I'd assume the race info says "better MRA/Lower Mass" so he thought to post here.
The 24 actually has more MRA and power than the other 2. Weight is similar too when the cars are stock,but the 24 is a one star where the other 2 are maxed so definitely a weight difference there.
Slalom and G-force tests aren't a one dimensional grip test. Mass and width also plays a part in the race. Results are as expected.
I'd assume the race info says "better MRA/Lower Mass" so he thought to post here.
That’s all fine and dandy. I get that. I asked to please keep it on track and post in the correct thread, then they get pissy and tell me we don’t know what we’re doing. 🤷♂️
I'd assume the race info says "better MRA/Lower Mass" so he thought to post here.
That’s all fine and dandy. I get that. I asked to please keep it on track and post in the correct thread, then they get pissy and tell me we don’t know what we’re doing. 🤷♂️
History shows someone making decisions ( 5 seat Bentley race car, 2010 Gallardo Spyder a half second slower than 2009, BTR2 faster than CTR2 just off top of my head) does not know what they are doing.
the 208 pikes peak should have slick tyres as it was built for a asphalt road, same with the vw idr.
208 wrx all surface tyres, rallycross asphalt and gravel
peugeot rallycars need different tyres as they never use slicks in real life
the 208 pikes peak should have slick tyres as it was built for a asphalt road, same with the vw idr.
208 wrx all surface tyres, rallycross asphalt and gravel
peugeot rallycars need different tyres as they never use slicks in real life
This is not MRA related, which is solely related to acceleration. Each of these suggestions should be it's own separate thread in the Corrections forum (if a thread about that car doesn't already exist and can be added to), along with proper proof to back up the suggestion. Without factual proof, it will not be addressed. Thank you for your understanding.
I'd assume the race info says "better MRA/Lower Mass" so he thought to post here.
That’s all fine and dandy. I get that. I asked to please keep it on track and post in the correct thread, then they get pissy and tell me we don’t know what we’re doing. 🤷♂️
History shows someone making decisions ( 5 seat Bentley race car, 2010 Gallardo Spyder a half second slower than 2009, BTR2 faster than CTR2 just off top of my head) does not know what they are doing.
But the 2009 Gallardo Spyder has a midrange like a Birkenstock.
C40 1993 Nissan 200SX 0-60 time: 6.9 sec -> 6.4 sec 0-100 time: 15.9 sec -> 17.6 sec Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/albums/72157623748832166 Note: Tested car was the 1989 model, but I don't think there's much difference since all european models uses the same CA18DET engine.
B63 1990 Mazda Cosmo -Should be faster. 1/4 mile: 14.46 -> 13.87 The trap speed on the onboard speedometer camera also shows the car to be doing just around 100 mph (but who knows how accurate those things are)
Also two things worth noting with this car that has nothing to do with MRA: 1. The car was only sold as "Eunos Cosmo" and never as "Mazda Cosmo", also 2. It's only sold in Japan so shouldn't its power to be governed at 276 hp instead of the 296 hp shown in-game?
Comments
Slalom and G-force tests aren't a one dimensional grip test. Mass and width also plays a part in the race. Results are as expected.
Hutch: *corrects 400 cars
Players: "Hutch ruined my garage!"
Hutch: 🤷♂️
When btr2 is now beaten by btr ? No way
From Autocar issue of July '92: https://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/albums/72157629882070186
0-60 mph: 5.5 sec -> 6.0 sec
0-100 mph: 15.10 sec -> 15.8 sec
0-120 mph: 25.36 sec -> 25.2 sec
0-130 mph: ~33.26 sec -> 30.9 sec
1/4 mile time: 14.28 sec @ 98 mph -> 14.6 sec @ 96 mph
so basically the mid-range is improved from 57.29 to 61.22.
From MOTOR magazine issue of 1980: https://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/albums/72157625180659033
0-60 mph: 9.5 sec -> 9.9 sec
0-100 mph: 26.15 sec -> 32.0 sec
mid-range decreased from 57.06 to 44.80.
From CAR magazine issue of Sep '87: https://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/albums/72157623454417252
0-100 and 1/4 mile times are correct, no change needed.
0-125 mph: ~13.44 sec -> 12.8 sec
two screenshots because we still can’t compate cars
-Should be much slower.
0-60 mph: 3.4 -> 3.3 sec
0-100 mph: 7.0 -> 7.5 sec
0-150 mph: 16.75 -> 20.1 sec
1/4 mile: 11.33 @ 129 mph -> 11.5 @ 126 mph
Source: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a14532881/2017-dodge-viper-acr-test-review/
(maybe someone should check out the standard Viper to see if it's faster than RL too because I don't have one)
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15119408/2011-cadillac-cts-v-wagon-long-term-test-review/
Внутриигровое тестирование (111):
0-60 from 6.8 to 6.6
0-100 from 19.1 to 19.2
So MRA from 55.28 to 52.38
0-60 time: 3.9 sec -> 3.6 sec
0-100 time: 8.5 sec -> 8.9 sec
1/4 mile: 12.13 sec @ 120 mph -> 11.9 sec @ 121 mph
MRA: 84.78 -> 67.92
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20120620194834/http://www.roadandtrack.com/content/download/66410/1711449/version/4/file/RT_2002-Porsche-911-GT2_data.pdf
0-60 time: 6.4 sec -> 6.6 sec
0-100 time: 15.0 sec -> 17.1 sec
0-120 time: 24.05 sec -> 27.7 sec
1/4 mile time: 14.83 sec @ 100 mph -> 14.9 sec @ 94 mph
MRA: 74.42 -> 62.86
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20120620194834/http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezflow_site/storage_RT_NEW/storage/original/application/7242c71afb9c7c6c6e2ba6b0affe1205.pdf
Note: Tested model was the 2013 BRZ Premium, it is uncertain if there is any significant differences.
0-60 time: 6.9 sec -> 6.4 sec
0-100 time: 15.9 sec -> 17.6 sec
Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/albums/72157623748832166
Note: Tested car was the 1989 model, but I don't think there's much difference since all european models uses the same CA18DET engine.
-Should be quicker.
0-60 time: 5.2 sec -> 5.0 sec
1/4 mile time: 13.98 sec @ 99 mph -> 13.7 sec @ 103 mph
Source: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a18201633/ford-mustang-gt-convertible-road-test/
-Should be quicker.
0-60 time: 5.8 sec -> 5.6 sec
0-100 time: 14.9 sec -> 13.3 sec
1/4 mile time: 14.43 sec @ 99 mph -> 14.0 sec @ 103 mph
MRA: 63.74 -> 72.73
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20120620194834/http://www.roadandtrack.com/content/download/66154/1707448/version/4/file/RT_2004-Cadillac-XLR_data.pdf
-Should be slower.
0-60 mph: 4.1 sec -> 4.3 sec
0-100 mph: 8.8 sec -> 9.3 sec
0-120 mph: 12.45 sec -> 13.1 sec
1/4 mile time: 12.31 sec @ 119 mph -> 12.5 sec @ 117 mph
MRA: 87.23 -> 86.00
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20120620194834/http://www.roadandtrack.com/content/download/87816/2230107/version/2/file/RT_To-the-Power-of-12_data.pdf
Note: tested car is a 2011 model, but I don't think there's much difference between that and the 2009 one in game.
-Should be faster.
1/4 mile: 14.46 -> 13.87
The trap speed on the onboard speedometer camera also shows the car to be doing just around 100 mph (but who knows how accurate those things are)
Also two things worth noting with this car that has nothing to do with MRA: 1. The car was only sold as "Eunos Cosmo" and never as "Mazda Cosmo", also 2. It's only sold in Japan so shouldn't its power to be governed at 276 hp instead of the 296 hp shown in-game?
Source:
Source: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15142581/1969-ford-mustang-boss-302-review/ (Dunno if there's any major performance differences between the two model years)
2nd Test: 14.93 sec @ 94 mph
Source: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a15142930/shelby-ac-cobra-289-vs-ford-mustang-boss-302-chevy-ss454-chevelle-plymouth-duster-340-comparison-test/ (This test is with the 1970 model)