So i have been on these forums for a couple of months now and other than opinions i havent really contributed to the forums. I personally question some of the physics and data in this game, so i decided why not test some of it?
It would answer some of my questions and some of the data may be of use to other players too.
*** I have tried to keep this as short and simple as possible, but it needs to be reasonably in depth otherwise its not worth doing, so i apologise if this is a bit of a long read, i can understand if you cant be bothered, so i have marked the more technical sections with three stars, like i have done this section, so you can skip those if you wish. I do recommend you read it all to get the most out of this though.
I am a huge car nut IRL and something that i have always been interested in, and done myself, is modifying my cars. For me its as much about selecting the right components to make a good base as much as it is about setting those components up correctly. Now you can argue about how important low weight is and how important suspension setup is, but in reality we all know that not only is the engine equally important but it also the heart of the car, its what gives it a soul and can be the defining feature of any car. You could be driving a terrible car, but if it has a brilliant engine then that can make up for everything else, likewise, a car can have a perfect chassis, but if the engine isnt up to the job it will overshadow everything else. Choosing the right aspiration for your motor is a key part of this process.
I have built three seperate and differently aspirated cars. The cars themselves are otherwise identical.
Before i start, i would just like to add that i am no pro driver. I am consistant when i put my mind to it but im not fast compared to some on here, so the only relevance of my recorded times are against the other cars. If you think im slow, dont really care, and your missing the point of all of this. The key is consistancy here.
The Base car.
I chose the Toyota Celica MK7 SS-II ZZT231 for this test and for several reasons. First, and most importantly, it can be tuned with NA, Turbo and supercharger options. Secondly its a relatively easy car to drive, and such will help me be as consistant as possible. I have carried out the following upgrades to each car, as i did'nt want the chassis to be the limiting factor.
Racing suspension : Soft.
Sport Soft tyres.
Weight reduction stage 1.
Standard gearbox, drivetrain, clutch and brakes.
No oil change or chassis reinforcements.
The Engines.
The following upgrades have been applied to each respective car. I decided against limiting the power of egnines, as this would give an unfair torque advantage, so i tried my best to match the engines power outputs.
The Naturally Aspirated car.
Sports ECU @ 1,500cr. Intake tuning @ 4,300cr. Sports exhaust @ 1,200cr. Engine stage 3 @ 40,000cr.
Total cost 46,000cr.
The Supercharged car.
Sports ECU @ 1,500cr. Intake tuning @ 4,300cr. Sports exhaust @ 1,200cr. Supercharger @ 18,000cr.
Total cost 25,000cr.
The Turbocharged car.
Sports ECU @ 1,500cr. Intake tuning @ 4,300cr. Turbo stage 3 @ 20,500cr
Total cost 26,300cr.
Final specifications.
Here is the final outputs of each engine.
Naturally aspirated ..254bhp @ 8100rpm 23.3kgfm @ 7600rpm PP442
Supercharged .........254bhp @ 7800rpm 26.0kgfm @ 4300rpm PP445
Turbocharged .........253bhp @ 7900rpm 24.1kgfm @ 7200rpm PP442
*** Now looking at the above figures you can clearly see there is a difference in character with these engines. One of the major issues i have with this game is a lack of information. When you fit the supercharger, the description does not say what type of supercharger you are fitting.
*** Without getting too in depth about the various types of centrifugal and screw type blowers, it really does make a huge difference. Looking at the data above i can see that it is most likely a screw type blower, as these generate near instant and full boost at low revs, hence the much increased torque levels and the larger torque band.
*** This also brings up another problem. The Turbocharged engine makes barely any more torque than the Naturally Aspirated engine. This is wrong. There is two ways to create more power. You can increase revs, which is the principle behind the NA tune or you can increase torque which is what forced induction effectively does, afterall BHP = lb-ft multiplied by rpm divided by 5252. However i am going to let this roll for now, as the turbo is a high RPM setup and it lacks the sports exhaust which would be a major restriction, so i am going to give PD the benefit of the doubt for now.
Something else that i find slightly annoying, is that no weight is added by these modifications. A turbocharger or supercharger system is not light. It really should be accounted for, but as usual PD knows better than real life so it gets ignored.
The tests.
The first test.
Now the first test i wanted to do was to measure the outright performance of each engine. Thanks to PD obviously knowing better than us, there is no way to actually do this, so i compromised and used Special stage Route X.
For the first test i set the transmission to auto, set traction control to 5 and stopped the car at the start line. I would hold the brakes and the throttle and then release the brakes and then pause the game as i crossed the 400m mark, where i would take a note of the time and speed crossing the line.
Using Traction Control and the Auto box removes any mistakes i might make getting off the line or changing gears. I was surprised at how consistant it was at this, however it is best to accept that these times are only a guide and not necessarily completely accurate.
For the sake of it, i also measured the time and speed at 2km too.
Here are the results from the first test.
Car......... Run 1.................. Run 2................... Run 3................. Average................. 2KM
NA -13.983 @ 102mph -13.966 @ 102mph -13.966 @ 102mph -13.971 @ 102mph--40.333 @ 159mph
SC -13.666 @ 104mph -13.633 @ 104mph -13.734 @ 104mph -13.677 @ 104mph -39.566 @ 162mph
TC -14.134 @ 100mph -14.100 @ 101mph -14.113 @ 101mph -14.115 @ 101mph -40.767 @ 158mph
Now you can see that despite the similar PP rating and the same bhp rating the supercharged car is considerably faster. Its pretty easy to work out why, as this car has much more torque.
*** The reason why this extra torque makes such a difference is twofold. Firstly because BHP is only a measurement of work done, whereas the torque is a measurement of how much force the engine is capable of producing. Secondly, the supercharged car has the larger torque and power bands, which means this car is making more power and more torque, more often. Thats the key to driveability and why large displacement 'lazier' engines normally always offer greater performance in the real world.
Funnily enough, depsite having less torque the NA car is faster than the Turbo car. This could be due to many reasons, such as a better power band or more traction off the line, but nonetheless, its clear that it is the faster car compared to the turbo car.
The second test.
For the second test i wanted to measure driveability. A great way to measure this is try try in gear acceleration, using the cars torque to propel it, instead of dropping down a gear or two and using the revs.
Again im at SSRX here and i am using the 400m mark like last time. However this time i am using a manual gearbox. I put the car into 6th gear and maintain a constant 70mph until i reach the start line, at which point i nail the throttle, keeping the car in 6th. I record the car at the 400m mark just like last time.
Here are the results from the second test.
Car............................... Run 1................... Run 2.................... Run 3................. Average
Naturally Aspirated. 10.666 @ 96mph--- 10.693 @ 96mph--- 10.667 @ 96mph--- 10.675 @ 96mph
Supercharged......... 10.250 @ 102mph- 10.275 @ 102mph- 10.251 @ 102mph- 10.258 @ 102mph
Turbocharged......... 10.617 @ 96mph--- 10.639 @ 96mph--- 10.637 @ 96mph--- 10.624 @ 96mph
Now these results show up something different than last time. Again the Supercharged car is clearly much faster but this time around the Turbocharged car beats the Naturally Aspirated car. This is most likely due to the fact that in the last test, peak power was king but in this test torque is all that matters, and the Turbo engine makes more at lower revs.
The Third test.
Now its no use doing all this if none of it actually related to a greater performance from the car. So i thought it was time to take it to a track. I wanted somewhere where the corners where relatively consistant, where there was medium length straights, heavy traction zones and where a really good engine would a make a big difference. I chose Twin Ring Motegi Road course, as it ticks all of the above boxes, plus i know it well and can dial in consistant times relatiely quickly here.
I changed the driving setting to what i like, no TC, ABS1, NO SRF and Manual gearbox. I then went out and did 10 fast laps around the track in each car, taking the four fastest from each and averaging them out. To stop the last car getting an advantage over the first due to becoming more familiar with the car and track, i went out in a similar car for ten laps before hand to get a feel for things.
Now this isnt all about lap times, its also about how easy to drive the car is. So ill start off with how the cars felt.
Natural Aspirated car - The NA car felt very peaky and required a lot of revs to make the most of it. The lower torque and linear power band meant the car was easier to get on the throttle early and traction out of corners was rarely an issue.
Supercharged Car - The supercharged car felt totally different to the NA car. The gears feel shorter due to the lower rev limit. You find yourself in a higher gear in most situations but the extra torque helps to pull the car out of corners. Traction is normally okay thanks to the higher gear but occasionally a heavy throttle application would break traction, so i needed to be careful sometimes.
Turbocharged car - Feels very peaky like the NA car. It feels like there is only a very short power band which is easily dropped out of. Sometimes 3rd gear is too short, but 4th gear is too long. It has the peakyness of the NA car but the lower rev limit of the SC car but with none of the benefits of either.
Now for the times. Again these are the four fastest laps i carried out, put together and averaged.
Car............................ Lap 1........ Lap2....... Lap 3....... Lap 4..... Average
Naturallly Aspirated... 2.12.063 - 2.12.133 - 2.12.075 - 2.12.118 - 2.12.097
Supercharged........... 2.10.193 - 2.09.983 - 2.10.153 - 2.10.127 - 2.10.114
Turbocharged........... 2.11.854 - 2.12.172 - 2.11.844 - 2.12.098 - 2.11.992
As you can see The supercharged car is nearly two seconds faster than both other cars. Despite being nearly the same PP, the same power and having an identical chassis and drivetrain, the sheer torque of the the Supercharged car makes that much difference. In a ten lap race thats 20 seconds. Thats a huge difference, pretty much a second a lap.
Having looked at these results though, i wasnt entirely convinced by the turbo cars performance. As i stated above, a turbo car with the same BHP as a Naturally aspirated car should really make more torque. I questioned whether my choice of the stage 3 turbo was really for the best so i decided to create another Turbo car.
I wanted more torque lower down, so i used a stage 1 turbo and then fitted an uprated manifold and cat to make up for the loss of power.
Here is the spec for that car...
The second Turbocharged car (turbo 2).
Sports ECU @ 1,500cr. Intake tuning @ 4,300cr. Sport exhaust @ 1,200cr. Exhaust manifold @ 3,000cr. Sport cat @ 1,000cr. Turbo stage 1 @ 7,000cr
Total cost 18,000cr
Turbocharged 2. 256bhp @ 8000rpm 24.0kgfm @ 7000rpm PP444
Compared to....
Turbocharged 1. 253bhp @ 7900rpm 24.1kgfm @ 7200rpm PP442
Now we have gained two PP but i was disapointed that the torque had actually dropped and even more disapointed that the peak torque had only lowered by 200rpm. Peak power was actually higher. Whats the point of having various stage turbo's aimed at different RPM ranges when they dont seem to make much difference on paper? But what works in theory doesnt always work in real life, so i carried out the test's incase what it says on paper doesnt equal what happens in the game.
I have made a shorter chart so it can be easily compared to the other cars.
Car......................... Standing 400m....... Standing 2km.......... Rolling 400m...... Motegi
.................................. average................. average................ average.......... average
Naturally Aspirated. 13.971 @ 102mph - 40.333 @ 159mph - 10.675 @ 96mph... 2.12.097
Supercharged........ 13.677 @ 104mph - 39.566 @ 162mph - 10.258 @ 102mph.. 2.10.114
Turbo 1 (stage 3)... 14.115 @ 101mph - 40.767 @ 158mph - 10.624 @ 96mph... 2.11.992
Turbo 2 (stage 1)... 13.934 @ 102mph - 40.084 @ 160mph - 10.417 @ 98mph... 2.11.065
As you can see, the stage 1 turbo car is not only faster than the stage 3 turbo car, but its consistantly faster than the Naturally Aspirated car. It even halfs the gap between the stage 3 turbo and the supercharged car. Its massively improved over the original turbo car. To drive it doesnt feel all that different around Motegi but it does have a larger power and torque band, so doesnt feel like you drop out of the power band as often, and it shows with the lap times.
Im still not happy that what should really be a completely different turbo isnt actually that different, and i have to question what effect some of the other parts i fitted had on the performance too, which is a shame really.
What to take from all of this?
The main thing to take from this is that its no good being the best at setting a car up if the base car isnt that quick to start with. If you put the right parts together it can make the world of difference.
It also backs up that torque makes a bigger difference than people realise. It also supports the method that a lot of people use to tune a car when they are restricted to a certain PP limit, where they will fully tune an engine but then use the power limiter to bring the power level down. This leaves you with a much greater torque band than if you only added just enough parts to make your PP or power restriction.
*** Another thing is that PD havent got the turbo's right on all cars. The characterists of both turbo cars should have been totally different but they werent. There was enough of a difference to measure but it wasnt as big as it would have been in real life. To me this is like fitting a GT3071 turbo to the celica for the stage 3 setup, then fitting a GT28RS for the stage 1 and finding there isnt really much difference, whereas in reality it would give two totally different results. This is odd, because ive tried various turbo stages on other cars, one example being the R18 TDi, and you get massively different results in torque and power.
Anyway, thank you for taking the time to read this, i hope it wasnt too boring. And i really hope it helps some people out there. If there is enough interest im going to try seeing if there is an advantage or disadvantage to choosing two or four wheel drive cars and how it affects the PP rating system.
Sorry if this all looks a bit scruffy. I wrote it on my computer and transferred it onto here and it didn't go smoothly and I had to edit and tidy it up a bit.
It would answer some of my questions and some of the data may be of use to other players too.
*** I have tried to keep this as short and simple as possible, but it needs to be reasonably in depth otherwise its not worth doing, so i apologise if this is a bit of a long read, i can understand if you cant be bothered, so i have marked the more technical sections with three stars, like i have done this section, so you can skip those if you wish. I do recommend you read it all to get the most out of this though.
I am a huge car nut IRL and something that i have always been interested in, and done myself, is modifying my cars. For me its as much about selecting the right components to make a good base as much as it is about setting those components up correctly. Now you can argue about how important low weight is and how important suspension setup is, but in reality we all know that not only is the engine equally important but it also the heart of the car, its what gives it a soul and can be the defining feature of any car. You could be driving a terrible car, but if it has a brilliant engine then that can make up for everything else, likewise, a car can have a perfect chassis, but if the engine isnt up to the job it will overshadow everything else. Choosing the right aspiration for your motor is a key part of this process.
I have built three seperate and differently aspirated cars. The cars themselves are otherwise identical.
Before i start, i would just like to add that i am no pro driver. I am consistant when i put my mind to it but im not fast compared to some on here, so the only relevance of my recorded times are against the other cars. If you think im slow, dont really care, and your missing the point of all of this. The key is consistancy here.
The Base car.
I chose the Toyota Celica MK7 SS-II ZZT231 for this test and for several reasons. First, and most importantly, it can be tuned with NA, Turbo and supercharger options. Secondly its a relatively easy car to drive, and such will help me be as consistant as possible. I have carried out the following upgrades to each car, as i did'nt want the chassis to be the limiting factor.
Racing suspension : Soft.
Sport Soft tyres.
Weight reduction stage 1.
Standard gearbox, drivetrain, clutch and brakes.
No oil change or chassis reinforcements.
The Engines.
The following upgrades have been applied to each respective car. I decided against limiting the power of egnines, as this would give an unfair torque advantage, so i tried my best to match the engines power outputs.
The Naturally Aspirated car.
Sports ECU @ 1,500cr. Intake tuning @ 4,300cr. Sports exhaust @ 1,200cr. Engine stage 3 @ 40,000cr.
Total cost 46,000cr.
The Supercharged car.
Sports ECU @ 1,500cr. Intake tuning @ 4,300cr. Sports exhaust @ 1,200cr. Supercharger @ 18,000cr.
Total cost 25,000cr.
The Turbocharged car.
Sports ECU @ 1,500cr. Intake tuning @ 4,300cr. Turbo stage 3 @ 20,500cr
Total cost 26,300cr.
Final specifications.
Here is the final outputs of each engine.
Naturally aspirated ..254bhp @ 8100rpm 23.3kgfm @ 7600rpm PP442
Supercharged .........254bhp @ 7800rpm 26.0kgfm @ 4300rpm PP445
Turbocharged .........253bhp @ 7900rpm 24.1kgfm @ 7200rpm PP442
*** Now looking at the above figures you can clearly see there is a difference in character with these engines. One of the major issues i have with this game is a lack of information. When you fit the supercharger, the description does not say what type of supercharger you are fitting.
*** Without getting too in depth about the various types of centrifugal and screw type blowers, it really does make a huge difference. Looking at the data above i can see that it is most likely a screw type blower, as these generate near instant and full boost at low revs, hence the much increased torque levels and the larger torque band.
*** This also brings up another problem. The Turbocharged engine makes barely any more torque than the Naturally Aspirated engine. This is wrong. There is two ways to create more power. You can increase revs, which is the principle behind the NA tune or you can increase torque which is what forced induction effectively does, afterall BHP = lb-ft multiplied by rpm divided by 5252. However i am going to let this roll for now, as the turbo is a high RPM setup and it lacks the sports exhaust which would be a major restriction, so i am going to give PD the benefit of the doubt for now.
Something else that i find slightly annoying, is that no weight is added by these modifications. A turbocharger or supercharger system is not light. It really should be accounted for, but as usual PD knows better than real life so it gets ignored.
The tests.
The first test.
Now the first test i wanted to do was to measure the outright performance of each engine. Thanks to PD obviously knowing better than us, there is no way to actually do this, so i compromised and used Special stage Route X.
For the first test i set the transmission to auto, set traction control to 5 and stopped the car at the start line. I would hold the brakes and the throttle and then release the brakes and then pause the game as i crossed the 400m mark, where i would take a note of the time and speed crossing the line.
Using Traction Control and the Auto box removes any mistakes i might make getting off the line or changing gears. I was surprised at how consistant it was at this, however it is best to accept that these times are only a guide and not necessarily completely accurate.
For the sake of it, i also measured the time and speed at 2km too.
Here are the results from the first test.
Car......... Run 1.................. Run 2................... Run 3................. Average................. 2KM
NA -13.983 @ 102mph -13.966 @ 102mph -13.966 @ 102mph -13.971 @ 102mph--40.333 @ 159mph
SC -13.666 @ 104mph -13.633 @ 104mph -13.734 @ 104mph -13.677 @ 104mph -39.566 @ 162mph
TC -14.134 @ 100mph -14.100 @ 101mph -14.113 @ 101mph -14.115 @ 101mph -40.767 @ 158mph
Now you can see that despite the similar PP rating and the same bhp rating the supercharged car is considerably faster. Its pretty easy to work out why, as this car has much more torque.
*** The reason why this extra torque makes such a difference is twofold. Firstly because BHP is only a measurement of work done, whereas the torque is a measurement of how much force the engine is capable of producing. Secondly, the supercharged car has the larger torque and power bands, which means this car is making more power and more torque, more often. Thats the key to driveability and why large displacement 'lazier' engines normally always offer greater performance in the real world.
Funnily enough, depsite having less torque the NA car is faster than the Turbo car. This could be due to many reasons, such as a better power band or more traction off the line, but nonetheless, its clear that it is the faster car compared to the turbo car.
The second test.
For the second test i wanted to measure driveability. A great way to measure this is try try in gear acceleration, using the cars torque to propel it, instead of dropping down a gear or two and using the revs.
Again im at SSRX here and i am using the 400m mark like last time. However this time i am using a manual gearbox. I put the car into 6th gear and maintain a constant 70mph until i reach the start line, at which point i nail the throttle, keeping the car in 6th. I record the car at the 400m mark just like last time.
Here are the results from the second test.
Car............................... Run 1................... Run 2.................... Run 3................. Average
Naturally Aspirated. 10.666 @ 96mph--- 10.693 @ 96mph--- 10.667 @ 96mph--- 10.675 @ 96mph
Supercharged......... 10.250 @ 102mph- 10.275 @ 102mph- 10.251 @ 102mph- 10.258 @ 102mph
Turbocharged......... 10.617 @ 96mph--- 10.639 @ 96mph--- 10.637 @ 96mph--- 10.624 @ 96mph
Now these results show up something different than last time. Again the Supercharged car is clearly much faster but this time around the Turbocharged car beats the Naturally Aspirated car. This is most likely due to the fact that in the last test, peak power was king but in this test torque is all that matters, and the Turbo engine makes more at lower revs.
The Third test.
Now its no use doing all this if none of it actually related to a greater performance from the car. So i thought it was time to take it to a track. I wanted somewhere where the corners where relatively consistant, where there was medium length straights, heavy traction zones and where a really good engine would a make a big difference. I chose Twin Ring Motegi Road course, as it ticks all of the above boxes, plus i know it well and can dial in consistant times relatiely quickly here.
I changed the driving setting to what i like, no TC, ABS1, NO SRF and Manual gearbox. I then went out and did 10 fast laps around the track in each car, taking the four fastest from each and averaging them out. To stop the last car getting an advantage over the first due to becoming more familiar with the car and track, i went out in a similar car for ten laps before hand to get a feel for things.
Now this isnt all about lap times, its also about how easy to drive the car is. So ill start off with how the cars felt.
Natural Aspirated car - The NA car felt very peaky and required a lot of revs to make the most of it. The lower torque and linear power band meant the car was easier to get on the throttle early and traction out of corners was rarely an issue.
Supercharged Car - The supercharged car felt totally different to the NA car. The gears feel shorter due to the lower rev limit. You find yourself in a higher gear in most situations but the extra torque helps to pull the car out of corners. Traction is normally okay thanks to the higher gear but occasionally a heavy throttle application would break traction, so i needed to be careful sometimes.
Turbocharged car - Feels very peaky like the NA car. It feels like there is only a very short power band which is easily dropped out of. Sometimes 3rd gear is too short, but 4th gear is too long. It has the peakyness of the NA car but the lower rev limit of the SC car but with none of the benefits of either.
Now for the times. Again these are the four fastest laps i carried out, put together and averaged.
Car............................ Lap 1........ Lap2....... Lap 3....... Lap 4..... Average
Naturallly Aspirated... 2.12.063 - 2.12.133 - 2.12.075 - 2.12.118 - 2.12.097
Supercharged........... 2.10.193 - 2.09.983 - 2.10.153 - 2.10.127 - 2.10.114
Turbocharged........... 2.11.854 - 2.12.172 - 2.11.844 - 2.12.098 - 2.11.992
As you can see The supercharged car is nearly two seconds faster than both other cars. Despite being nearly the same PP, the same power and having an identical chassis and drivetrain, the sheer torque of the the Supercharged car makes that much difference. In a ten lap race thats 20 seconds. Thats a huge difference, pretty much a second a lap.
Having looked at these results though, i wasnt entirely convinced by the turbo cars performance. As i stated above, a turbo car with the same BHP as a Naturally aspirated car should really make more torque. I questioned whether my choice of the stage 3 turbo was really for the best so i decided to create another Turbo car.
I wanted more torque lower down, so i used a stage 1 turbo and then fitted an uprated manifold and cat to make up for the loss of power.
Here is the spec for that car...
The second Turbocharged car (turbo 2).
Sports ECU @ 1,500cr. Intake tuning @ 4,300cr. Sport exhaust @ 1,200cr. Exhaust manifold @ 3,000cr. Sport cat @ 1,000cr. Turbo stage 1 @ 7,000cr
Total cost 18,000cr
Turbocharged 2. 256bhp @ 8000rpm 24.0kgfm @ 7000rpm PP444
Compared to....
Turbocharged 1. 253bhp @ 7900rpm 24.1kgfm @ 7200rpm PP442
Now we have gained two PP but i was disapointed that the torque had actually dropped and even more disapointed that the peak torque had only lowered by 200rpm. Peak power was actually higher. Whats the point of having various stage turbo's aimed at different RPM ranges when they dont seem to make much difference on paper? But what works in theory doesnt always work in real life, so i carried out the test's incase what it says on paper doesnt equal what happens in the game.
I have made a shorter chart so it can be easily compared to the other cars.
Car......................... Standing 400m....... Standing 2km.......... Rolling 400m...... Motegi
.................................. average................. average................ average.......... average
Naturally Aspirated. 13.971 @ 102mph - 40.333 @ 159mph - 10.675 @ 96mph... 2.12.097
Supercharged........ 13.677 @ 104mph - 39.566 @ 162mph - 10.258 @ 102mph.. 2.10.114
Turbo 1 (stage 3)... 14.115 @ 101mph - 40.767 @ 158mph - 10.624 @ 96mph... 2.11.992
Turbo 2 (stage 1)... 13.934 @ 102mph - 40.084 @ 160mph - 10.417 @ 98mph... 2.11.065
As you can see, the stage 1 turbo car is not only faster than the stage 3 turbo car, but its consistantly faster than the Naturally Aspirated car. It even halfs the gap between the stage 3 turbo and the supercharged car. Its massively improved over the original turbo car. To drive it doesnt feel all that different around Motegi but it does have a larger power and torque band, so doesnt feel like you drop out of the power band as often, and it shows with the lap times.
Im still not happy that what should really be a completely different turbo isnt actually that different, and i have to question what effect some of the other parts i fitted had on the performance too, which is a shame really.
What to take from all of this?
The main thing to take from this is that its no good being the best at setting a car up if the base car isnt that quick to start with. If you put the right parts together it can make the world of difference.
It also backs up that torque makes a bigger difference than people realise. It also supports the method that a lot of people use to tune a car when they are restricted to a certain PP limit, where they will fully tune an engine but then use the power limiter to bring the power level down. This leaves you with a much greater torque band than if you only added just enough parts to make your PP or power restriction.
*** Another thing is that PD havent got the turbo's right on all cars. The characterists of both turbo cars should have been totally different but they werent. There was enough of a difference to measure but it wasnt as big as it would have been in real life. To me this is like fitting a GT3071 turbo to the celica for the stage 3 setup, then fitting a GT28RS for the stage 1 and finding there isnt really much difference, whereas in reality it would give two totally different results. This is odd, because ive tried various turbo stages on other cars, one example being the R18 TDi, and you get massively different results in torque and power.
Anyway, thank you for taking the time to read this, i hope it wasnt too boring. And i really hope it helps some people out there. If there is enough interest im going to try seeing if there is an advantage or disadvantage to choosing two or four wheel drive cars and how it affects the PP rating system.
Sorry if this all looks a bit scruffy. I wrote it on my computer and transferred it onto here and it didn't go smoothly and I had to edit and tidy it up a bit.
Last edited:
.
