Confirmed Lemans Cars // POLL CLOSED/ images removed

[Dirkiyo]

Prototypes @ Trial Mountain

 

[wee_man]

Now don't quote me 100% on this but it'll give you an idea...

Group A : A production based car that produced 5000 examples worldwide over a production run of 12 consecutive months. This model was allowed to have 500 or more units that were basically 'homologated' with parts that they'd need if they went racing
Think difference between Ford Sierra RS5000 and Ford Cosworth Sierra RS500

Group B : Only 200 production units, and you were allowed 20 'special units' for 'racing purposes'. The FIA didn't think that manufacturers would go to the hassle of making only 200 examples of a model (because of profit etc), but they did and they were something that we all miss!!!

RIP - Porsche 959, Ferrari 288 GTO Evoluzione, Ford RS200, Peugeot 205 T16 Evolution 2, Lancia Delta S4, Lancia Monte Carlo 037, Rover Metro 6R4, Renault R5 Turbo 2, Audi Sport Quattro S1, that's just the well known ones...

Um good info, but I think he meant as in sports cars.
I think there wasn't a group A sports cars (again don't quote me on that) but there was a group B prototypes if im correct? I think it was smaller engined cars like Spices. It was kinda like........imagine LMP675 and LMP900. Group C and B were a 90's equivalent of that (or more LMP675 and LMP900 were the equivalent of that). The cars had a lot smaller engines but had better fuel ecomony and were a lot lighter. They were meant to be a cheap form of Group C sports cars.
I'm sure most of that is wrong. Anyone care to correct me?
BTW Dirikyo nice pics !!! 👍 👍

 

[Lambolover]

Um good info, but I think he meant as in sports cars.
I think there wasn't a group A sports cars (again don't quote me on that) but there was a group B prototypes if im correct? I think it was smaller engined cars like Spices. It was kinda like........imagine LMP675 and LMP900. Group C and B were a 90's equivalent of that (or more LMP675 and LMP900 were the equivalent of that). The cars had a lot smaller engines but had better fuel ecomony and were a lot lighter. They were meant to be a cheap form of Group C sports cars.
I'm sure most of that is wrong. Anyone care to correct me?
BTW Dirikyo nice pics !!! 👍 👍

I think you are on the right lines, and now that you have brought it up i would love to see some LMP675 cars in GT4 especially the 2001 MG EX275 which was fast but fragile. It had better fuel economy (thanks to its turbo charged 4 cylinder unit) than the bigger engined Audi's and was almost as fast with better power to weight ratios.
On that not i hope fuel economy is represented in GT4 in this way, perhaps tank size and engines could be variables, but i doubt it.

 

[GT-one TS020]

The Lister Storm is heavy when compared with the GTS-R and the C5-R, yet I think that you’ll find that is closer to road going spec…hence the weight. I have used the MK program to bring it into line with the other GT2 cars; the problem is that it makes it oversteer happy with all that torque and so little weight over the rear wheels. Hopefully one of the highly modified Storms such as the ‘97 Adidas makes an appearance.

The Adidas Lister you see there is the Lister Storm GLT(the first racing version of the Lister,from what I know)which has an slightly modified body,just look at the front and rear.Also this car participated in both IMSA and FIA GT series.

ohhh...I would have voted for the CLK LM if the poll already wasnt closed
and I really hope that PD will put in more Group C and GTP and JSPC cars since they are an important part of prototpye racing history! 👍

 

[The359]

Um good info, but I think he meant as in sports cars.
I think there wasn't a group A sports cars (again don't quote me on that) but there was a group B prototypes if im correct? I think it was smaller engined cars like Spices. It was kinda like........imagine LMP675 and LMP900. Group C and B were a 90's equivalent of that (or more LMP675 and LMP900 were the equivalent of that). The cars had a lot smaller engines but had better fuel ecomony and were a lot lighter. They were meant to be a cheap form of Group C sports cars.
I'm sure most of that is wrong. Anyone care to correct me?
BTW Dirikyo nice pics !!! 👍 👍

Group B back in the 80s was the equivilant of GTS/GT class, which fits with what was described. However at the same time there were production based classes like IMSA GTX and IMSA GTO, but they didn't have to fit into Group A/B rules.

Group C was split into C and C Junior (later C1 and C2). The entire purpose of Group C was to developed a conservative engine that could make fuel last. Teams were given a said amount of fuel and they had to make their engine able to use less then that amount over 24 hours or else they were basically stuck and could not finish.

Group B cars at LeMans included BMW M1s, Porsche 930s, Porsche 928s, Ferrari 250GTO, and Porsche 911SC. However Group B only raced at LeMans from 1982 - 1986, after which production based cars were (temporarily) banned.

 

[wee_man]

359: Ahh, thats the one. It's been a long day. yea C1 and C2 were the 962's and spices (on a side note it's a shame they haven't got Porsche cos I would of really liked to have a go in the 962). Cheers, yea that's pretty much spot on. How come they basically banned group b after 86? I seem to remember that cars like Moby Dick were starting to give the group C's a run for their money werent they (but I'm probably wrong)?
That was one good thing I liked about the Group C rules, with the certain amount of fulled allowed. It enabled the choice in types of engines. You could of either gone with a smaller turbo chardged unit (like the Porsches) or a bigger normally aspirated unit, like the XJR9. But it meant that Porsche would have the upper hand on the Jags in qualifying (or any boost controlled car for that matter) yet when it came to the race they had to turn the boost back and the Jags would get the upper hand again. Ahh the good ol days.
Lambolover: Yea, that'd make races a lot more interesting. Good idea. It'd also mean that having a 1000hp skyline wouldn't always be the way to go as you'd have to come in every lap for fuel. Boost control would be good as well, but that's not gonna happen.
I'd love to see the MG EX275, thought it was a great car. Shame MG bullsed it all up and pulled the plug on the project. The last year the official works car ran, I seem to remember it was giving the bigger LMP900's a run for their money.

 

[hellnback]

Yeah that's pretty much correct The359, Group A of the mid-to-late 80's and early 90's were pretty much like what we see with today's FIA GT & GTS class, although the cars weren't so... exotic (for lack of a better word).

Group A race/touring cars saw the likes of... (albeit in different classes & differing results)

Ford Falcon V8's (on cusp)
Holden Commodore V8's
Chevrolet Camaro (on cusp)
BMW 635CSi
Jaguar XJS V12's
Nissan Bluebird Turbo (on cusp)
Mercedes 190 E 2.3-16
Ford Mustang
BMW 323i
BMW 325i
Alfa Romeo Alfetta GTV/6
Toyota Celica Supra
Mitsubishi Starion Turbo
Rover Vitesse
Toyota Corolla GT
Toyota Sprinter
Volvo 240 Turbo
Audi 5+5
Mazda Rx7 (on cusp)
Ford Sierra Cosworth RS500
BMW M3
Nissan Skyline GT-R

Taken from Bathurst results from here: http://homepage.mac.com/frank_de_jong/Races/1984 Bathurst.html
onwards...

There was even a World Touring Car Championship that contested about 11 rounds in 1987 for the class... circuits were...

Monza, Jarama, Dijon, Nurburgring (F1), Spa, Brno, Silverstone, Bathurst, Calder, Wellington, Fuji.

Controversy over different regulations throughout the world help lead to the Group A being canned, but it was responsible for the change of the well-known turbo capacity factor of 1.4, to 1.7 in 1988. But by then it was too late for continuation of Group A.

In the end the Australian officials, changed the regulations and Bathurst basically now is only a 2 make V8 series, some still say that they couldn't stand seeing 'Godzilla the V8 killer' driving off into the distance despite the penalties they keep throwing at it...

 

[Nemo2]

sweet + action = swaction

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why is the Toyota Gt-One always shown as being a slow car in these shots? Look at Dirkiyo's Prototypes @ Trial Mountain post ... in Shots 2 and 3 the GT-One is the last (visible) car, and it isn't even anywhere to be seen in Shot 1.

I mean come one, it WON at Le Mans, didn't it? Why is it so slow? In GT2 it was a force to be reckoned with, so why the change in temperament, especially against 1980s cars like the R89C and C9?

 

[The359]

I mean come one, it WON at Le Mans, didn't it?

No.

And the older cars aren't necessarily slower, they just had different ending and aerodynamic rules.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

No.

And the older cars aren't necessarily slower, they just had different ending and aerodynamic rules.

Whoops, may bad. It actually won the prequalifying sessions in 1999. Sorry about that.

 

[Sambert]

No.

And the older cars aren't necessarily slower, they just had different ending and aerodynamic rules.

...and significantly more horsepower.

Edit: it will be highly interesting to see which LM proves to be the quickest in GT4.(not in a straight line) Any educated guesses?

 

[F310B]

At a guess, by comparing Le Mans times for a single lap, I would say the Sauber Mercedes. But I'm not sure, I don't know how the Le Mans circuit may have changed over the years, which might have affected the times.

 

[cudadude2]

a coulpe shicanes and an extra 360 meters will do that.

b

 

[F310B]

So they did make changes to the circuit layout between 89 and 91?

 

[The359]

In 1987, the chicane just past the front stretch was added to slow the bikes down for the bike race, but it also drastically slowed the speeds for sportscars.

In 1990, the two chicanes were added to the Mulsannes Straight.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That was to shorten the Mulsaane straight to the maximum length allowed by the FIA ... it also keeps drivers on thier toes.