Beater or Sleeper? GT6 Car of the Week Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter McClarenDesign
  • 6,930 comments
  • 1,245,273 views
Last edited:
Hey hey people...

As you may or may not know, I'm a big fan of Time Trials. This week's Playing with TT's I've set a goal for myself, and have started to notice some time killing glitches.

These glitches I describe as "Stuttering"... tiny little pauses here and there, with the biggest stutter being just over a second. Wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for the fact that the clock keeps going like a charm. As an example, I was up by about 3.6 seconds today compared to my first lap. By the time all the stuttering was done, I was behind by about a second.

Now I have the High Speed Eifel track already installed in my list of shared tracks, as its creator @Billsippi is on my PSN friends list. Logic states if I had the track already, it should take less time to load it. But then again, this is PSN we're talking about, where server issues are the norm.

So... has anyone else noticed this???

Cheers
 
Baron Blitz Red
Hey hey people...

As you may or may not know, I'm a big fan of Time Trials. This week's Playing with TT's I've set a goal for myself, and have started to notice some time killing glitches.

These glitches I describe as "Stuttering"... tiny little pauses here and there, with the biggest stutter being just over a second. Wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for the fact that the clock keeps going like a charm. As an example, I was up by about 3.6 seconds today compared to my first lap. By the time all the stuttering was done, I was behind by about a second.

Now I have the High Speed Eifel track already installed in my list of shared tracks, as its creator @Billsippi is on my PSN friends list. Logic states if I had the track already, it should take less time to load it. But then again, this is PSN we're talking about, where server issues are the norm.

So... has anyone else noticed this???

Cheers
Click to expand...

Not sure if it's because this current TT and track combination seems to punish even the tiniest errors but you could be onto something. I've noticed a lot of "draw in" driving around this circuit online - offline it seems better (I have the track saved too).

It also seems very tricky to lap consistently within a second or so per lap but that could simply be down to the driver. My times on the track have been all over the place online, far more consistent offline. The only time I noticed a big time loss was when I went under the last gate/bridge before the grandstands at around 2:01 which should have put me onto a 2:31 but resulted in a 2:35 which seemed a huge time loss through the last couple of turns which I didn't mess up in any big way. However, I didn't notice any stutter on that occasion but it could have happened, I couldn't say for sure either way.
 
Hey BBR, I've had that track installed for awhile now, but we both had that stuttering during our TT's together yesterday. It fouled up a nice lap. :scared: Mojo, I'm not sure what you mean by "draw in" but both the Baron and I have noticed that the track feels slicker in the TT than in arcade mode, and my times reflect that.
 
The Review
By CowboyAce57


The M3 (E92) and Gran Turismo

The E92 M3 first made its appearance in the GT5 prolougue. Since then it has become a bit of a middle man because a lot like it, while others hate it. To me it is one of those cars that could use a bit more appreciation.

The Looks

The E92 is a pretty calm looking car that has smooth lines all around. It's a bit of a change compared to its predecessor, the E46. You can own one of these dandys in GT6 for a cheap price of $92,000.

Under the Hood

The E92 packs a 3,999 cc engine that produces 414 HP and 295 ft-lb of torque. The car has a perfect weight distribution of 50:50 with a six speed gearbox. It also weighs a hefty 1,655 kg, plus it is a naturally aspirated vehicle with a usual FR drivetrain.

Acceleration Test

0-60: 4.327 sec
0-100: 10.334 sec
400m: 12.550 sec
1000m: 22.817 sec
Top speed: ~215 mph

The E92 has an interesting top speed, which is around 215 mph, though the weight does restrict the get-up-and-go on this one. The sound of the engine is OK to me, but other cars are far worse.

Road Test

Well I decided to take this one for a spin on the Nordshliefe since this car is straight outta Germany. Weight played a big factor because it wanted to slide a fair amount, but once dealt with it becomes one with the road. It felt pretty good to go through Adaneuer Frost without any mistakes and to get a lap time of 7:49.423.

The Verdict

My obvious choice is sleeper because it has huge potential. I had a very close race against a Zonda with this and it has never let me down yet. I have this as one of my main drift cars and it is an absolute beast. Plus I get a lot of compliments on the good looks.
​
 
Last edited:
RacingOtaku86
Are we still on for racing tonight?
Click to expand...

Does the Pope poop in the woods? (Hint: yes)

Baron Blitz Red
Hey hey people...

As you may or may not know, I'm a big fan of Time Trials. This week's Playing with TT's I've set a goal for myself, and have started to notice some time killing glitches.

These glitches I describe as "Stuttering"... tiny little pauses here and there, with the biggest stutter being just over a second. Wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for the fact that the clock keeps going like a charm. As an example, I was up by about 3.6 seconds today compared to my first lap. By the time all the stuttering was done, I was behind by about a second.

Now I have the High Speed Eifel track already installed in my list of shared tracks, as its creator @Billsippi is on my PSN friends list. Logic states if I had the track already, it should take less time to load it. But then again, this is PSN we're talking about, where server issues are the norm.

So... has anyone else noticed this???

Cheers
Click to expand...

I've noticed this on all of the created tracks but haven't located a cure.
 
lilcat89
As much as I like the C5 Z06, I have to give it beater status. Taking all bias out of the equation, it just doesn't stand a chance against its European contemporaries. The Z06 has always been the track focused version of the vette. That means it goes against the Ruf RGT and Z4 M Coupes. It's not quite up to those sports cars, but it is much quicker than the Mustang Cobra R and 4th gen Camaros. The Z06 is a great middle ground between muscle car and proper sports car. On the Mt Washington Hill Climb course, each car was stock on SH tires with two runs a piece. The RGT and Z4 M ran 4:14s, Z06 did a 4:18.5xx, and the Cobra R ran a 4:24. The LS6 engine is great, but too much wheelspin and torque to get the most out of the chassis. I still like the C5 Z06, but it's not the world beater that GM marketed it as. When a car with 60 hp down (Z4 M) is over three seconds quicker on a 6 mile course, it has to be a BEATER.
Click to expand...

You are basing your real world opinion of a car on a console game implementation?

Are you serious?

Your first statement "it just doesn't stand a chance against its European contemporaries" only rings true in THIS GAME - not in real life.

Your second statement "The LS6 engine is great, but too much wheelspin and torque to get the most out of the chassis" only rings true in THIS GAME - not in real life.

Your third statement "but it's not the world beater that GM marketed it as" only rings true in THIS GAME - not in real life.

Now back in the real world - with like skilled drivers at the wheel the C5 Z06 ran neck and neck with performance car pears of the day - it ran with the Porsche GT3, ran with the 911 Turbo of the day, ran with the 360CS of the day, the Cobra R of the day and the Viper ACR of the day - it absolutely annihilated the 911 Carrera of the day, destroyed the "regular" 360 of the day and pretty much ran circles abound the base Viper of the day.

These facts are born out by magazine tests (for pure number stats) and track day performances (for actual lap performance), many of which are available for review on YouTube to this day.

The C5Z06 was equipped with Goodyear Supercar F1's - which at the time where one of the most competent street legal tires available - there is reason why the F50 was shipped from Maranello with GY F1's, further more the car (C5Z06) has a fully height and geometry adjustable suspension in stock form(all Corvettes do)

IOW, the car can be aligned for the track it is intended to be run at, which is what people do/did.

The car is not correctly modeled in the GT franchise, this is why it handles the way it does - and the GT franchise model is a beater because of this, but not the real world car.

There was a reason the C5Z06 was the choice of T1 champions to win T1 championships - it simply worked that well. Note that Ferrari needed their on one make race to shine ;)

BTW, the Cobra R is also poorly represented in the GT franchise, the car is far more capable in real life than the game allows.
 
RC45
You are basing your real world opinion of a car on a console game implementation?

Are you serious?

Your first statement "it just doesn't stand a chance against its European contemporaries" only rings true in THIS GAME - not in real life.

Your second statement "The LS6 engine is great, but too much wheelspin and torque to get the most out of the chassis" only rings true in THIS GAME - not in real life.

Your third statement "but it's not the world beater that GM marketed it as" only rings true in THIS GAME - not in real life.
Click to expand...

All my comments were based on in-game testing. As I have not driven a Z06 in real life, I cant attest to its ACTUAL performance. We are judging these cars based on the stock (very effed up) versions that PD provides. For what its worth, I fixed the alignment on my Z06 and ran a second faster than the RGT's time. In PD stock form, the C5 Z06 is a beater, IMO. In the game, it just doesnt stand up to its competitors of the day. I never said it was a bad car either. Why are you getting so defensive?
 
lilcat89
All my comments were based on in-game testing. As I have not driven a Z06 in real life, I cant attest to its ACTUAL performance. We are judging these cars based on the stock (very effed up) versions that PD provides. For what its worth, I fixed the alignment on my Z06 and ran a second faster than the RGT's time. In PD stock form, the C5 Z06 is a beater, IMO. In the game, it just doesnt stand up to its competitors of the day. I never said it was a bad car either. Why are you getting so defensive?
Click to expand...

Correcting incorrect statements is not being defensive, it is simply correcting incorrect statements.

You stated that the car does not live up to GMs hype... GM never marketed the in game car to any one, so how could it not meet the hype? Your comment did not come with an in-game qualifier - I simply corrected you (and others) with the in-game qualifier - it is true, the in-game car does not handle well in its presented form.

It is not presented with an alignment that even remotely resembles the stock cars as delivered to customers. Few in game cars are - heck even the various iterations of the Ruf RT12 are not correctly modeled - the real car is not much like the stock in game rendition in a number of titles without first tweaking it. It it can be driven very hard and aggressively right out the box with very little negative effects.

Basically the idea of evaluating a stock poorly modeled car in game is pretty silly. You are using a flawed sample to make a biased evaluation. If anything, these tests should be done with the in game car setup as close to the real world examples and THEN tested.

That would make the most sense.
 
RC45
Basically the idea of evaluating a stock poorly modeled car in game is pretty silly.
You are using a flawed sample to make a biased evaluation. If anything, these tests should be done with the in game car setup as close to the real world examples and THEN tested.

That would make the most sense.
Click to expand...


I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, all the rooms are set to prohibit vehicle tuning or modification. I am not biased at all. I really like the Z06, for what it is. I judged it based on the parameters that were given to everyone. Which is why I am going through what cars have been corrected by myself and @Ridox2JZGTE based on data available to get a real representative feel and lap times. The only "real world" cars I have experienced have been MX-5s, a couple of M3s, 911s, and a C5. Thats it. The in-game car with corrected stock values is WAY better, but that wasnt the car that I reviewed. You are using real world experience to quantify your own bias in a VIDEO GAME. I never said it was a BAD car, I said it didnt live up to the PP and expectations in the game.
 
RC45
Correcting incorrect statements is not being defensive, it is simply correcting incorrect statements.
Click to expand...

The tone... it's all wrong. Personal opinions are neither correct nor incorrect. Please respect those opinions as you would like yours respected. Debate all you like, but keep the tone constructive, not destructive.
 
RC45
Correcting incorrect statements is not being defensive, it is simply correcting incorrect statements.

heck even the various iterations of the Ruf RT12 are not correctly modeled - the real car is not much like the stock in game rendition...
Click to expand...

Ummm... you do realise that the first gen RGT that's in the game is 996 based, and the RT12 that you mentioned, which is no where to be seen in GT6, is actually 997 based... right?

Cheers
 
RC45
Basically the idea of evaluating a stock poorly modeled car in game is pretty silly. You are using a flawed sample to make a biased evaluation. If anything, these tests should be done with the in game car setup as close to the real world examples and THEN tested.

That would make the most sense.
Click to expand...

Not really.

If we're going to get petty over stock in game car vs tuned in game car vs real life, we might as well have not been doing CoTW for all these years since the physics in GT are way off base and do not calculate some of the most basic and important aspects. Not to mention that some of the tuning options are still backwards and do the complete opposite to what they should in real life. Even if you tune each and every car to its real life specs, the physics model in this game will still be inaccurate and nothing like its real counterpart, thus we can't make true comparisons.

This whole thing is just supposed to be some fun with the cars given as provided, you are taking it too seriously.

Your comment about everyone's participation over the years being "silly" and unnecessarily bolding text also comes across as quite insulting.
 
McClarenDesign
The tone... it's all wrong. Personal opinions are neither correct nor incorrect. Please respect those opinions as you would like yours respected. Debate all you like, but keep the tone constructive, not destructive.
Click to expand...

Tone? There was no tone - my reply was factual and neutral.

Baron Blitz Red
Ummm... you do realise that the first gen RGT that's in the game is 996 based, and the RT12 that you mentioned, which is no where to be seen in GT6, is actually 997 based... right?

Cheers
Click to expand...

I never implied or suggested that GT6 had an RT12. Although I can say even the RGT is also a little off compared to its real world counterpart. Heck, even the Yellowbird is not as hard to drive in real life as many games portray - although my experience is based on an AWD Yellowbird, folks that have driven the original 2WD version suggest it is almost as well behaved as the AWD car.

Lewis_Hamilton_
Not really.

If we're going to get petty over stock in game car vs tuned in game car vs real life, we might as well have not been doing CoTW for all these years since the physics in GT are way off base and do not calculate some of the most basic and important aspects. Not to mention that some of the tuning options are still backwards and do the complete opposite to what they should in real life. Even if you tune each and every car to its real life specs, the physics model in this game will still be inaccurate and nothing like its real counterpart, thus we can't make true comparisons.

This whole thing is just supposed to be some fun with the cars given as provided, you are taking it too seriously.

Your comment about everyone's participation over the years being "silly" and unnecessarily bolding text also comes across as quite insulting.
Click to expand...

I chose the word silly to try lighten the weight of the comment - it seems that you are getting defensive regarding the parameters of the contest.

And bolding text allows the key points to be highlighted so folks can pick them out of a wall of text at a glance.

Hopefully you don't take offense to bolded text in car test articles you read.

*edit* now that the GT natives are all riled up again over nothing (something that seems to happen an awful lot) I will head out for another couple months.
 
Last edited:
RacingOtaku86
Uh, does this sort of thing happen often?

Personally, I think RC45 got too defensive, but I shouldn't be one to talk.
Click to expand...

Probably stating the obvious but it's the nature of all internet forums unfortunately. Not at all like sitting down and having discussions over a beer, where misunderstandings would be a lot less frequent and can be corrected/countered far more easily. That immediacy of debate is much more simple for participants to engage in and is far less likely to leave things "hanging in the air". With no body language, tone, facial expressions etc. typing can never replicate true conversation.

(Disclaimer - this was written by an old f**t) :)
 
RacingOtaku86
Uh, does this sort of thing happen often?

Personally, I think RC45 got too defensive, but I shouldn't be one to talk.
Click to expand...

Not really, everybody's entitled to their opinion about each car we race, heck we've had some have completely different verdicts because of how we got along with them on race day.

Do we disagree a lot? Not much, but it's just expected when it comes to judging something like this and even then we back up our verdicts with the facts.

Do we take it personally? not even a little bit, heck just ask MC about all the times he's shown his displeasure when I've robbed him of a victory at the last second. :lol:

I've never taken any form of displeasure from him seriously simply because I know him well enough that it doesn't have any malace to it, but sometimes it's hilarious when he does show it after being robbed blind by me. :sly:

Bottom line, the only times we will take something truly seriously at COTW is when it involves one of our own's wellbeing.

Aside from that, it's a relaxed atmosphere. :cheers:
 
As said before I'm I'm judging the car as it comes in game (thank you PD for ruining all of the American cars when it comes to PP racing, or should I say thank you for making torque useless in the game but still affect PP)

Anyway, I race the Nurburgring at 500pp on sport sorts. We primarily run the 24h layout @ 1 Lap with standing starts. The M3 is generally considered slow compared to your NSX's RX8's and all the other cars the PP system favors. I too once thought it wasn't never competitive. However I spent some time on it and was able to get it down to an 8:50 While the general pace of online racers is around the 9+ minute mark. Due to the handling characteristics and general opinion of it, I have effectively created a sleeper, and more importantly something fun to race with.

Verdict: Sleeper!
 
MidFieldMaven
Click to expand...


I'm glad someone got the reference. +10 pts to you, and control of the board.

Vic Reign93
Do we take it personally? not even a little bit, heck just ask MC about all the times he's shown his displeasure when I've robbed him of a victory at the last second.
Click to expand...

Fraternal sibling rivalry. As evidenced by the racing last night and the wit demonstrated whenever we meet, we bring out the best in each other by improving the other with competition. So much so that we've begun reaching those outside of GTP and welcomed them into the "brotherhood" (note: generic term - we do not discriminate against women, we let Vic in, right?) even though they don't participate here. I'd also like to point out that we were doing 4-44 before GT Sport announced 7-77.

RC45
Basically the idea of evaluating a stock poorly modeled car in game is pretty silly. You are using a flawed sample to make a biased evaluation. If anything, these tests should be done with the in game car setup as close to the real world examples and THEN tested.
Click to expand...

False. Had you read the OP, you'd know that we only evaluate the "stock, poorly modeled car in game" to provide an evaluation of said model. At no point does the OP say to make your opinion about real cars based on the details in GT5-6. We do include real-world facts about the cars from time to time, but that neither adds nor detracts from the opinion. If we thing the car in the game is good, we'll say so, and the opposite is also true. If you find it "silly", then you've been entertained, and whomever provided that entertainment has done their job. To the best of my knowledge, no one here has based a real-world purchase, or decision not to purchase, only on what was/was not included in any of the Gran Turismo titles. The point of this ongoing thread is to enjoy what's been given to us as an option, or explain why you didn't and/or what you think could've been done better. Although you may consider it silly, we have fun with it. That's the point... to have fun.

Oh, and on the point of evaluating real-world cars versus the Gran Turismo counterparts... it's made a few of the GT Academy winners successful in the real world. Isn't that silly?
 
Last edited:
McClarenDesign
The tone... it's all wrong. Personal opinions are neither correct nor incorrect. Please respect those opinions as you would like yours respected. Debate all you like, but keep the tone constructive, not destructive.
Click to expand...
Talk to me like that again? I'll stab you in the face with a soldering iron.

Edit. Shoot sorry. Double mint gum.
 

Latest Posts

Back