspeed.com/cars/porsche/2017-porsche-718-boxster-ar164281.html

    perhaps they put one with manual and one with automatic transmission to make some difference between them
  • MettitiMettiti Posts: 1,767 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Mettiti said:
    RQ22 2016/2017 Porsche 718 Boxter and Porsche 718 Cayman should have the EXACT SAME performance figures

    0-60 should be 4.9 (if both on manual transmission)
    Handling should be the same (same weight + same tyres + same chassis )

    https://www.porsche.com/usa/models/718/718-boxster-models/718-boxster/featuresandspecs/
    https://www.porsche.com/usa/models/718/718-cayman-models/718-cayman/featuresandspecs/
    https://www.topspeed.com/cars/porsche/2017-porsche-718-boxster-ar164281.html

    perhaps they put one with manual and one with automatic transmission to make some difference between them
    if so I'd like Hutch to confirm, however handling should still be matching 
  • HeissRodHeissRod Posts: 5,033 ✭✭✭✭✭
    That's amazing that Porsche was able to make the convertible/cabrio weigh the exact same as the coupe?
  • MettitiMettiti Posts: 1,767 ✭✭✭✭✭
    HeissRod said:
    That's amazing that Porsche was able to make the convertible/cabrio weigh the exact same as the coupe?
    that's exactly what I thought, usually a convertible (or a soft top ) would weigh more.
    But apparently Porsche build the thing as a convertible from the jump and make a matching hardtop out of it ... Pretty impressive 
  • HeissRodHeissRod Posts: 5,033 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Still...even building the Boxster first, you'd think the Cayman would come out weighing less.  I find it very odd that they weigh the exact same amount.
  • MettitiMettiti Posts: 1,767 ✭✭✭✭✭
    HeissRod said:
    Still...even building the Boxster first, you'd think the Cayman would come out weighing less.  I find it very odd that they weigh the exact same amount.
    I mean my first thought is that they probably ballast the cayman so that both come out equal and market it them as being such.. but idk
  • TopDrives40778TopDrives40778 Posts: 1,412 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A25 2004 Porsche 911 Targa 4S

    Wrong picture or name - does not show a Targa roof in picture (Targa looks like the A25 2015 at the bottom)


  • HeissRodHeissRod Posts: 5,033 ✭✭✭✭✭
    That actually is how a 997 Targa looks, with the roof closed.

    https://rennlist.com/how-tos/a/porsche-997-targa-vs-cabriolet-376221

    The red one is a 991 Targa.
  • mikesmikes Posts: 3,973 ✭✭✭✭✭
    HeissRod said:
    That actually is how a 997 Targa looks, with the roof closed.

    https://rennlist.com/how-tos/a/porsche-997-targa-vs-cabriolet-376221

    The red one is a 991 Targa.
    Oh right. Forgot about the massive sunroof-targa
  • flight4590flight4590 Posts: 550 ✭✭✭
    So I'm going to have to find another good car to use as a city streets car now that the RS7 is getting axed to low more than likely?  yet the RS6 will be the same...

    Really?  This is driving me up a wall with this.  I can't use my Mustang competitively anymore so it's one step forward five months back huh?
This discussion has been closed.