A BoP buff would just make it an inferior GT-R clone. Right now it lacks in acceleration, which is easily fixed by BoP, but the main problem it has is chronic tyre wear, which is almost comparable in severity to that of the GT-R, while having nothing to show for it. It handles like a dream, I'll give you that. But even in races without tyre wear, like this week's Race B at Red Bull Ring for example, where even the understeering mess that is the Memesubishi 5 Speed Evo has top 10 time spots in Asia, the Atenza is not even in the conversation.
Besides, if Mazda cars start getting buffs in BoP right after becoming partnered with Gran Turismo, it'd reek of favourtism, and I personally wouldn't want that as a Mazda fan. In the past few BoP changes, the Atenza Gr. 4 has been completely untouched, leading me to believe that PD thinks the Atenza is perfectly balanced.
Even with the adjusted tyre wear rates for FFs and AWD, the Gr. 4 Atenza is god awful. I think what it needs more than anything is an adjustible centre diff. The Gr. 3 Atenza is in my mind the best all rounder FR car in Gr. 3 alongside the AMG GT3, and I wholly believe that the sole reason why Mazda hasn't ever made a World Tour event by merit is because the Gr. 4 car is so hopeless. As hyped as I am for the RX-Vision to appear again after 5 years, Mazda right now doesn't need another Gr. 3 car - the Atenza Gr. 3 is perfectly fine. What Mazda needs right now is a firm kick in the balls in Gr. 4.
Or we can skip over all that and "just" get a RX-Vision GT4. Even the Amemiya FD on racing tyres would run circles around the freaking Atenza.
It cant be just one car right? right?
RE Amemiya is treated a separate manufacturer in the games, it would need some red-tape/code workaround for that to work. Also I have feeling that (later) JAF-GT300 cars might be in Gr.3 territory (they have to keep up with GT3 cars after all).Amemiya GT300 is better than that. PD work it's BOP magic and it's all good. Could have used the Base Model, if licencing was a problem.
PDLOGIC ™ would place it in GR.4 though.
I'm not sure why the Atenza Gr.4 is so slow to be honest. Looking at the BOP stats on paper, it actually has the highest power out of all Gr.4 cars save for the Veyron and GT-R (and those 2 weigh a lot more). Weight wise, it's the lightest save for the FF cars, Alfa and GT86. Evo and WRX are only slightly lighter but they can put down much better laptimes Top speed wise, the Atenza is also faster than those 2 bricks. Handling and braking are similar. So that only leaves acceleration. I'm convinced the default gearing is the culprit here, because it's so sluggish compared to those 2. Even the Evo with only 5 gears out accelerates it
Tyre wear it's quite similar to the other 4WD and better than FF, but without the speed advantage that the others have early in the stint, you can't really run away from the pack before the wear sets in. Having said that, Akagi-san set the WR at Bathurst in the Atenza Gr.4 a few seasons back, so if you're an alien it's still possible to do well in it. Just not for us mere mortals
Then, gearing comes into it.
About the Atenza GR.4, it has 404bhp/1380kg(BOP). The programming just ain't right. It should be, proportionally, as good as it's Gr.3 variant.
The gearing is bad as well. 1st gear is too short. 2nd gear is too long. When I first started using it a couple years ago, I could hunt cars down at Bathurst, in the Daily Races. Top speed used to be good at DT Seaside. The BOP hasn't changed, but the performance somehow, has.
It's interesting you bring that up. I never looked at the raw specs of the cars. I never knew the Atenza looked so promising on paper. Yes, the Atenza is a decent hot lap car. I'm aware Akagi-san set a WR at Bathurst, and then proceeded to win Manufacturers' for Mazda in that same season.
Here's a link to the Manufacturers' results for that season.
This is Akagi-san's results for that season:
To bring this back to the RX-Vision, unless the RX-Vision is Audi R8 LMS levels of hot lap brilliance with 911 RSR levels of longevity, the RX-Vision hardly changes a thing for Mazda as a manufacturer in GTS. Highly unlikely it'd be that good given it's yet another front engined car. As of right now, to be a competitive FR in Gr. 3, you need to either be a Merc, or be a powerhouse like the GT-R and Supra. The only hope I have of it being a standout in any area is in fuel consumption, ironically, given its comparatively tiny displacement.
At Le Mans Daily Races, it can do a no stop. It's a good all-rounder. 962 seems to be the best in BOP spec. C9 accelerates the quickest. XJR has mid-range to top end and the R92 is slightly below the C9.Yes the BOP specs don't always tell the whole story. On paper the WRX and Evo also has one of the highest horsepowers, but we all know how slow those cars are on the straights. Probably because of the aerodynamics. The Atenza has higher top speed than those two, but for some reason just cannot pull the same laptimes. I haven't driven Mazda over a whole season so I can't really comment on the handling subtleties.
Thanks for pulling up Akagi's results. I'm still not sure why Bathurst is an exception to be honest. Probably because half the track is downhill so it negates the slow acceleration somewhat, and you can easily block a much faster car in the uphill sections if you qualify well enough with a tow. But yes, choosing Mazda, you're basically forfeiting half of the races at the start...
With regards to the RXV, it really doesn't matter how good it is, because Mazda is an official partner and will go to the live event regardless. It's a bit unfair, because if Mazda isn't in top 12 by merit that means 1 manufacturer will be sacrificed even though they qualified on track. Lamborghini is the only other manu never to get to a live event, and in Oceania currently being driven by one of the fastest aliens (Dan Holland), and we are just hanging on to 12th world rank because NA/CSA doesn't pull the points.
If it ends up being powered by rotary, I don't even think it will have good fuel consumption How does the 787B compare to the other Group C's in that respect?
Well, what's interesting is this update doesn't fall on the last week of this month, so they might be trying to get this one out before some FIA deadline. I think there could still be a chance we'll be seeing the Lamborghini VGT and maybe one of the Porsches included a week after this one.