Car of the Week: Week 106 Ford Mustang Gr4

Discussion in 'Gran Turismo Sport' started by Racer283, Sep 4, 2018.

  1. Nismonath5

    Nismonath5 Premium

    Messages:
    2,086
    Location:
    New Zealand
    You know you've done it when you anger a Canadian man. :boggled:

    Unfortunately, this is a situation @Racer283 and I have been aware of for a while, and we've tried to sort it out on the low key side, however it seems to still be an issue, so let's just cover some bases about this group. Apologies to those of us who don't need this sort of reminder, I'd just hate to see things escalate any further and we start losing attendance or dividing people. :nervous:

    Point 1: These races are for fun.
    They have zero influence on anything. They're 100% entirely fun. It's why we don't keep score. We don't record who wins and who loses. We don't track any statistics of any kind, we just rock up, race, and have a blast (Or don't if the car is :censored:!!!) Does Vic really have the highest number of wins? We don't know, because we've never kept count.

    Point 2: There is nothing on the line for winning.
    I'm fairly certain most, if not all of us here have won a COTW race at some point. If you haven't, your time will come. But you'll soon realise that there's very little to gain from winning. There's no prize money, no factory drive with Triple Eight on offer. We're all passionate racers, we all want to win, it's just our nature. But the inside dive, the last lap lunge, whatever you want to call it, is an extremely aggressive move that more often than not ends in contact and one or more people angry. So it's quite advisable to simply avoid it.

    (I feel it's worth noting that there is a difference between divebombing and simply our braking your opponent. Out braking your opponent is a much cleaner and generally less chaotic manouver, and usually requires you to be right up beside your opponent in the first place.
    In most motorsports, "Being beside your opponent" means your nose must be at least as far up as the rival's B pillar. If you don't know what the B pillar is, refer to this handy dandy picture. main-qimg-8751c0633b51b846feff3596b5e64291.png
    If you're behind your opponent and you send it late on the brakes up the inside, regardless of how far behind the other guy's B pillar you were, then that's a divebomb, my friend.)


    Point 3: There's no shame in losing.
    Part of the reason we run such short races with a quick turnaround time is so that if you have a bad race or need to miss / feel like missing one, then there's only a few minutes waiting before you're back on the grid for the next one. The same goes with why we use the reverse grid based on previous race results. The worse you do, the better you'll start next time and vice versa. I mentioned how nobody cares who wins, well nobody cares who loses either. Baron's already mentioned, everyone has their good days and their bad, we're all human. The important thing is that everyon'e having fun, keeping (relatively) clean, and having some pretty freaking awesome races in the meantime!!!

    Remember, "Dirtier than F1, cleaner than BTCC." It's a great line, can't remember who first said it, but it's so true. We don't want to cruise around in a procession, otherwise our room title would look a bit more like:
    "REALISTIC CRUISING 65MPH MAX TWO WAY NEED COPS CLEAN 3/3 AND NO VGT OR KICK"
    Do those people not realise The Crew 2 is a thing?

    However by the same token, we don't want to crawl back into the pits, our cars all scuffed up and looking sorry for themselves. There's a middle ground. Don't get me wrong, rubbing's racing. The occasional bump and nudge is fine, provided you're not tapping morse code on someone's bumper. And if you've been in a dramatic race-long battle, it only makes sense to make some final bid to come out on top. Just make sure that whatever moves you make are realistic, and able to be executed with minimal contact.

    Should things go pear shaped, give back any spots gained or do whatever it takes to avoid ruining other people's races. It used to be easy in GT6, as soon as you realised you were done for you could hit pause and your car would instantly be ghosted, sailing harmlessly through your would-be victims. However nowadays that doesn't seem to be the case, so just try your best to minimise the damage.

    I hope that's cleared some things up for you all, this group's been around for a very long time, and us longer standing members can attest to just how epic some of the racing can be. Looking forward to some good fun racing next week! I'll try get an R32 review up at some point too.
    :gtpflag:
     
    05XR8, Alex p., The_Nagger187 and 6 others like this.
  2. Pickle_Rick74

    Pickle_Rick74

    Messages:
    17
    I love these weekly races. Great group.
     
    24HuresdeLoL, Nismonath5 and Alex p. like this.
  3. XSquareStickIt

    XSquareStickIt

    Messages:
    480
    Real life has been pretty hectic for me this week, and hence why I couldn't join the rest for this week's COTW races :banghead: However, seeing the chosen car for this week, I really wanted to at least have a quick go and quick (yeah right...) review.

    Nissan Skyline GT-R V・spec II (R32) Quickie Review

    [​IMG]
    Under the microscope and in the limelight this week is the R32 GT-R, the first in the now holy trinity of Godzillas, and the generation of Skylines that brought back the holy "GT-R" badge after over a decade and a half of absence. And not just any R32, either. It's the cream of the crop, the latest of the R32s, the 1994 V・spec II.

    The sports cars of the early 90s Japanese economy bubble is well documented, and each manufacturer had their own sports car that became legendary in their own right. Me personally, I'm firmly a FD RX-7 guy, and also a NSX guy on particularly unfaithful days. The GT-R just never was my cup of tea. I've always found it too bland looking, too heavy, and too much focused on straight line speed and not the bits to keep that speed in check. My opinion doesn't make the car mean any less to petrolheads around the world, however. Between the seemingly endless tuning potential of its legendary RB26DETT engine, its sheer exclusivity factor in never being meant for export outside Japan, and its exaggeration-like true stories of how it dominated every discipline of racing it partook in, the R32 GT-R is never short on adoration by motoring fans worldwide.

    I was hoping I could share a bit of that joy by falling for the R32 this week, but I came away somewhat disappointed, as I had expected to be. Confirmation bias, perhaps?

    If I had to describe the driving experience of the R32 in one word, it'd be "dull". The engine sounds dull. It revs dull. Throttle response is dull. Steering feel is dull. It looks dull. It comes almost exclusively in dull colours. Even its special, limited colour, Midnight Purple, is dull. This car is the textbook definition, the textbook example of what a "sleeper" car is. Dull as all hell, but goes like a missile.

    [​IMG]
    Granted, its acceleration won't be wowing anyone by today's standards, but back in the early to mid 90s, this sort of off the line launching capabilities is gut punching quick. This car is unbeatable on a standing start in the 90s. The NSX is "only" rear wheel drive. The WRX and Evo are both in their infancy in the early 90s. The FC RX-7 is totally destrolished on all fronts by the might of this GT-R, not just the straights. First gear in the R32 tops off at almost 80km/h, and 2nd goes well over 120. It's honestly not even a competition on the standing launch front.

    However, I feel that that's where the GT-R gains all of its adoration from, because the car simply feels "meh" after you get out of 2nd. Because the gearing on the R32 is so high, 3rd onwards feels very by the numbers, nothing amazing, nothing breathtaking. The gearing disadvantage of 3rd to 5th in the R32 brings out a rather ugly fact about the RB26 engine in this car: it has a very narrow powerband, in my opinion. It's not an engine you can lug, it's not a car you can simply stab at the throttle in the wrong gear and expect it to pick up, like today's cars. Powerband I feel is from 6k to 7.5k rpm. This engine has such vast amounts of nothing from 8 to 8.5k that it actually pulls better if you short shift it, even from 4th to 5th, even with its long and wide spread gearing.

    [​IMG]
    Where I found this engine a delight however, is strangely not on the straights, but in the braking zones for the corners. This engine, while having no torque up top, is very rev happy, oddly enough, and is strangely receptive to over revving on downshifts (this sentence makes sense in some weird universe out there, I swear). You can really downshift early in this car, and the car stops so much better when you do. Not only does it sound great, but it even breaks the rear of the car somewhat loose, helping you rotate into apexes better. Heck, if the corner is slow enough and if you dare try it, dropping into first at 80-ish km/h feels like harpooning an anchor into the asphalt, and the rear end gets so lively and playful I can't help but to crack a smile every time I do it. Each downshift is such an event, and every tight corner is such a long awaited moment of glee because of dropping down to first gear.

    [​IMG]
    In fact, this car feels like it has to be, is meant to be, and wants to be driven this way, like a drift car. I didn't realise it from the driver's seat, but when looking back at replays, I was entering almost every corner at an odd yaw angle, contrary to the consensus that the ATTESA AWD system disallows drifting. Granted, I wasn't smoking tyres kind of drifting, but the angles still look weird as heck in photos, nonetheless. You need to monitor and adjust your yaw angle on turn-in, and there is every possibility of overcooking it, especially on downhill corners where even less weight is on the rear tyres. Brock's Skyline at Bathurst in particular, I simply cannot get right in this car, as the comparatively light rear end always seems to want to swing out on braking.

    [​IMG]
    That said, on corner exits, this car feels... like a front wheel drive sedan. The fronts do all the work in dictating the direction of travel, and wrestles the rear end into following along. There's no drama, there's no feedback, nothing at all, from the rear. The rear end feels very much like dead weight to me, which comes as a huge surprise because I thought this thing was rear wheel drive most of the time, with the front axles kicking in only when the car detects it needs the extra traction.

    [​IMG]
    Watching the rather curious "FRONT TORQUE kg-m" meter on the dash however, it acts so much like a turbo gauge I at first thought it was just that at the start: a turbo gauge. It raises to the maximum when I stab on the gas with the stock power in a straight, dry road. At no point did it seem to leave the car in rear wheel drive mode. I'm not sure if this is the case with the real car, or if PD has yet again inaccurately replicated gauge behaviour (mumble grumble FC and FD turbo gauges mumble grumble). I can see evidence for both cases, however. The driving dynamics seem to suggest a full time AWD mode to me, yet at the same time, the gauge itself seems horrendously inaccurate to me: even partial throttle maxes out the front torque gauge in the dry, and somehow downshifting blips it as though it were a turbo gauge.


    Unlike a turbo gauge however, it doesn't instantly dip if you let off the gas:


    Either the ATTESA AWD system is confusing as heck, or PD really screwed something up here.

    Because of this car's own heft, and how it seemingly simultaneously understeers and oversteers on corner entry, this car chews its tyres up at a horrendous rate. The first thing that struck me when I took a corner in this car is just how front heavy it is. Of course, that's just how sedans are, and the vanilla Skyline body and chassis was designed first and foremost to be a practical, sensible, everyday sedan. The GT-R is just a load of go fast bits, clever programming, and hefty expectations dumped onto its hapless shell, so it's only understandable it's so horrendously nose heavy. It has to be said though, that the R32's chassis rigidity is quite remarkably strong for its time, in spite of its humble origins. The car always felt limited by lack of tyre grip and excessive body roll rather than body flex in the corners, and tyres and suspension is are way easier fixes than stiffening the chassis of your car.

    [​IMG]
    Not only the tyres - this car is very heavy on fuel consumption as well. 5 laps of Bathurst at racing pace saw the R32 drink 20 litres of fuel (at 1x fuel consumption). For comparison, a larger displacing 3 litre 6 cylinder 1992 NSX-R drank 17 for the same 5 laps (and was faster too, to boot). Couple the tyre wear and fuel consumption rates with the R32's Achilles' Heel, brake fade, and you have a car that is very quick for about five minutes, if even that, before it starts to fall apart on its driver. Thoroughly unimpressive in my opinion. I think I've had to scale back my braking points in the R32 after 3 laps of Bathurst, about 7 and a half minutes of running it (at 1x tyre wear with the default Sports Hard tyres), because the tyres were simply dying. And this isn't even taking into account brake fade, because this game doesn't simulate that.

    [​IMG]
    While I wasn't wowed by the R32's driving dynamics, I did wonder if the R32 really was that bad, or if all cars from that time are just as bad. Hopping into a 1992 NSX-R, I quickly made a mess of myself, and I realised just how biased I was because I loved the NSX, and was more ready to make excuses for its similarly appalling driving, like "but it's fun because it's so light!", or "oversteer is more correctable than understeer!". However, with my mishaps in the NSX fresh in my mind, I drove the R32 again, and what struck me was just how little drama there is, provided you know its limits and conscientiously keep your driving within its limits, as once S.S. Skyline starts understeering, there really is no getting it back. It is a very pleasant drive at 9 tenths, which is completely fair for a sports car. Despite the GT-R's tradition on relying on cutting edge technology and smart computers, the R32 never once felt like it was ever holding your hand; the driving experience was raw and visceral as they come, and I could still work up a sweat wrestling this thing around a track. It is the absolute happy medium between the analogue and the digital, and I think no other car, other than the R32, R33, and R34 managed, or even attempted, to balance on that fine knife edge.

    [​IMG]
    Stylistically, I've just never been drawn to the GT-Rs. They all look very ho-hum, barely distinguishable from the bland Skyline sedans on which they're based. This car looks so boring, it made me loathe shooting it for this review. I have never seen any car so devoid of shape, creases, or personality moreso than the R32. If you asked a three year old to draw a car, they would probably inadvertently draw an R32, simply because it's so... featureless. It has a way of looking so impossibly flat in photos, it makes shooting a chore.

    I suppose the unassuming looks, the wolf in sheep's clothing, is appealing to some. Don't get me wrong; I like me a modest car, but there's a very clear cut line between modest and boring, and the R32's styling, or more accurately, lack thereof, is firmly on the side of boring. I'd be lying however, if I wouldn't stop, stare, and drop my jaw on the ground every time I come across one in real life though. I think the GT-R only looks good to those who know what it is and what it's capable of. This being a style I was never drawn to, I'm not sure if it being the most understated in its holy trinity of Skyline GT-Rs is a good or bad thing. I do appreciate its comparatively smaller size compared to the R33 and R34, however, and the stamped-in "SKYLINE" on the rear bumper is an oddly satisfying touch. The upgraded BBS wheels the V・spec II comes stock with is nothing short of salivating, too. Why don't all sports cars come standard with these wheels?

    [​IMG]

    I get it. It's a monster of a car when tuned. It's meant to be tuned. It's screaming to be tuned, as evidenced by it's high revving, nothing-up-top, understressed and too strong an engine, and by its tall as a mountain gearing that will suit a 600BHP highway cruiser. But why should I as a customer have to fix the product I bought brand new? The RX-7 is every bit as "meant to be tuned". So is the NSX. So is the Impreza. Those are cohesive, fun packages bone stock, which is why I like them more than the GT-R. Honestly? I think 95% of this car's value is in its engine. The GT-R feels broken and crippled brand new, bone stock. I feel like I've only bought half a car. It's why stock examples of these cars are so incredibly hard to come by, and why unmolested specimens of these cars cost so darn much. I'm surprised PD even managed to find a showroom condition one of these to model for this game. Must have been in a Nissan Museum or something.

    [​IMG]
    I think I understand its appeal, but the R32 really isn't for me. The R34, with all its refinements in handling and the same engine, maybe. But the R32... ehhhhh.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2020
  4. RobboGTAddict

    RobboGTAddict

    Messages:
    136

    I've felt like this the past few weeks too and it seriously gets on my nerves. I left one of our lobbies early recently and went to the daily races because they were more fair. How is that possible? I end up sweating every first or second turn. It's the same story every week. I try not to run over the car in front, it compromises my exit speed, I get pushed off the track the next turn. Rinse, repeat. I'm so glad I'm not on a microphone.

    I feel I'm a clean driver. I have never received a complaint from you guys about my driving. But maybe you s**t talk me in private, who knows. I get you are faster than me. But, pushing me off the track each first lap is really getting old.
     
    Alex p. likes this.
  5. Nismonath5

    Nismonath5 Premium

    Messages:
    2,086
    Location:
    New Zealand
    This is probably another part I should have put in my message.

    Point 4: Nobody, and I mean nobody, wins on T1!! (But everyone can lose...)
    Most COTW races are 4 laps. Sometimes more for much shorter tracks, sometimes less for the larger ones. While certainly not FIA races by any stretch, there's still more than enough race time for you to work your way through the field. So don't go for the overly ballsy and always ill fated turn 1 attack!

    Seriously, I've never seen anybody make a huge position gain on turn 1. Just wait until everyone's gotten up to speed and spaced out a bit, then start picking them off one by one (if indeed you can!) Making last lap lunges right at the start of the race more often than not ends in tears than it does victory, so just don't. :D
     
    05XR8, Alex p. and XSquareStickIt like this.
  6. Nismonath5

    Nismonath5 Premium

    Messages:
    2,086
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Time for some videos, I reckon. :tup:




     
  7. Alex p.

    Alex p.

    Messages:
    5,616
    Location:
    Germany
    What a review! Also great photography, love it!
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2020
  8. 90sEnthusiast

    90sEnthusiast

    Messages:
    185
    Location:
    United States
    The Skyliine GTRs and GTO/ GTO MR are still modern quick imo. Here's some reviews from BestMororing and all the popular mags-

    BestMotoring tested all the performance cars of the era. In 1994 Mitsubishis 3000GT VR4 / GTO Twin Turbo platform (all engines were 320HP_315TQ) beat the R32 Skyline GTR a car that weighs 3100 lbs and dynos very high stock
    In 1996, the GTO MR, which is identical to the 2G VR4, with 67 less pounds, bested an R33 Skyline GTR pulling a 12.8 quarter mile



    MAGAZINES;
    1. - MotorWeek1994, '94 Mitsu 3000GT VR-4
    *1994 3000GT VR4 0 - 60 in 4.9 and the quarter mile 13.5@103mph*

    2. https://www.motortrend.com/news/virtual-velocity/
    *MotorTrend 1995, “Virtual Velocity”*
    Results:
    *300ZX Twin Turbo 13.9@102.0mph*
    *3000GT VR4 13.5@101.6 mph*
    *RX7 Twin Turbo 14.1@99.9mph*
    *Supra Twin Turbo 13.5@106.9mph*

    3.
    *Stock 1999 3000GT VR4 quarter mile of 13.2@102.7* This is a thoroughly stock car. It took him over a month to get the launch down.

    4. http://www.300zx.cl/ga/300zx/images/rtt10.jpg -
    *Road and Track 1994, “The 300 HP Club"*
    Results:
    *300ZX Twin Turbo 14.4@99.7mph*
    *3000GT VR4 14.2@99.0 mph*
    *Supra Twin Turbo 13.7@105.0mph*
    *Corvette LT1 14.2@103.0*
    Track Battle:
    http://www.300zx.cl/ga/300zx/images/rtt07.jpg
    I swear Road&Track get the worst times! Unbelievably slow test drivers lol.

    5. https://www.motortrend.com/news/mitsubishi-3000gt-vr4/ -
    The launch was bad for both the Supra TT and VR4, *yet the VR4 did 0-60 in 4.8s* and tied the Supra TT in the 1/4m @ 13.6s, with the Supra trapping substantially higher (Obviously).

    6. https://archiv.3000gt.org/viewtopic.php?t=2582
    *Popular Mechanics 1999 Acceleration Nation*
    *1999 3000GT VR-4 - 0 to 60 in 5.00s, quarter mile in 13 44@101.7mph

    Fast is relative. I would call 13.4@103mph 'very quick' for 2020. However, I wouldn't say the 300ZX Twin Turbo is modern fast. It never got below a 13.7 ET and you can tell the boost is weak.

    But the VR4? Here's Doug Demuros review, skip to @23.000 and watch him say its modern day quick:
    https://youtu.be/sogakkimTgc
    Hate him or love him, Doug is a harsh critic.

    We live in and age where Mustang GTs are running 10s with just better rubber. So if you think like that, yes it wouldn't be fast. To me, its amazing that the GTO MR and Skyline GTR ran 12s to 400M stock in the 90s.
    Hell, a 13.1@103mph quarter mile stock
    is still respectable to me as fast. Mid 13s is very quick. Low 14s can be respectable depending on the age or size of the car. Mid 14s and up are slow. Anything under 12s is "super car" territory to me. Maybe iys just because I was a 90s kid.

    Just pointing that oult because I owned a 1996 VR-4 and it beat a lot of cars bone stock lol I'm still in love with it.

    Honestly, this is one of the best reviews I've ever seen . Cheers, it was a great read!:cheers:
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2020
  9. TonyJZX

    TonyJZX

    Messages:
    3,493
    The thing is complaining about how the R32-R34 were underpowered out of the factory misses out the point that the govt. at the time mandated 206kW as the maximum on paper.

    Now you cant truly compare with the NSX as it was an N/A powerplant and it was a different design intent... it was a car supposed to run against the Ferrari 355 at twice the price of the R32.

    I cant heap criticism on a car for being under spec'ced when everyone was under the same restricton.

    Only towards the end with the R34 did the break the power limit by not even bothering to adhere to it... a brand new R34 did something like 230kW 310hp at all four wheels when the paperwork stated that it only did "206kW" at the crank. in the end they knew the govt. wouldnt do anything about it but they didnt know that 10yrs prior.

    I can tell you now from first hand experience, a standard R32 with something basic like exhaust boost controller that did something like 250kW at all four wheels was a car that was immensely quick even by todays standards due to the 4wd system. It also had that classic R32-34 trait where it had massive midrange and incredible throttle response but it did die out if you revved it to 8,000rpm... the turbos needed upsizing.

    This is car that came out in 1989. Its an incredible car. One of the best cars I've ever driven. I also feel that the 33/34 over it was improved but it daily driving you didnt feel it that much.

    Incredible to think an R32 was as low as $15,000 usd a decade ago over here.
     
  10. 90sEnthusiast

    90sEnthusiast

    Messages:
    185
    Location:
    United States
    Agreed on all. Also, the GTO Twin Turbo and GTO MR were grand touring cars; they beat the R32-R33 Slyline GTR in acceleration but they lack the nuance and driving experience the Nissans had. It doesn't handle near as well.

    The NSX was a masterpiece, I've driven one. The NSX had one problem - speed and acceleration. It cost double what a Mitsubishi GTO Twin Turbo but isn't near as fast in a straight line. Then there was the Lotus Esprit, my personal favorite, which undercut the competition while putting numbers down the pricier exotics couldn't. The NSX was the smart man's car. If you were a real gearhead, going fast isn't the whole package...the higher price got you an unforgettable drive, whilst the GTO Twin Turbo was just really fast in a straight line (and handled decently enough for a car that should have been compared to the BMW 850i, Porsche 928, and Mercedes SL/CL coupe) and you just remember the acceleration.
     
  11. XSquareStickIt

    XSquareStickIt

    Messages:
    480
    @90sEnthusiast You wouldn't happen to be "Stock97 VR-4" on Youtube, would you? XD I posted a comment on that video asking why anyone would want a GTO over an Evo, and he gave a very detailed, cited explanation as to why. Very much like you did.

    Not that we have any real way of definitely testing 0-60 times in a game, but from what I've read online, a stock R32's 0-100km/h time is around mid 5.4 seconds. A 3rd Gen Mazdaspeed 3 hatch, FF and all, would match it, which is why I disagree with your argument of the R32 still being "modern day fast". Of course, 0-100 times isn't really that big a deal, and I have never once taken that into account when assessing cars. I'm just saying it doesn't feel fast, given its long gearing and dull revving character. Perhaps I'd have felt it a lot more in person, but, alas, I'm sitting on a couch staring at a screen in a living room.

    Both you and @TonyJZX are absolutely right in that this sort of performance, for a car that initially debuted in 1989, is shocking. The fact that there was a gentleman's agreement that manufacturers couldn't advertise more than 276HP crippled the R32 is also a very valid point that I was remiss in not mentioning, and I think Nissan did the best they could given that agreement. There is a very strong value for (potential) performance argument to be made for the Skyline GT-Rs, which would also go a long way in explaining their appeal. I had completely overlooked that when assessing the car. It's easy to forget these things cost (ugh) money in real life, because they're all so dirt cheap by GT Sport standards. Thank you for pointing it out. I think I understand a lot better why these things are as beloved as they are now.

    That all being said, as-is, the car just doesn't spark any joy or excitement in me. I still maintain that it feels incomplete stock and taking matters into your own hands and tuning it is a very complex and expensive world by itself. The engine might be able to handle 600BHP with very basic mods, but can the rest of the car? Can the brakes? Can the tyres? Can the ATTESA AWD system? Can the car's aero? Can the cooling systems cope? It's easy to say the car is a bargain sleeper if that's where costs are cut.

    This week's excursion with the R32, writing a review, and hearing you guys' feedback has made me develop a real hankering for a "properly" tuned Skyline GT-R in Gran Turismo Sport, like a Mine's, or even the Amuse R34. I want to see what it feels and drives like when done right, but ahh well.

    I will say both of your very well constructed arguments have made me better understand and respect the Skyline GT-Rs a lot more. I still don't like it, though.
     
  12. 90sEnthusiast

    90sEnthusiast

    Messages:
    185
    Location:
    United States
    Disclaimer: I had a 1996 3000GT VR-4, and I love the platform and know way too much about it. I will be speaking on the GTO platform. I haven't driven or been in a stock R32 Skyline. The Skyline is overall a better car than the GTO which was most praised for its acceleration.

    I totally respect your opinion. That's not me on YouTube, but I'd take a 1997 VR-4 over an Evo any day. There's a guy that copy and pastes old mag tests and I usually just copy and paste his links. Guy is nuts but knows the platform. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the account you talked to is the one who posts all the links.

    My sig is my best time in my 96 VR-4 lol. To me its impressive that testers who couldn't launch AWD right got 13.4-13.5@101-105mph for a stock 1994 to 1999 3000GT VR-4. The Japanese got 12.8 to 13.3 to 400M for the 2G platform. With the correct (see soon to be broken clutch lol) launch at high RPM, the second gen VR-4 can take out modern cars and pull low 13s. The later models had none of those electronic luxuries, just 4WS, thus saving weight.

    To me the VR-4 is best left stock or barely modded - they're quick enough stock. I mostly went to the strip, but it's funny you brought up the Speed3.
    I yanked a modded Mazdaspeed 3 from a 20 roll, 40 roll and 80mph roll - the guy couldn't believe it and kept asking for different speeds and wouldn't do a dig. He'd get a huge jump and then my turbos would kick in and I'd reel him in and pass everytime, even if it took a bit to pass. Had a guy in a modded mkIV Golf GTI do the same thing lol. He didn't even know what a VR-4 was haha. Its technically the most forgettable, remembered most for strong straight line acceleration and heavy weight.

    I kept my 96 VR-4 stock besides a drop in K&N filter. The 2nd gen models had a 6 speed and the gearing wasnt as tall. The twin turbos push 14.5psi (they're 9b peashooters lol) and the longer gearing is what makes it pull on Evos, STIs and Speed3s from a roll - they get the jump, but I always reel them in and pass - the second gen VR-4 (it's not in GTS, we got the much slower 1st gen VR-4 with the REALLY long gearing) has strong top end, 4th is a killer gear.

    GAMEPLAY:
    If you play ANY GT game including GT5 or GT6 you can see how quick the 2nd gen GTO/VR4 model is - stock and from a dig it beats everything in its class to 150mph+ besides the Supra which doesn't pass until over 100mph.

    I was super pissed when they dropped a 1st gen model
    instead of the iconic 1999 model or MR models.
    Funnily enough, even though the GTO we got is heavy and has LONG gearing, stock it still beats the Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo until 123mph when the Z is in the middle of 4th gear, beats the A70 Supra Turbo R, pulls on both N300 Evos, holds off the A80 Supra Twin Turbo until over 100mph, and is all around somewhat impressive. Its mid tier stat wise when added up.
    I drove a stock first gen VR-4 years ago, but it was the US model with 300HP so it felt faster than the one in GTS, but PD did a damn good job with how it drives, shifts, sounds and feel. It definitely has that long 3rd gear and feels slower than it is in game - 3rd seems like a slog but the car is moving quicker than you think it is. I totally agree that the experience of driving the R32 or GTO in game is unremarkable. Especially next to cars like the DeTomasa Pantera.

    Most tracks dont have 120mph straights (some do obviously) so it's faster than the Z and Supra on shorter straights and has better pull out of the corners due to AWD.

    I love your comment! And I totally understand what your saying. Today cars have 10 speeds and electronic motors etc., so if you're you're used to that than these cars will absolutely feel slow. Additionally, they all feel outdated, period. Having driven all 4 and owned two (a Z32 TT and my 96 VR-4 that I shouldn't have sold but was on drugs), I love these cars. But they're not for everyone.

    To close, I would say the US spec FD3 would feel somewhat slow, and the 300ZX Twin Turbo was the slowest one back then anyways and would also feel slow. However, a stock second gen VR-4 or Supra TT will still give pretty thrilling acceleration, and 10s are possible for all 4 cars. The VR-4 can do 0-60 in 4.8s which today isn't fast but it's still "quick" and a 420 of 12.9 to 13.5 @ 101 to 105mph - depending on model year and if it's an MR or not - which to me is fast enough. I do have to say, the GTO/VR-4 is a grand touring car that happens to be "fast" in a straight line. It wasn't as engaging or as fun to drive as my 300ZX TT.
    The VR-4 is literally meant to travel long distances at high speed in any weather condition. It is not meant for your local track lol.

    Anyways I appreciate your post! Always good to see someone else's point of view, especially when written so well.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2020
  13. XSquareStickIt

    XSquareStickIt

    Messages:
    480
    Same to you, man! It's been enlightening to hear from someone who's actually driven these cars and know how they compare to modern standards. :cheers: Really happy I started doing this.
     
  14. 90sEnthusiast

    90sEnthusiast

    Messages:
    185
    Location:
    United States
    I'm happy too - your reviews are so on point! They create interesting conversations like this one :cheers:
     
  15. Racer283

    Racer283

    Messages:
    470
    Location:
    United States
    Here is close battle between @Soyuz 77 and I at Bathurst. The final lap we were side by side all the way up the mountain and giving each other space in the corners. Overall it was great battle and an intense final lap.

     
  16. Racer283

    Racer283

    Messages:
    470
    Location:
    United States
    This week we are taking a look at the successor of Ferrari Enzo. The Ferrari LaFerrari is built from the testing of FXX Prototype Projects and uses the KERS system that you would find in F1 cars. Lets go test the Ferrari LaFerrari. This weeks car is chosen by @The_Nagger187

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Nismonath5

    Nismonath5 Premium

    Messages:
    2,086
    Location:
    New Zealand
    If I'm able to make it, I'll have to drive something else. I don't own one, and I'm saving hard for a 20 million dollar car for an upcoming series, so I don't fancy buying a hypercar right now. :boggled:
     
    AgentBlackDog and Soyuz 77 like this.
  18. TonyJZX

    TonyJZX

    Messages:
    3,493
    I really like the LaFerrari... its $1.6m but it wrecks the competiton from N600 up. The handling is amazing up until it spits you out but once you work out the high learning curve its fine.

    It suits the big tracks. There was a thread or part of a thread where people complained about its squirelly handling.

    If you had to you're probably better off with the Pagani as its much more docile but just as fast.
     
  19. RCKakashi14

    RCKakashi14

    Messages:
    5,033
    Location:
    Philippines
    The LaFerrari?


    The only car that can rival the Porsche 911 GT3 RS...



    ...if you drive and tune it right, that is. It has a high learning curve, and you'd be better off with a Pagani Huayra instead.

    It has the body that generates downforce, and yet why... why doesn't it feel like it's making one?

    Another odd quirk, is that the game lists the car's weight as 2,700 lbs+ which is far too light for a hybrid car (well, all N Class Ferraris have this weight issue, making them OP-ish in general)
     
  20. 05XR8

    05XR8

    Messages:
    33,523
    Location:
    Australia
    This one is actually quite funny. Two of my nephew's( they're brothers) are in the US Air Force. Both talked about importing an R32. Turns out, the older one decided to buy the big eye(not bugeye) STI. Totally happy with it over the R32.

    The younger brother spent 4 years in Japan and recently returned to the states. While over there, he had a lil Jimny he customised. There, he bought the car he wanted to bring back: Efini FD.
    It arrived last month.

    The R32 is THAT car. Has the racing pedigree of an E30 M3 and street cred without question. I guess it becomes a thing of everyone can get one now that the USA can steadily import them.
    I see plenty here, in Australia and I'd have one for sure.

    However, I feel(if any of you own one, don't take it personal), if it doesn't read "Taisan", "GIO" or "Winfield" on the side, it's not really worth driving on the street in the real world.

    My short review: I prefer the R35. I've ridden in one around Eastern Creek and it "feels" much better than the R32 in the game.
     
  21. Soyuz 77

    Soyuz 77

    Messages:
    301
    Location:
    Canada
    Easily one of the top fights I've ever seen never mind been involved in! That was a great race @Racer283 I was actually laughing afterwards, I couldn't believe we just went two wide nearly the whole way round Bathurst! :lol::cheers:
     
    XSquareStickIt and Racer283 like this.
  22. Alex p.

    Alex p.

    Messages:
    5,616
    Location:
    Germany
    Ooof yes the LaFerrari! Great pic! Seriously considering participating tomorrow. What time do you start exactly? Here's my (as always) short review!

    GTS Nordschleife hot lap STOCK Ferrari LaFerrari '13: 07.01.576
    Well, well, there it is. The holy grail of hypercars, at least in GTS. What can I say? Yes, it is unbelievably fast in a straight line. Is it difficult to move at the limit? Yes, very much so. Its sound is typicall Ferrari I guess. Its all around speed is really just so impressive. Would it have a better handling, times under the 7 minute mark would be so easy. I really, really wanted a sub 7 time, but can't be arsed enough honestly to try further (some players brought it down to a 06.58.xxx). The lap I did was very, very good considerung the car. All in all, yes this is an amazing piece of engineering!

     
  23. TonyJZX

    TonyJZX

    Messages:
    3,493
    Sad that we will most likely never see the Porsche 918 and the std. McLaren P1... the Ferrari deserves to have some real competition.

    There was a short time about 6-7 yrs ago where these three were the hot three to face off. There would have been so much opportunity for these three cars to really face off on GT Sport if only PD had more ability to capability to capitalise on what they had access to.

    As it stands it seems the Ferrari is the default champion... what else can face it assuming your driver is professional.
     
    Alex p. likes this.
  24. Alex p.

    Alex p.

    Messages:
    5,616
    Location:
    Germany
    The Huayra is just as fast, basically exactly as fast as the LaFerrari (in the game at least).
     
    90sEnthusiast likes this.
  25. Racer283

    Racer283

    Messages:
    470
    Location:
    United States
    We will start at 9PM MST so that's early morning for you if I'm correct.
     
    Alex p. likes this.
  26. Alex p.

    Alex p.

    Messages:
    5,616
    Location:
    Germany
    That's 4 am for me. Not sure I'll be there.
     
  27. Vic Reign93

    Vic Reign93 Premium

    Messages:
    2,455
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Lobbies up people. :tup:
     
    Soyuz 77 and Nismonath5 like this.
  28. 05XR8

    05XR8

    Messages:
    33,523
    Location:
    Australia
    This is where "GT GO" would be perfect. It's 12:52pm. I could use my mobile to race you all, while I'm having lunch.
     
  29. XSquareStickIt

    XSquareStickIt

    Messages:
    480
    A few hours before this week's lobby is up, I took the one LaFerrari I was lucky enough to win in Daily Roulette (in the wrong colour, OF COURSE), and test drove it. Two laps of Suzuka later, and I firmly decided against joining this week's races.

    I can't handle this stupid thing, and therefore I dislike it. This thing has such RIDONKULOUS power that it's spinning its wheels violently in 3rd in the dry. The front end is soft and numb as hell. You have to prepare for corners the same way you have to prepare for retirement: way before you can even think about thinking about it, let alone see it. Braking for Turn 1 at Suzuka on the default Sport Hard tyres is well before 200 metres. I'm not even awake at 200 metres before the corner in any other car. Because of how soft and floaty the front end is, there is never any precision with the steering, and any slight touch of the gas pedal will multiply your turning radius by ten.

    But by god, this thing's throttle response... I don't care what you've driven, but you don't know what throttle response is until you drive this 6.3L Hybrid NA V12 LaFerrari. In other cars, the engine responds to the throttle pedal. The throttle pedal responds to your foot. In this car, your foot is the engine. It is surgically, anatomically, mechanically a part of your body. It, compared with the gargantuan understeer you will get under power, really puts into context excellently what you're piloting.

    Sadly, while I can just about get it around a track without killing myself if I gave it enough time, the lines would be messier than a toddler's doodles if I did. Needless to say, I was never going to race this thing against other LaFerraris, nor would I bring anything else to race it. It's just not meant for that style of driving. There is no precision, there is no semblance of sanity, there is no hope of predictability in this car. All your pre conceptions of driving lines, apexes, braking points, everything, is out the window with this car. This car's main rivals, the Porsche 918, the McLaren P1, and the Koenigsegg One:1 are all sadly absent in the game. It wouldn't be fair to compare the P1 GTR, a track only weapon of lunacy on racing tyres against this soft, wallowy and perfectly street legal LaFerrari, either. The Veyron is even more of a brick than this thing is. The Huayra and 911 GT3 RS would lack so much in the straight line and catch so much in the corners it wouldn't be a race; it'd be a turn based massacre.

    I personally don't like this car. Ironically, despite it being the undisputed fastest road car in the game stock, it never makes you as a driver feel fast when driving it, simply because of how much you're made to feel like you have to hold it back. On the default Sport Hard tyres, it is a physical impossibility to use full throttle for the entire first and second sectors of Suzuka. You'll just about get a hint of full throttle after the hairpin leading to Spoon and out of Spoon, but that's it. And that's just not fun to me. Lots of people question the point of sport and supercars because you never get to use the full performance on the street. I'm now asking what the hell's the point of a hypercar if I can't use the full power of it on a F1, FIA certified racetrack. It's a status symbol. It's a spec sheet. It's a statement. But you know what it isn't? A car.

    I drove about 2 laps of Suzuka before spending about 2 hours with a Mazda Demio. I actually enjoyed that drive a hell of a lot more. I might need help than I realise.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2020
  30. MisterWaffles

    MisterWaffles Premium

    Messages:
    5,110
    Location:
    Canada
    Hey guys, I’ve returned from my incredibly long Assetto Corsa sabbatical to GT Sport again and I’ve been trying my best to readjust to the physics. Mostly that just means being seconds slower than I used to be and spinning every somewhat sharp corner:

    920B6124-AC9E-4F67-A76A-30BC2799E3B4.jpeg

    But I’m putting the time in to practice and get my racecraft back up to something one could call “acceptable” for online racing. I’ll try forcing myself to sit through some online lobbies again in order to regain my awareness of other humans.

    2B131F4C-7444-469B-889C-E47A75C725A3.jpeg

    I even gave my Ferrari a new coat of paint. Looks pretty sharp in my opinion. 10 points if you can guess what inspired it. (Hint, it’s not very hard)

    I’ve also uploaded an old replay. I need to get some more done before the next lobby I join so I can save some more.



    Hope you all are doing well in isolation. I’ll try my best to make it next Tuesday, although I probably won’t be very threatening to Vic or Nismo anymore, if I ever was.