Makeshift Shuffle Club - Time Trials & Testing for club car lists - all welcomeOpen 

Cars being considered for a club spec 1-make list (tuning prohibited) (cars to have ready)

  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
Measuring top speed at SSRX is misleading as many people have posted that it behaves completely different there. (as if there is no drag or something similar)

Edit: Suggestion: As very few of the cars will ever reach a theoretical top speed in normal racing, it might be better to pick a real track with a long straight and see what speed the cars reach at a certain point just before braking. That's a lot more representative of the car's actual straight line speed. Some cars have really slow acceleration, but amazingly high top speed.

E.g. one good point to check top speeds is Monza No Chicane at the end of start/finish before going into Curva Grande.
 
Last edited:
This is mainly so I know which cars to test at ovals before scheduling them as one-make session starter draft battle car.

Actually, that's the only real reason I care for the top speed & limiter info like that.
I can't remember any other reason.

So I know if I would schedule them on tehse tracks I would test them first:
daytona ss
indy ss
ssr7
ssrx


Example: Yesterday time slipped away... so the 1st 1-make at NurbV, I just picked the Miata, because I *know* for sure that it doesn't hit the limiter anywhere. & I didn't test it.
 
Last edited:
LIST RE-TESTING IN PROGRESS

Opportunity for Car-List/Track pick prize for upcoming series!

If you do a complete car-list set of times, you will get that prize. 👍

We need the following COMPLETE car lists tested.

Hot Hatches
Legends
Vintage

Your choices:

You may choose the track of your choice, and then report your times here.

You may use any of the Time Trials posted in the Club Events.
(there are currently 3... 80s at Rome Rev, London, & Deep Forest - these will stay open for a few weeks)

Just let us know so we can collect the times from there. 👍
 
BATCH C
SPORTS HARD TIRES
Toyota CELICA GT-FOUR (ST205) '98 (431pp) (168mph) (33,020 cr) (before redline) (comfort soft)
Toyota MR2 GT-S '97 (442pp) (170mph) (27,130 cr) (redline) (comfort soft)
Acura NSX '91 (440)(185mph) (80,000 cr) (redline) (comfort soft)
Mitsubishi GTO Twin Turbo MR '98 (462pp) (195mph) (27,130 cr) (1k rpm short of limiter) (comfort soft)
Mazda éfini RX-7 Type R (FD) '91 (441pp) (174mph) (38,500 cr) (limiter) (sports hard)
Toyota SUPRA RZ '97 (478pp) (188mph) (43,900 cr) (limiter) (sports hard)
Chevrolet Corvette GRAND SPORT (C4) '96 (195mph) (45,900 cr) (2k rpm short of limiter) (sports hard)
 
So, after seeing the 90's list in action for the first time the other day, I voiced some concern over the MR2 being faster than a car in its position should be. Today, I revisited the four lowest-ranked 90's cars.

Conditions were the same as my original test. Laguna Seca offline time trial, grip real, SH, abs 1, brake balance 5/5

3 flying laps, though I gave myself 5 in the Celica as I haven't hotlapped at Laguna in quite some time.

Old Time / New Time / Car

1:43.825 / 1:43.781 / Toyota CELICA GT-FOUR (ST205) '98
1:43.245 / 1:42.112 / Toyota MR2 GT-S '97
1:42.861 / 1:42.625 / Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution II GSR '94
1:42.382 / 1:42.621 / Nissan Fairlady Z 300ZX Version S TwinTurbo 2seater (Z32) '98

While I improved the old times by a tenth or two (except the 300ZX, I couldn't even get close to my old time for some reason :odd: ) the MR2 was over a second faster, and I'm sure I could have found more time with another lap. It concerns me that it's now just about as quick as the NSX, Camaro and Mitsu GTO -- probably as fast or faster than those cars, in the right hands. It is also much, much easier to drive than it used to be.

Thoughts? I plan to run at least 1-4 on the list at several other tracks, to see how they stack up -- if only to satisfy my own curiousity.
 
Yeah, but who can stay on the track in the MR2 long enough besides a few fast drivers who kind of like it? :crazy:

Frankly, I'd like to see that car just cut completely, to lessen the stewardship burden. :lol:

(9 out of 10 incidents with the 90s list involve the MR2. :lol: :eek:)


EDIT: Actually, considering that it isn't like the Legends list, where ALL the cars are peculiar... the 90s list has a lot of quite decent handling cars... and then the MR2.

Maybe it really should be cut. ^^


EDIT 2: I'm thinking maybe we can put in the an MR2 if we come up with a list where it could definitely be the #1 car with no questions. That would be the most fair/workable situation.
 
Last edited:
Wow, it's been involved in incidents to that degree? :scared:

Well, as it happens the MR2 was nearly cut at a very early stage:

LongbowX
I would also cut the MR2 GTS, which is likely the spawn of Stratos.
Click to expand...

It would be nice if we could find a car just slightly faster than the kind of horrible '98 Celica, as a replacement for the MR2. Otherwise there's a big gap between #1 and #2, which doesn't seem right. Many of the tests grouped all the cars within about 4 seconds or so, making a second or so difference between two cars rather harsh. ;)
 
Well that's that. We was warned! :lol:

The MR2 was involved in 2 contacts & and at least 2 off-tracks in its debut points race. And 2 major race incidents in the 2nd race. (Different drivers.)

Every car list has some dodgy cars. But yeah, I think the MR2 in the 90s list distinguishes itself more prominently among its list companions.
Much more than I had anticipated.

I'll cut the MR2 right now, if there's support for that.

I mean I'm sad to see an MR2 ruled out, but frankly, I think there's too many questions & concerns about it.

???
@LongbowX @snowgt @tarnheld @Chiochan @nickg07 @Patrick8308

I was about to announce a change (soon) in the Hot Hatch List.
So we can just do this too.

I don't know what car would make sense to put in its place. But would it really be a terrible thing to just cut the MR2?
Several lists have #1 bummers.
(PT Loser ahem PT LOSER) :lol:


At least we don't have the WILL in any of our lists. (yet) :eek: :sly:
 
Last edited:
I think the Celica is relatively worse than its fellows, than the PT LOSER is to its, but I don't have enough data to prove it so.

I'm more in support of retesting the MR2 and reordering it, but if cutting it is deemed the best course, I'll support that too. I think it's a pretty fun car, for what it's worth. :)
 
The MR2 and me is like a love-hate relationship.:rolleyes:

I love the look of the car, it has great acceleration, can be really quick around corners.👍

But without TC and no tune it's almost undriveable for me. Probably with a wheel or better skills this might work out better.
At the moment I think it's just dangerous because the risk of loosing control and create incidents is quite high in my opinion.

I will look through potential alternatives and maybe throw in some other possible car for the list.
And yes, we definately should find a place holder, not just shorten the list.
 
I would also keep the MR2, maybe just slip in a tame replacement for #2 like Audi S4 or Ford Taurus SHO. These are just what i found by looking at kudosprime, don't know how they handle. Maybe the car experts can find a better one.

But it's true that the MR2 is the spoiled brat of the bunch. So everybody should keep distance to it in the race, and overtake later when it safely rests in the gravel the next corner... ;)
 
While @tarnheld was replying I was looking through kudosprime too looking for possible cars.

I made this following list with the data of the MR2 in comparison to the alternatives:

Toyota MR2 GT-S '97
PP 435 MR 242 HP 1270 kg 304 Nm 142 W/Kg 27,130Cr

Mercedes-Benz SL 500 (R129) '98
PP 438 FR 302 HP 1800 kg 460 Nm 125 W/Kg 168,090Cr

Subaru LEGACY B4 RSK '98
PP 435 4WD 276 HP 1440 kg 343 Nm 143 W/Kg 25,880Cr

Nissan SILVIA spec-R AERO (S15) '99
PP 434 FR 246 HP 1240 kg 274 Nm 148 W/Kg 25,600Cr

Toyota SOARER 2.5GT-T '97
PP 430 FR 276 HP 1560 kg 377 Nm 132 W/Kg 35,000Cr

Honda S2000 (EU) '99
PP 428 FR 246 HP 1240 kg 218 Nm 148 W/Kg 33,800Cr

Audi S4 '98
PP 428 4WD 261 HP 1510 kg 400 Nm 129 W/Kg 71,220Cr

Mitsubishi ECLIPSE GT '95
PP 413 FF 227 HP 1330 kg 289 Nm 127 W/Kg 21,420 Cr

Mercedes-Benz 190 E 2.5 -16 Evolution II '91
PP 410 FR 232 HP 1340 kg 245 Nm 129 W/Kg 67,910 Cr

Ford Taurus SHO '98
PP 407 FF 235 HP 1509 kg 312 Nm 116 W/Kg 27,510 Cr

I have not driven those cars recently so my evaluation is only based on the data list.

Some comments on the cars:

To me the Taurus, S4 and Legacy are no real Sports Cars and because of that don't fit the list.👎
The Eclipse and the 190 E are great cars but I'm not sure if they have enough power, probably that should be tested.:confused:
The S2000 is good but maybe a bit too little torque.:rolleyes:
The Silvia and the Soarer fit perfect in my opinion.👍
The SL 500 might be too strong, at least for #2 on the list but is worth a 2nd thought, for the reason alone it's a pimp ride.:D
 
watermelon punch
Well that's that. We was warned! :lol:

The MR2 was involved in 2 contacts & and at least 2 off-tracks in its debut points race. And 2 major race incidents in the 2nd race. (Different drivers.)

Every car list has some dodgy cars. But yeah, I think the MR2 in the 90s list distinguishes itself more prominently among its list companions.
Much more than I had anticipated.

I'll cut the MR2 right now, if there's support for that.

I mean I'm sad to see an MR2 ruled out, but frankly, I think there's too many questions & concerns about it.

???
@LongbowX @snowgt @tarnheld @Chiochan @nickg07 @Patrick8308

I was about to announce a change (soon) in the Hot Hatch List.
So we can just do this too.

I don't know what car would make sense to put in its place. But would it really be a terrible thing to just cut the MR2?
Several lists have #1 bummers.
(PT Loser ahem PT LOSER) :lol:


At least we don't have the WILL in any of our lists. (yet) :eek: :sly:
Click to expand...

Regarding Hot Hatches ... I've made another complete run through on Motegi East, but haven't posted the times yet in our private conversation. Will post later today. These times should help figure out what's what.

I think the MR2 is fast, but it's very hard to be consistent even for a good driver.

So, if you want to replace it ... I've been looking for a possible replacement that would fit between the Celica and the Lancer Evo II, and what are you guys thinking about the Mercedes SL's from '98 (there's not much difference in speed between the SL500 and the SL600, so it wouldn't matter much which one)? They should fit in between performance-wise and these cars surely have been widely ignored by many. It would also shift the focus a little away from the Japanese cars on that list. So they do sort of fit the profile. ;)

I don't think the GT-Four is that slow. And even if, as a number 1 car on the list, it is supposed to be slow up to a certain extent. Had to drive it at Laguna and it was ok.
 
Patrick8308
While @tarnheld was replying I was looking through kudosprime too looking for possible cars.

I made this following list with the data of the MR2 in comparison to the alternatives:

Toyota MR2 GT-S '97
PP 435 MR 242 HP 1270 kg 304 Nm 142 W/Kg 27,130Cr

Mercedes-Benz SL 500 (R129) '98
PP 438 FR 302 HP 1800 kg 460 Nm 125 W/Kg 168,090Cr

Subaru LEGACY B4 RSK '98
PP 435 4WD 276 HP 1440 kg 343 Nm 143 W/Kg 25,880Cr

Nissan SILVIA spec-R AERO (S15) '99
PP 434 FR 246 HP 1240 kg 274 Nm 148 W/Kg 25,600Cr

Toyota SOARER 2.5GT-T '97
PP 430 FR 276 HP 1560 kg 377 Nm 132 W/Kg 35,000Cr

Honda S2000 (EU) '99
PP 428 FR 246 HP 1240 kg 218 Nm 148 W/Kg 33,800Cr

Audi S4 '98
PP 428 4WD 261 HP 1510 kg 400 Nm 129 W/Kg 71,220Cr

Mitsubishi ECLIPSE GT '95
PP 413 FF 227 HP 1330 kg 289 Nm 127 W/Kg 21,420 Cr

Mercedes-Benz 190 E 2.5 -16 Evolution II '91
PP 410 FR 232 HP 1340 kg 245 Nm 129 W/Kg 67,910 Cr

Ford Taurus SHO '98
PP 407 FF 235 HP 1509 kg 312 Nm 116 W/Kg 27,510 Cr

I have not driven those cars recently so my evaluation is only based on the data list.

Some comments on the cars:

To me the Taurus, S4 and Legacy are no real Sports Cars and because of that don't fit the list.👎
The Eclipse and the 190 E are great cars but I'm not sure if they have enough power, probably that should be tested.:confused:
The S2000 is good but maybe a bit too little torque.:rolleyes:
The Silvia and the Soarer fit perfect in my opinion.👍
The SL 500 might be too strong, at least for #2 on the list but is worth a 2nd thought, for the reason alone it's a pimp ride.:D
Click to expand...

Taurus, Soarer, Eclipse ... slower than the GT-Four.
Legacy ... somewhere in the area, but not really a sports coupé.
Audi S4, Mercedes 190 ... fit in more like at #4
Silvia spec-R, S2000 ... too fast. (unless you want the fill a gap up front)
SL500 ... I also just made that suggestion. 👍 (don't let the raw data fool you - it's really slow given its power)
 
Is the Soarer really that slow?:eek:
I mean it's 276 HP and 377 Nm (way more then the MR2), sure a bit heavy on the other hand.
And the 190 so fast with only 410PP?:eek: Didn't expect that. I mean i knew it might be a bit better than the numbers saying, thats why I thouhgt it could fit, but too fast?
The Silvia is quick for sure, also better then the Celica but better than the Lancer too? Wouldn't it fit right in between those 2 cars on #2?:confused:
And the S2000's performance is better than the stats may seem, that's clear. But is it really TOO fast with only 218Nm?:confused:

In my opinion SL 500, 190 E, Silvia, S2000 and Soarer would be worth a test.
Sadly I don't have the chance for playing this week.:indiff:
 
Patrick8308
Is the Soarer really that slow?:eek:
I mean it's 276 HP and 377 Nm (way more then the MR2), sure a bit heavy on the other hand.
And the 190 so fast with only 410PP?:eek: Didn't expect that. I mean i knew it might be a bit better than the numbers saying, thats why I thouhgt it could fit, but too fast?
The Silvia is quick for sure, also better then the Celica but better than the Lancer too? Wouldn't it fit right in between those 2 cars on #2?:confused:
And the S2000's performance is better than the stats may seem, that's clear. But is it really TOO fast with only 218Nm?:confused:

In my opinion SL 500, 190 E, Silvia, S2000 and Soarer would be worth a test.
Sadly I don't have the chance for playing this week.:indiff:
Click to expand...

Maybe I should elaborate. What I said about the Silvia was referring to your suggestion of the spec-R. That one is way faster, more like in the RX-7 territory (as is the S2000). There are actually some Silvia models that could fit at #2, that being...

Silvia K's Aero (S14) '93
SilEighty '98
Silvia K's (S13) '91
Silvia K's Aero (S14) '96

Also the Mitsubishi FTO GP Version R '97 or '99 could fit. As I said, I would personally prefer some variety in the list though, as it's not specifically a 90's Japanese list and non-Japanese cars are quite under-represented at the moment.


The PP-values in the game are a calculated figure. Nobody knows exactly how they are calculated, but we do know that the integral of power and torque do factor in. So, the absolute peak figures of power and torque might be high, but the PP-figure might not reflect that. Also, the other way round, if you have decent power and torque across a wide rpm-range, it might inflate the PP-figure, but performance can still be mediocre. So, looking at PP-figures is unfortunately only a rough approximation of a car's speed.
 
Like I mentioned I haven't driven the listed cars recently or can't remember the performance right.

I was just sorting through the list picking the potential cars. And I was aiming for opinions and you just expressed yours.👍

Maybe the Americans will state their thoughts and experiences too when they wake up?:D

With the Silvia there really is the option to choose the exact fitting model.👍

Actually I wouldn't like to give up the S2000 already since there is no Honda yet in the higher power lists of Luxury and 90s Sports. There is only one model of the S2000 from the 90s and I was happy when it came to my eye. Of course it is the one with worst performance of all S2000s due to the following models have been upgraded.

I do agree with you, a Mercedes would be most interesting since there are a lot Japanese in the list already.👍

The SL 600 might go a bit over the target, especially because there is the alternative SL 500.

And why not test SL 500 vs. 190 E ?:dunce:

Maybe the right fitting Mercedes from the 90s could be found and would increase the diversity of the list.:)
 
Patrick8308
And why not test SL 500 vs. 190 E ?:dunce:
Click to expand...

The 190 is more of a race car, i fear that it will take another spot than #2 in the list. SL500 would be fine with me if it fits the spot.

For reordering we need the TT times only of the particular car from all test drivers on their respective tracks, as the times for the other cars are quite fresh and don't need to be redone. But let's wait for the boss (that's @watermelon punch) until further action.
 
Patrick8308
Like I mentioned I haven't driven the listed cars recently or can't remember the performance right.

I was just sorting through the list picking the potential cars. And I was aiming for opinions and you just expressed yours.👍

Maybe the Americans will state their thoughts and experiences too when they wake up?:D

With the Silvia there really is the option to choose the exact fitting model.👍

Actually I wouldn't like to give up the S2000 already since there is no Honda yet in the higher power lists of Luxury and 90s Sports. There is only one model of the S2000 from the 90s and I was happy when it came to my eye. Of course it is the one with worst performance of all S2000s due to the following models have been upgraded.

I do agree with you, a Mercedes would be most interesting since there are a lot Japanese in the list already.👍

The SL 600 might go a bit over the target, especially because there is the alternative SL 500.

And why not test SL 500 vs. 190 E ?:dunce:

Maybe the right fitting Mercedes from the 90s could be found and would increase the diversity of the list.:)
Click to expand...

Actually there is no performance difference in almost all of the S2000's. ('99-'03, Type V, EU-US-JP, ...) Only the '06 (premium model) is different (=slower).
 
In Post #2 or Post #3 of this thread, there's a txt file attached... it's labeled 90s testing.
You can look through that and see if @LongbowX tested any of the cars you're looking at for a replacement.
(there were several that were cut which maybe should be reconsidered?)

I'm afraid I'm out of my element here because I think I only tested the final list, and I'm not very familiar with these cars, to be able to surmise anything off the cuff.


Append: Also the txt file named 000 car test times (or something like that) has some 90s cars test times from amarynceos
 
I crunched trough SuzukaStar's laptimes for Suzuka and Laguna Seca, and checked for 90's cars between the GT-Four and the MR2. Seems he didn't test the SL500, and the SL600 only on Suzuka, but here is a list of candidates:

Suzuka/Laguna Seca

2:26.554/1:50.892 - 434 - Toyota MR2 GT-S '97

2:28.926/1:51.620 - 428 - Audi S4 '98
2:29.424/1:52.089 - 435 - Subaru Legacy B4 RSK '98
2:27.793/1:53.356 - 449 - BMW M Coupe '98
2:29.357/0:00.000 - 464 - 1998 Mercedes-Benz SL 600 (R129)

2:29.835/1:52.506 - 424 - Toyota Celica GT-Four (ST205) '98
 
I like the BMW too, actually it is the Z3, cool car.👍
The TT times of it are looking promising so that one may be a choice too despite it's understeer.
 
tarnheld
I crunched trough SuzukaStar's laptimes for Suzuka and Laguna Seca, and checked for 90's cars between the GT-Four and the MR2. Seems he didn't test the SL500, and the SL600 only on Suzuka, but here is a list of candidates:

Suzuka/Laguna Seca

2:26.554/1:50.892 - 434 - Toyota MR2 GT-S '97

2:28.926/1:51.620 - 428 - Audi S4 '98
2:29.424/1:52.089 - 435 - Subaru Legacy B4 RSK '98
2:27.793/1:53.356 - 449 - BMW M Coupe '98
2:29.357/0:00.000 - 464 - 1998 Mercedes-Benz SL 600 (R129)

2:29.835/1:52.506 - 424 - Toyota Celica GT-Four (ST205) '98
Click to expand...

There's something wrong with those times. I don't think it's very likely that the BMW is 1.7s faster than the Legacy at Suzuka and 1.3 slower at Laguna. I'll make a test session with GT-Four, Lancer Evo II, and the new candidates that should fit in between.
 

Latest Posts

Back