Classic Race Cars are underperforming compared to the IRL counterparts

  • Thread starter Dunderbolt
  • 65 comments
  • 3,276 views
72
United States
United States
I've looked at the three big 20 million credit cars and test drove them using the Disconnect from internet Trick. What I did then was test drive each car straight from brand central. No tuning, nothing done to it. So they all have their stock transmission and performance. This means that they would be performing truthfully to their real life counterparts. Taking the XJ13, Mark IV, and 330. I did some laps on the Le Man and these were my times with them: Do excuse the bad lap times. These were there just for testing

Mark IV: 3:43:917

330 P4: 3:45:022

XJ13: 3:50:820

Here's the weird bit though. While I haven't looked into the XJ13 at all besides knowing that it goes 191mph in game, I did take a gander at the top speeds. The Mark IV was only able to go 197 mph, and after testing on Special Stage Route X, I was able to ink out 202 mph. This is completely wrong. The Mark IV is missing around 14-10 MPH on it's maximum speed of 212. The 330 P4 was only able to go 187 and if I remember correctly, read that it could reach 199 MPH. So right now, the Mark IV and 330 P4 is missing a good chunk of speed right now.

Secondly, I went to look at the 0-60 time for the Mark IV and saw that it was 3.1 seconds. Yet the car goes from an absolutely painful roll. So let me ask, why isn't the Mark IV accelerating like the P4? I can't find any evidence of the engine the GT40 being Model T levels of acceleration until it hits around 45-50mph before it gets to an acceptable level. Is this Polyphony dropping the ball on the engine the GT40 used? If so, is there a chance there can be enough support for Polyphony to notice and fix these issues?

I still haven't reached a comfortable conclusion, but I feel I can safely say that these cars have major issues associated with them. If someone can look at the first source and let me know what results I may have wrong (I'm not very good at this)

https://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1968/833075/ford_gt40_mk_iv.html

https://www.ultimatecarpage.com/spec/708/Ferrari-330-P4.html

https://www.fordgtforum.com/forums/...t-40-mk-iv-really-go-220-mph-at-le-mans.8490/
 
Last edited:

LeGeNd-1

Premium
6,725
Australia
Australia
GTP_LeGeNd-1
Laptime - could you be using the chicane version? Back when these cars raced La Sarthe did not have chicanes on the main straight and the track was practically flatout from Arnage to Dunlop.

Top speed - GT has unrealistically high default downforce values for these cars. If you reduce it to minimum front & rear you might get more reasonable top speeds.

Acceleration - well documented issues with longitudinal grip significantly lower in GT tyre physics relative to the lateral grip for the same tyre compound.
 
Last edited:

GTV0819

(Banned)
6,084
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
The MKIV only has four gears that seem to be tall, which is probably the reason why it doesn't have a quick initial acceleration off the line and amongst the three, it's also the heaviest as well.
 
72
United States
United States
Laptime - could you be using the chicane version? Back when these cars raced La Sarthe did not have chicanes on the main straight and the track was practically flatout from Arnage to Dunlop.

Top speed - GT has unrealistically high default downforce values for these cars. If you reduce it to minimum front & rear you might get more reasonable top speeds.

Acceleration - well documented issues with longitudinal grip significantly lower in GT tyre physics relative to the lateral grip.

I've been doing the no chicane, like I said. Bad lap times as I tried to treat the lap as squeaky clean.

Also, do the numbers represent foot pounds of downforce when it comes to aero?

Would you mind also explaining what you mean longitudinal grip issues? I'm new to when it comes to how understanding cars work, does this mean that it's not the sudden lack of torque but is due to the tire grip for while the car accelerates so slow? Because when going from a standstill, You go to a pain staking roll to get to speed. The 0-60 time I got from it (this is a rough estimate from the game's replay editor) and got roughly there in 5-6 seconds. Which is off from the 3.1 seconds of my source
 
Last edited:
1,059
Australia
Australia
The_Tullster
Longitudinal = forward / backward, lateral = side to side. LeGeNd-1 is referring to a perception that tyres in the game seem to grip better for turning and worse for acceleration / braking than in real life.
Also, what TCS setting are you using and are you using clutch for your standing start test? True to real life would be TCS=0 and using a 3 pedal wheel/pedal set, controlling traction on launch by using high RPM combined with modulating the clutch to control wheelspin. If you're not using clutch, the game seems to control launch by extrapolating the torque curve to zero RPM and having the clutch fully locked, meaning you'd be getting MUCH less acceleration than a real life launch with peak torque RPM and a bit of clutch slip or wheel spin.
If you're using any TCS setting other than zero the game is cutting power up to a gear/speed where there's not sufficient torque at the rear wheels to break traction. The higher the setting, the more it affects your acceleration.
 
Last edited:

LeGeNd-1

Premium
6,725
Australia
Australia
GTP_LeGeNd-1
I've been doing the no chicane, like I said. Bad lap times as I tried to treat the lap as squeaky clean.

Also, do the numbers represent foot pounds of downforce when it comes to aero?

Would you mind also explaining what you mean longitudinal grip issues? I'm new to when it comes to how understanding cars work, does this mean that it's not the sudden lack of torque but is due to the tire grip for while the car accelerates so slow? Because when going from a standstill, You go to a pain staking roll to get to speed. The 0-60 time I got from it (this is a rough estimate from the game's replay editor) and got roughly there in 5-6 seconds. Which is off from the 3.1 seconds of my source

Even with no chicane layout the La Sarthe in GT still has too many corners for it to be a valid comparison. The track in 1967 looks like this:
Le_Mans_Circuit_de_la_Sarthe_1932-1967.png


No one really knows what the downforce values represent in GT. Kilograms of downforce seems to be close but it's not totally accurate on some cars. Not to mention that amount of fine control is impossible in real life (in most modern GT race cars for example you maybe have max 10 levels of rear wing and 1-2 splitter adjustment). So just take it as some arbitrary value. Certainly for these old race cars the default values in game are way too high. Back then these cars probably only generate enough "downforce" to counteract their own lift (i.e. negative lift).

The longitudinal grip is grip when you're accelerating/braking, as opposed to lateral grip when you turn. For example RH tyres have reasonably correct lateral grip compared to real life, but longitudinal grip is lacking and you have to step up to RM to get the same longitudinal grip as real life equivalent "RH" tyres (I put in quotes because the tyre compounds in GT is generic and no one really knows what particular race tyre it's based on IRL). That's why standing starts always have so much wheelspin in GT and 0-60 times are never accurate.

I think the problem you're referring to is the engine bogging down because of the excessively long gear ratios in the Ford. If you rev the engine and launch it's not so bad and in real life I would think this is what the drivers do instead of a normal start from 0% throttle. I see you've done some research as well to the real car's gear ratios, maybe try putting that in game and see what happens. Some cars in GT are also known to have incorrect gear ratios stock so don't be surprised if acceleration times doesn't match up with real life.

GT does simulate most things pretty well for a console sim, but it's almost always never a 1:1 replica of real life. You'd have to go down the hardcore PC sims route for that.
 

daan

Salut Gilles
Moderator
34,703
Scotland
Scotland
GTP_daan
The 0-60 time I got from it (this is a rough estimate from the game's replay editor) and got roughly there in 5-6 seconds. Which is off from the 3.1 seconds of my source
Your source has made it up. Note the word "estimation" there. That source also has a MkIV as a 5 speed.

upload_2019-10-26_12-35-52.png


Race cars do not have a "top speed" nor a "0-60" time. Their gearing is changed constantly depending on the track which affects their speed and acceleration.
 
421
Turkey
Turkey
talhaONE
I've looked at the three big 20 million credit cars and test drove them using the Disconnect from internet Trick. What I did then was test drive each car straight from brand central. No tuning, nothing done to it. So they all have their stock transmission and performance. This means that they would be performing truthfully to their real life counterparts. Taking the XJ13, Mark IV, and 330. I did some laps on the Le Man and these were my times with them: Do excuse the bad lap times. These were there just for testing

Mark IV: 3:43:917

330 P4: 3:45:022

XJ13: 3:50:820

Here's the weird bit though. While I haven't looked into the XJ13 at all besides knowing that it goes 191mph in game, I did take a gander at the top speeds. The Mark IV was only able to go 197 mph, and after testing on Special Stage Route X, I was able to ink out 202 mph. This is completely wrong. The Mark IV is missing around 14-10 MPH on it's maximum speed of 212. The 330 P4 was only able to go 187 and if I remember correctly, read that it could reach 199 MPH. So right now, the Mark IV and 330 P4 is missing a good chunk of speed right now.

Secondly, I went to look at the 0-60 time for the Mark IV and saw that it was 3.1 seconds. Yet the car goes from an absolutely painful roll. So let me ask, why isn't the Mark IV accelerating like the P4? I can't find any evidence of the engine the GT40 being Model T levels of acceleration until it hits around 45-50mph before it gets to an acceptable level. Is this Polyphony dropping the ball on the engine the GT40 used? If so, is there a chance there can be enough support for Polyphony to notice and fix these issues?

I still haven't reached a comfortable conclusion, but I feel I can safely say that these cars have major issues associated with them. If someone can look at the first source and let me know what results I may have wrong (I'm not very good at this)

https://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1968/833075/ford_gt40_mk_iv.html

https://www.ultimatecarpage.com/spec/708/Ferrari-330-P4.html

https://www.fordgtforum.com/forums/...t-40-mk-iv-really-go-220-mph-at-le-mans.8490/

Thats because they dont produce that much downforce in real life. Decrease their downforce and they will reach their reallife top speeds.
 
72
United States
United States
I run no TCS.

Secondly, I did more testing, and while throwing downforce for both front and back as far down as it would physically let me, and using custom 5-speed gearing. The best I could reach is around 203-204 and that still took an obsurdly long time to reach. The top-speed test was done on the Stage X oval on the flat segment.

At this point, I'd rather wait for the Chapparal 2F (if they even add it) rather than waste my 20 million buying the Mark IV

Edit: I've also tried to match the Ferrari with the weight of the Mark IV, horsepower and gearing as well as much as possible, and the Ferrari Out matches it. I tested it on the Nurburgring
 
Last edited:

sparkytooth

Whoa rehr
Premium
11,232
Venezuela
The 51st state of america
sparkytooth50001
The Ford Mark IV is generally considered the fastest in a straightline because of its powerful engine and its streamliner like design. This was on purpose because Ford really wanted to win LeMans again and literally spared no expense (As this car per unit was so expensive it was about a million dollars in 1967 money), this cost the car some of its cornering power because of the tradeoff of downforce for lower drag. It was basically the 1960s equivalent of a longtail Group C or a 917LH, just 200mph was crazy for the time and this car was one of the earliest LeMans cars to reach that speed. Down the Mulsanne straight it was devastating against all competitors and that advantage added up over the course of the race.

The Ferrari on the other hand was supposed to be a more well rounded car that was using weight and handling precision to its advantage rather than brute force straightaway power and low drag, Ferrari couldn't afford to build a car for a specific purpose like Ford could with its infinite well of money and determination so they had to make do with essentially an upgraded 330P3.

We can conclude that the 330P4 is better equipped for a wider selection of circuits while the Ford Mark IV is better equipped for long tracks with long straights like LeMans. Also performance data from the time was really rough and more or less just estimates, we didn't have telemetry like we do in modern times to really quantify how these cars actually performed, its more or less trial and error.
 
72
United States
United States
The Ford Mark IV is generally considered the fastest in a straightline because of its powerful engine and its streamliner like design. This was on purpose because Ford really wanted to win LeMans again and literally spared no expense (As this car per unit was so expensive it was about a million dollars in 1967 money), this cost the car some of its cornering power because of the tradeoff of downforce for lower drag. It was basically the 1960s equivalent of a longtail Group C or a 917LH, just 200mph was crazy for the time and this car was one of the earliest LeMans cars to reach that speed. Down the Mulsanne straight it was devastating against all competitors and that advantage added up over the course of the race.

The Ferrari on the other hand was supposed to be a more well rounded car that was using weight and handling precision to its advantage rather than brute force straightaway power and low drag, Ferrari couldn't afford to build a car for a specific purpose like Ford could with its infinite well of money and determination so they had to make do with essentially an upgraded 330P3.

We can conclude that the 330P4 is better equipped for a wider selection of circuits while the Ford Mark IV is better equipped for long tracks with long straights like LeMans. Also performance data from the time was really rough and more or less just estimates, we didn't have telemetry like we do in modern times to really quantify how these cars actually performed, its more or less trial and error.

So I need to accept the fact that this car is essentially garbage compared to it's contemporaries. I understand the point that 200mph is very fast, but when I get out accelerated, I find that annoying since I can't even use my top end speed to save me. It especially gets worse when I go onto classic racing lobbies and they allow tuning, so I basically get shafted completely because not only do they turn better they're also faster than me!

I really did think I was onto something with how the cars are missing speed. But I guess I was on a red herring of Polyphony dropping the ball on how tires work and downforce.

At this point, I want Polyphony to just add the Chapparal 2F so I can compete at least.
 

sparkytooth

Whoa rehr
Premium
11,232
Venezuela
The 51st state of america
sparkytooth50001
I dunno tune the gearbox or something, the car in the game is supposed to be the one that actually won the 1967 Race at LeMans so its obviously geared and tuned more for top speed.
 
72
United States
United States
I dunno tune the gearbox or something, the car in the game is supposed to be the one that actually won the 1967 Race at LeMans so its obviously geared and tuned more for top speed.

Tuning the Gearbox hasn't helped. Even when putting max HP and lowering the weight down as far as it can go, my Mark IV struggles to go above 218. I've had the Ferrari beat me in the top speed department on the Monza (No Chicane) straight, I can't even hit 210. I can only go 207 right until I have to hit my braking point. So what's going on with the car? No changes I can make to the gear ratios fixes the issue. It's like the car has way more drag than it should.
 
Last edited:
72
United States
United States
Well hold the L then I guess
What it's beginning to sound like to me is that there's something wrong with the car. It's just I think I went about it the wrong way.

When even the game states in the "Car info" section that it should be able to perform ABOVE the 212mph mark, but CAN'T there is something wrong with the car.

At this point, if my car can't even hit 210 on the Monza Straight with an extra 130 horsepower attached to it, then there is something wrong with the car. I've done everything possible to make the car handle well at stock HP and it can't even tap 200mph. Torque seemingly disappears at higher speeds, with the ferrari being able to out accelerate it with ease at nearly point. Mid-RPM and High-RPM is abysmal compared to it's Ferrari contemporary. I'm fine if the car can't handle as well on the corners, but if it can't even use the extra torque to save it's life, then I want to know why. I have done literally all that I can do. I don't know how a ferrari with signficantly less torque can beat the Mark IV in any kind of race with acceleration, especially when I make both cars have the same weight and HP, the Ferrari will still have way less torque compared to the Mark IV yet the Mark IV loses in acceleration still. I understand the game can't be perfectly accurate to life, but when they're able to make the GT40 Mark I only off by 1 MPH compared to it's IRL counterpart, with everything stock. Yet the Mark IV is off by 10mph that blows my gasket.

The car feels as if there a drag chute on the end of it at all times, all I wanna know is. Why is it like this.

I'm frustrated because this is a car I've admired ever since I was a kid yet to see it get absolutely dunked on by literally every single aspect of the Ferrari out performing it blows my mind.
 
4,830
United States
United States
Stawookie
What it's beginning to sound like to me is that there's something wrong with the car. It's just I think I went about it the wrong way.

When even the game states in the "Car info" section that it should be able to perform ABOVE the 212mph mark, but CAN'T there is something wrong with the car.

At this point, if my car can't even hit 210 on the Monza Straight with an extra 130 horsepower attached to it, then there is something wrong with the car. I've done everything possible to make the car handle well at stock HP and it can't even tap 200mph. Torque seemingly disappears at higher speeds, with the ferrari being able to out accelerate it with ease at nearly point. Mid-RPM and High-RPM is abysmal compared to it's Ferrari contemporary. I'm fine if the car can't handle as well on the corners, but if it can't even use the extra torque to save it's life, then I want to know why. I have done literally all that I can do. I don't know how a ferrari with signficantly less torque can beat the Mark IV in any kind of race with acceleration, especially when I make both cars have the same weight and HP, the Ferrari will still have way less torque compared to the Mark IV yet the Mark IV loses in acceleration still. I understand the game can't be perfectly accurate to life, but when they're able to make the GT40 Mark I only off by 1 MPH compared to it's IRL counterpart, with everything stock. Yet the Mark IV is off by 10mph that blows my gasket.

The car feels as if there a drag chute on the end of it at all times, all I wanna know is. Why is it like this.

I'm frustrated because this is a car I've admired ever since I was a kid yet to see it get absolutely dunked on by literally every single aspect of the Ferrari out performing it blows my mind.
I know what you mean. But in terms of the '60s racers in the game, I use the MK IV the most. It's always been my favorite. I've beaten a few P4s before in lobbies. Super hard but somehow I've done it. I minimize the downforce as much as possible to get the best acceleration and top speed. I also dropped the LSD Acceleration Sensitivity to 5 to minimize over steer.
One advantage the Ferrari 330 P4 and the Jaguar XJ13 have over the Ford MK IV in terms of tuning which annoys me is that they have faster gear shifts with the custom gearbox whereas the MK IV has bad shift lag.
 
72
United States
United States
I know what you mean. But in terms of the '60s racers in the game, I use the MK IV the most. It's always been my favorite. I've beaten a few P4s before in lobbies. Super hard but somehow I've done it. I minimize the downforce as much as possible to get the best acceleration and top speed. I also dropped the LSD Acceleration Sensitivity to 5 to minimize over steer.
One advantage the Ferrari 330 P4 and the Jaguar XJ13 have over the Ford MK IV in terms of tuning which annoys me is that they have faster gear shifts with the custom gearbox whereas the MK IV has bad shift lag.

I love it too, but I'm apprehensive about spending 20 million on a car that doesn't work, espcially a game I spent 60 bucks on. I'll enjoy it too, once they finish fixing the thing
 
4,830
United States
United States
Stawookie
I love it too, but I'm apprehensive about spending 20 million on a car that doesn't work, espcially a game I spent 60 bucks on. I'll enjoy it too, once they finish fixing the thing
If I recall correctly the Ford MK IV was much quicker in GT5/GT6. And in my opinion, I think it sounded way better. The car's sound gave me goosebumps in GT6. Overall, I like the car better in GT6 than in GT Sport even though it's driving characteristics are more realistic.
 
37,734
Australia
The Bronx
I would think track condition, track temperature, air temperature, weather/wind, tyre psi, driver skill/technique that day, would all factor in trying to replicate performance.

Kaz said, in a gtplanet news article, the tyre model is accurate. If so, what about Tarmac surfaces? Are tracks assumed to have rubber embedded in the surface or are all tracks "green"?
Have PD modelled surfaces that are more abrasive than others? This could lead to tyres braking down more than in other surfaces. Are these times being testing with tyre and fuel 1x? With a full tank or just enough to do an acceleration run? Are the weights accurate(dry or wet)? Suspension geometry accurate? Some of PD's default setting and custom settings, do not allow me to replicate many real world settings.

just things I've observed over the life of the series.
 
72
United States
United States
Y'all are forgetting about ONE BIG THING = Data about classic racing is usually greatly exaggerated.
You don't seem to know the 212 number recorded during the Le Mans. If there barely info, then fine. But this car is repeatedly stated and has been tested to EASILY go 200mph plus. Yet in game, the only way to reach that speed stock is on Route Stage X and you'd to go nearly full length of one side of the track to barely hit 202, everywhere else you're stuck. So it's not the data is overblown, something is wrong.

Secondly, the tests were done with a full tank, which the Mark IV was able to reach 212. Tires were racing hards yet I also tested again with racing softs. Note, the Mark IV isn't the only one missing speed either.

Polyphony truly have these cars jacked up.
 

Greycap

The Flying Finn
Premium
5,655
Finland
Finland
I'd be more concerned about the claimed vs. true power figures of the real car. Doing 212 mph, that's 341 km/h for the metric people, with 500 bhp is a huge achievement even with today's aerodynamic knowledge. Considering that even street engines made close to that power, if not actually more, at the time I'd be very surprised if the race prepped ones didn't have quite a bit more in them.
 
421
Turkey
Turkey
talhaONE
You don't seem to know the 212 number recorded during the Le Mans. If there barely info, then fine. But this car is repeatedly stated and has been tested to EASILY go 200mph plus. Yet in game, the only way to reach that speed stock is on Route Stage X and you'd to go nearly full length of one side of the track to barely hit 202, everywhere else you're stuck. So it's not the data is overblown, something is wrong.

Secondly, the tests were done with a full tank, which the Mark IV was able to reach 212. Tires were racing hards yet I also tested again with racing softs. Note, the Mark IV isn't the only one missing speed either.

Polyphony truly have these cars jacked up.
Decrease downforce. Those cars didnt produced that much downforce in reality. Thats why you get worse top speed.
 
41
Germany
Germany
"Doing 212 mph, that's 341 km/h for the metric people, with 500 bhp is a huge achievement even with today's aerodynamic knowledge. Considering that even street engines made close to that power, if not actually more, at the time I'd be very surprised if the race prepped ones didn't have quite a bit more in them."

I'd totally second that. Look at the RUF CTR a.k.a. The Yellowbird. It made 342 km/h in 1988 with 469 bhp. :confused: That seems impossible, even from todays point of view, and everybody back then knew that this car was running at least 100 bhp more than the stock engine...
 
72
United States
United States
"Doing 212 mph, that's 341 km/h for the metric people, with 500 bhp is a huge achievement even with today's aerodynamic knowledge. Considering that even street engines made close to that power, if not actually more, at the time I'd be very surprised if the race prepped ones didn't have quite a bit more in them."

I'd totally second that. Look at the RUF CTR a.k.a. The Yellowbird. It made 342 km/h in 1988 with 469 bhp. :confused: That seems impossible, even from todays point of view, and everybody back then knew that this car was running at least 100 bhp more than the stock engine...

Even still, if it's a number almost quoted by everyone, I would only see it as a very impressive feat. That would be making accusations that Ford somehow snuck a stronger engine into the Le Man without being caught, or done some handiwork that the officials didn't catch on to about.

Decrease downforce. Those cars didnt produced that much downforce in reality. Thats why you get worse top speed.

Turning down the downforce only caused a 1-3 miles per hour difference from the downforce setup, the car still can't hit it's original speed. Even the P4 is missing a ton of it's top speed too. Every website (Including the official Ferrari website) states that the car's Max speed is 199, while it can reach only 187mph in game. https://auto.ferrari.com/en_EN/sports-cars-models/past-models/330-p4/
 
72
United States
United States
The reality is that the virtual performance of all cars in game are an approximation. Especially museum pieces that are too valuable to push to 190mph in 2019.

That's understandable. But when multiple sources of data state otherwise on their performance, something is wrong here.
 
3,797
Australia
Australia
That's understandable. But when multiple sources of data state otherwise on their performance, something is wrong here.

I agree. But again, this is likely the case for every real car in the game. I don't think it is a showstopper. The handling and braking for old cars in the game is a bigger issue to me, rather than the top speed being off by a few mph.
 
Last edited:
2,710
United States
Theresa, Wisconsin
That's understandable. But when multiple sources of data state otherwise on their performance, something is wrong here.

There is no doubt a race prepped Mark IV made more than 500 HP in race trim. The 212 at LeMans was run with 1 car or did they have a 2nd car on track to draft with??
Besides, it's a video game and you can adjust the power level to get it to run 212 so just do that if it's important to run the same speed