MRA Discussion, Issues and Recommendations

1235

Comments

  • AslanVAslanV Posts: 710 ✭✭✭
    Ouch, on the 0-170
  • topdrives10210topdrives10210 Posts: 32
    Man hutch gets so many things wrong initially it makes me wonder if they have any actual car guys on staff of if they are just all hybrid driving betas.
  • thebigbadwolfthebigbadwolf Posts: 223 ✭✭✭
    Are there any official plans on the Furai‘s MRA? Couldn’t really find anything besides discussions in the search function. 
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 792 ✭✭✭✭
    Yeah would like a buff, but there just seems to have no testing datas anywhere on the internet.

    Also please don't bump it to leggie just yet I haven't even pulled my first Furai >_<
  • AslanVAslanV Posts: 710 ✭✭✭
    Furai would be a good candidate for a A8X car, same for R500 too
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 792 ✭✭✭✭
    1994 Mercedes-Benz 500E (B50)
    -It should be slightly slower.
    I guess the data for this car is kinda rare.
    But luckily our Japanese buddy have did a 1/4 mile test on it.
    1/4 mile: 14.13 -> 14.44

    Source: 
  • havvyhavvy Posts: 74 ✭✭
    1994 Mercedes-Benz 500E (B50)
    -It should be slightly slower.
    I guess the data for this car is kinda rare.
    But luckily our Japanese buddy have did a 1/4 mile test on it.
    1/4 mile: 14.13 -> 14.44

    Source: 

    hopefully that will bump it down to super rare, i will no longer have the fear of getting it in my carbons
  • juan_cruz_96juan_cruz_96 Posts: 306 ✭✭✭
    RUF SCR 1978 C[48]



    0-100 mph time should be improved, as 0-60 mph time is correct. MRA should improve from ~61 to 68.35


  • diziondizion Posts: 2
    Mercedes AMG SLS Black Series

    0-60 should be lowered from 3.5 to 3.4 and MRA should go up from 98 to exactly 100 
    https://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/2013/1817855/mercedes-benz_sls_amg_coupe_black_series.html

  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 792 ✭✭✭✭
    I know Automobile Catalog's acceleration estimations are pretty spot on most of the times, but it's not a viable source as it's still just an estimation.

    And you clearly didn't read the announcement, either.
  • havvyhavvy Posts: 74 ✭✭
    Jaguar XJR 575 2018

    Jaguar XJR 575

    0-100mph: 8:60 -> 8:90, thus MRA: 82.98 -> 78.00
    0-150: 22:91 -> 20:7



    https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15076853/2018-jaguar-xjr575-first-drive-review/
  • havvyhavvy Posts: 74 ✭✭
    Subaru XT (Turbo Coupe)

    Subaru XT

    0-100: 22:72 -> 29:90, thus MRA 62.10  -> 41.04
    1/4 mile 16:81 @ 88mph -> 16:9 -> 82mph





    Data from 1987 July 22nd issue of Autocar.



    https://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/sets/72157615401242669/with/3363141808/
  • thebigbadwolfthebigbadwolf Posts: 223 ✭✭✭
    edited August 13
    havvy said:
    Subaru XT (Turbo Coupe)

    Subaru XT

    0-100: 22:72 -> 29:90, thus MRA 62.10  -> 41.04
    1/4 mile 16:81 @ 88mph -> 16:9 -> 82mph





    Data from 1987 July 22nd issue of Autocar.



    https://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/sets/72157615401242669/with/3363141808/
    😂back to D it is, then...at least i hope so. 
  • havvyhavvy Posts: 74 ✭✭
    Probably not, but a RQ decrease and an improvement to off-the-line acceleration for sure :)
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 792 ✭✭✭✭
    Man, and I thought the XT's MRA is already bad enough...
  • NinjaDesignzNinjaDesignz Posts: 2,778 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Man, and I thought the XT's MRA is already bad enough...
    It's pretty decent for a std tire awd car
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 792 ✭✭✭✭
    1985 Bentley Turbo R (D33)

    0-100 mph: 17.6 sec -> 18.9 sec
     
    From MOTOR Magazine, 1985 August 3rd: https://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/albums/72157630080215862
  • lemmings99olemmings99o Posts: 1,650 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1985 Bentley Turbo R (D33)

    0-100 mph: 17.6 sec -> 18.9 sec
     
    From MOTOR Magazine, 1985 August 3rd: https://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/albums/72157630080215862
    Can't be considered accurate tho as it says the figures are for the standard turbo as the turbo R's tyres would alter the gearing.
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 792 ✭✭✭✭
    Pretty sure the magazine meant top speed only. Unless I read that wrong too.
  • lemmings99olemmings99o Posts: 1,650 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 15
    Pretty sure the magazine meant top speed only. Unless I read that wrong too.

    If i'm taking it literally from a grammatical standpoint, if the magazine only meant the top speed would be different then they should have said "Figure" for standard turbo, Since they said "Figures" i'd take that as multiple data points would be for the standard turbo version rather than just one.

    I'd just say that as neither your or my opinion can be proved correct then this article can't be confirmed to be accurate for the car in question in the game.
  • havvyhavvy Posts: 74 ✭✭
    Sorry, what?



    So now we are doing changes for balancing sake, huh? Because last time i checked, this car's performance in game perfectly matched real life. Spot-on acceleration times.
  • AslanVAslanV Posts: 710 ✭✭✭
    Even in the 100+ mph ?

    The diesel beat the V8 on the 1/2miles if I recall
  • topdrives10210topdrives10210 Posts: 32
    Man these hutch guys really are not car guys. Nearly identical weight cars. The 24 has dramatically more torque and power with the newer better chassis. It is asinine they get these MRA things wrong on the front end then it takes a year to correct it.
  • topdrives10210topdrives10210 Posts: 32
    Similar.

    Absolutely wrong.


  • HeissRodHeissRod Posts: 7,247 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Man these hutch guys really are not car guys. Nearly identical weight cars. The 24 has dramatically more torque and power with the newer better chassis. It is asinine they get these MRA things wrong on the front end then it takes a year to correct it.
    We only got Bentley in late January, so it's only been just under 7 months.  Also, this is a "result you don't like" and not an MRA fix.  Please keep this thread on track.
  • topdrives10210topdrives10210 Posts: 32
    HeissRod said:
    Man these hutch guys really are not car guys. Nearly identical weight cars. The 24 has dramatically more torque and power with the newer better chassis. It is asinine they get these MRA things wrong on the front end then it takes a year to correct it.
    We only got Bentley in late January, so it's only been just under 7 months.  Also, this is a "result you don't like" and not an MRA fix.  Please keep this thread on track.


    Wrong. It is years of building and tuning cars that clearly show the MRA is wrong. It is wrong. The dramatically less powerful car will not win in any scenario with similar weighs and chassis. It's like you guys have zero clue about cars.
  • JackyQuJackyQu Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭✭
    Maxed A cars should be much lighter than your 24. Please post these in “Unbelievable Results” if you think these are unbelievable, we only talks about real tests about acceleration here.
  • GymopenGymopen Posts: 116 ✭✭✭
    HeissRod said:
    Man these hutch guys really are not car guys. Nearly identical weight cars. The 24 has dramatically more torque and power with the newer better chassis. It is asinine they get these MRA things wrong on the front end then it takes a year to correct it.
    We only got Bentley in late January, so it's only been just under 7 months.  Also, this is a "result you don't like" and not an MRA fix.  Please keep this thread on track.


    Wrong. It is years of building and tuning cars that clearly show the MRA is wrong. It is wrong. The dramatically less powerful car will not win in any scenario with similar weighs and chassis. It's like you guys have zero clue about cars.
    What part of "You're going off topic" did you fail to comprehend?
  • HeissRodHeissRod Posts: 7,247 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 15
    HeissRod said:
    Man these hutch guys really are not car guys. Nearly identical weight cars. The 24 has dramatically more torque and power with the newer better chassis. It is asinine they get these MRA things wrong on the front end then it takes a year to correct it.
    We only got Bentley in late January, so it's only been just under 7 months.  Also, this is a "result you don't like" and not an MRA fix.  Please keep this thread on track.


    Wrong. It is years of building and tuning cars that clearly show the MRA is wrong. It is wrong. The dramatically less powerful car will not win in any scenario with similar weighs and chassis. It's like you guys have zero clue about cars.
    What do weight and chassis have to do with MRA engine data?  Regardless, you didn’t lose because of real world stats.  You lost because of game mechanics; specifically engine-upgrade-traction-bonus.
Sign In or Register to comment.