Opinion on the Mazda 787B in GTS?

J.D

342
Poland
Poland
I discover a possible mistake in 919 description is says that it has power of 500 hp while in reality its only power for the rear tyres there is also 400 for the front 900 hp in total
Speaking of 787B from what i saw in these videos and comparing them to real life the interior sound is pretty good only the exterior sound from behind the car should scream more and have more rotary. I learned not to definitely judge the sound from watching this yt videos in real game they always sounds better because of better sound quality.
 
1,336
Serbia
Serbia
Warlock__SRB
Porsche on the battery is great. And good power from a little four cylinder engine. Rips through the 7 gears. Little bit of understeer, but very manageable. It will do the 60 minute Le Mans enduro without a pit stop. I can't get any other car to do that, and win.

908 can do without any problem... Also R18s can do it... And old GrC cars are a bit guzzlers, but they have constant over 850hp, where 919 has only 500, so you can drop fuel management on 6 and still have over 650hp on them, and your range goes up by 60%.

J.D
I discover a possible mistake in 919 description is says that it has power of 500 hp while in reality its only power for the rear tyres there is also 400 for the front 900 hp in total
Speaking of 787B from what i saw in these videos and comparing them to real life the interior sound is pretty good only the exterior sound from behind the car should scream more and have more rotary. I learned not to definitely judge the sound from watching this yt videos in real game they always sounds better because of better sound quality.

It only shows constant power, not KERS power.. Both 919 and R18 '16 have around 900hp
 
Last edited by a moderator:
4,749
United States
Ohio
908 can do without any problem... Also R18s can do it..

@rex1825 I've tried both. Tried them all actually. Maybe I'll try again. Audi wasn't good. 908 wasn't either. I run the cars stock, Tires become the problem. I do fuel map 6 and coast a lot, etc. I'm trying the 787 right now. Fuel might make it but I fear tire wear get me.
 
1,336
Serbia
Serbia
Warlock__SRB
I think they've changed tire wear from 6 to 8x. 908 has best MPG by far since they've changed all to 100 liters... Working 3rd shift, when I come home, I'll try it :) don't high rev it, shift when it starts filling the bar, it's low torquer...

Tune up 787B to the max, and drop it to Fuel Map 6... Set it to 450kmph (280mph) and be nice on braking zones :D
 
4,749
United States
Ohio
Nah, I just do cars as is and fuel map 6 and shift when I see a sliver of red on the bar and RH tires.

I'm on lap 10 and the good news is there's 8 laps of fuel left. So (to keep it relevant), I think the Mazda can do all 17 laps, but yeah, I fear the tires, but I'm in P5 right now.

Edit: Okay so the Mazda can indeed go the distance. Unfortunately for me on the last lap (17), I got just a little slip once and the Tomahawk got enough away from me that I couldn't recover enough, even through the Porsche Curves. So I got P2. I'm confident it can be done.
 
Last edited:
Wasn’t that true in real life as well? That the 787B lacked speed and only won because of its impeccable reliability?
When it comes to lack of overall speed compared to the likes of the Sauber and Jag, it’s not surprising. At Le Mans 1991 it was lapped multiple times by the leading cars until the lead cars succumbed to problems one by one.
But there's no C11s or 905s in the game is there?

The 787B registered very similar qualifying and race lap times to the XJR-9 and C9 at Suzuka (slightly slower) and Fuji (very slightly faster), albeit a few years apart. The installation of chicanes on Les Hunaudieres makes a comparison tricky at LM, but looking at how all compared to the Joest 962Cs (and given how the XJR-12 was slower in the 1991 race than the 787B), I'd wager the 787B would be competitive there too.
 
1,336
Serbia
Serbia
Warlock__SRB
Nah, I just do cars as is and fuel map 6 and shift when I see a sliver of red on the bar and RH tires.

I'm on lap 10 and the good news is there's 8 laps of fuel left. So (to keep it relevant), I think the Mazda can do all 17 laps, but yeah, I fear the tires, but I'm in P5 right now.

Edit: Okay so the Mazda can indeed go the distance. Unfortunately for me on the last lap (17), I got just a little slip once and the Tomahawk got enough away from me that I couldn't recover enough, even through the Porsche Curves. So I got P2. I'm confident it can be done.

...you should change that lol. Did with 908 (100%P/100%W) on single tank and around 50% tires left easy... Next is testing famous 787B, but I need a bit of sleep, just returned from 3rd shift lol :)
 
9,021
United States
Murica
BasedAckbar
But there's no C11s or 905s in the game is there?

The 787B registered very similar qualifying and race lap times to the XJR-9 and C9 at Suzuka (slightly slower) and Fuji (very slightly faster), albeit a few years apart. The installation of chicanes on Les Hunaudieres makes a comparison tricky at LM, but looking at how all compared to the Joest 962Cs (and given how the XJR-12 was slower in the 1991 race than the 787B), I'd wager the 787B would be competitive there too.

The 787B was 4 laps down I believe to the Sauber at Le Mans 1991 until the car broke down.

And I hope we do get the C11 and 905.
 
The 787B was 4 laps down I believe to the Sauber at Le Mans 1991 until the car broke down.
And every other car was even more laps down than the lead Mazda (Mazda was running 2nd at that point, and were never really challenged by anyone outside of the Saubers). The C11 was by far the fastest Le Mans car ever at that point, but none of the three cars could last the distance unscathed.

The point is that in-game performance comparisons should not involve the C11, as that car isn't in the game. The 787B should be roughly as quick as the C9 and XJR-9.
 
1,765
And every other car was even more laps down than the lead Mazda (Mazda was running 2nd at that point, and were never really challenged by anyone outside of the Saubers). The C11 was by far the fastest Le Mans car ever at that point, but none of the three cars could last the distance unscathed.

Le Mans is a 24 hour race, who is in first place during the race doesn´t matter, it is the car that crosses the line first after 24 hours that wins, it is really a weird discussion. The 787B beat everyone that year.
 
1,336
Serbia
Serbia
Warlock__SRB
Well, it wasn't the 787B, it was in fact the engine it had :) reliability of Wankel motor...
 
783
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
And every other car was even more laps down than the lead Mazda (Mazda was running 2nd at that point, and were never really challenged by anyone outside of the Saubers). The C11 was by far the fastest Le Mans car ever at that point, but none of the three cars could last the distance unscathed.

The point is that in-game performance comparisons should not involve the C11, as that car isn't in the game. The 787B should be roughly as quick as the C9 and XJR-9.
In 1991 all these cars ran at 1000kg (900kg in 1990) and with a much reduced fuel allocation. By contrast Jacky Ickx (Mazda team manager) negotiated the 787B’s to have a reduced weight (around 850KG) and I believe more fuel.

In 1990 pole was 3.27 by Nissan, Porsche 3.33, Jaguar 3.36, Toyota 3.37, Mazda 3.43.

In GT Sport we have the low downforce 1988 XJR-9LM but that is basically identical to the high downforce 1990 XJR-12LM. The Mercedes C9 is quicker than both these Jaguars.
 
231
Germany
Germany
I just watched a real life onboard video of the 787B and compared it to both GT6 and GT Sport. I can't understand why people think that the GT6 one is better. It is louder but for me, the sound itself seems kinda distorted and not close to the real thing. Please watch Johnny Herbert revisiting Le Mans in this beauty. GT Sport almost nails the high rev sound. It just needs to be a bit more aggressive in the mid-rev part. Biggest letdown is the missing BRAP BRAP BRAP but I have hope that an update will fix this :-)
 
1,765
I just watched a real life onboard video of the 787B and compared it to both GT6 and GT Sport. I can't understand why people think that the GT6 one is better. It is louder but for me, the sound itself seems kinda distorted and not close to the real thing. Please watch Johnny Herbert revisiting Le Mans in this beauty. GT Sport almost nails the high rev sound. It just needs to be a bit more aggressive in the mid-rev part. Biggest letdown is the missing BRAP BRAP BRAP but I have hope that an update will fix this :-)

The on board from Herberts lap is from a gopro, or do you have something else?

Edit: I remembered it wrong! The sound quality wasn't that bad. He just isn't pushing it that much.

This is more like it..

 
Last edited:

TonyJZX

(Banned)
3,945
Australia
Australia
I've had a fair bit of the 787 XJR12 Sauber C9 and the Nissan R92CP.

They all have the same problem... they get their collective asses handed to them by the current LMP1 or VGT crowd.

Everyone else is just faster everywhere UNLESS you're driving the wheels off the 1989 type cars and just being clean and fast.

The Group C cars seem to have traction problems AND a lack of gears meaning they dont have the flexibility of the 7 gear and/or hybrid cars.

I do like how they are all RHD... even the Sauber C9... why? Does Group C mandate RHD for better pit crew changes?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

-Fred-

This is a custom title
Staff Emeritus
24,212
Canada
Somewhere.
They all have the same problem... they get their collective asses handed to them by the current LMP1 or VGT crowd.

And that's how it should be. You're comparing modern LMPs to cars that were racing nearly 30 years ago. The goalpost has moved quite a bit since then... tire technology alone probably shaved 10-15 seconds off a lap at Le Mans in the past 20 years.

As far as sound goes, it sounds like a 13B in GTS. In fact, only using the Gran Turismo franchise as a benchmark, the 787B was at its best sound-wise in GT3, IMO. Using every other game ever, FM4 nailed it.
 
5,712
Ireland
Dublin
Paul2007
The description for the 787B has changed with v1.24 right? It now says it's Le Mans victory was the first for a Japanese car. If I recall, it previously said it was the only outright win for a Japanese car.

It won't happen but I would so love to see a race dirty TS050-HYBRID 2018 added at some point.
 
Last edited:
231
Germany
Germany
The description for the 787B has changed with v1.24 right? It now says it's Le Mans victory was the first for a Japanese car. If I recall, it previously said it was the only outright win for a Japanese car.
Toyota won Le Mans this year so the change is absolutely correct :)
 
783
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
The description for the 787B has changed with v1.24 right? It now says it's Le Mans victory was the first for a Japanese car. If I recall, it previously said it was the only outright win for a Japanese car.

It won't happen but I would so love to see a race dirty TS050-HYBRID 2018 added at some point.
Of all future cars a 2018 TS050 is a certainty.
 
In 1991 all these cars ran at 1000kg (900kg in 1990) and with a much reduced fuel allocation. By contrast Jacky Ickx (Mazda team manager) negotiated the 787B’s to have a reduced weight (around 850KG) and I believe more fuel.

In 1990 pole was 3.27 by Nissan, Porsche 3.33, Jaguar 3.36, Toyota 3.37, Mazda 3.43.

In GT Sport we have the low downforce 1988 XJR-9LM but that is basically identical to the high downforce 1990 XJR-12LM. The Mercedes C9 is quicker than both these Jaguars.
Best laps in race trim:

Le Mans (with chicanes):
XJR-12 (1990) - 3'41.0
787B (1991) - 3'42.1

Suzuka:
XJR-9 - 1'57.5
C9 - 1'58.0
787B - 1'58.5

Fuji:
XJR-9 - 1'22.7
C9 (1988) - 1'22.0
787B - 1'21.8

Pretty close, and when you account for the fact that Jaguar and Mercedes especially had a better pick of drivers, the 787B doesn't seem so slow.
 
3,744
Australia
Brisbane, Australia
Chameleon9000
I think I dissagree about the sound to most people. The idle sound is indeed completely off but the rest of the time this thing screams. I tried it out yesterday with my fancy headphones and I honestly think it sounds really good.

And to people saying GT6 sounded better... actually you know what nevermind. I have nothing for you.
 
600
United Kingdom
Didcot, Oxfordshire
danardif1
Any luck with the liveries on the 787B? If not, have you tried Align with Camera? That tends to solve such issues on other cars with awkward surfaces.
I've had no issues with the liveries... I wonder if the original poster was trying to apply decals on the 'front' tab of the main body section, where actually they should have used the bonnet one?

I've had a fair bit of the 787 XJR12 Sauber C9 and the Nissan R92CP.

They all have the same problem... they get their collective asses handed to them by the current LMP1 or VGT crowd.

Everyone else is just faster everywhere UNLESS you're driving the wheels off the 1989 type cars and just being clean and fast.

The Group C cars seem to have traction problems AND a lack of gears meaning they dont have the flexibility of the 7 gear and/or hybrid cars.
They're 25+ years older than the other cars. They don't even have sequential stick gearboxes never mind paddleshift.

I personally don't think they should have been put in the same category, but there they are, and I think you can be competitive on the right circuit with them, they do have more horsepower overall and if driven well you can get good laptimes out of them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
85
Germany
Duisburg
DirtyDizco
I do not like the green/orange coloured livery. Made one with a little personal touch.

8224223836932932113_23.jpg
 

Famine

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author
Administrator
76,390
United Kingdom
Rule 12
GTP_Famine
In 1991 all these cars ran at 1000kg (900kg in 1990) and with a much reduced fuel allocation. By contrast Jacky Ickx (Mazda team manager) negotiated the 787B’s to have a reduced weight (around 850KG) and I believe more fuel.

In 1990 pole was 3.27 by Nissan, Porsche 3.33, Jaguar 3.36, Toyota 3.37, Mazda 3.43.
It wasn't so much Ickx - or rather Takayoshi Ohashi, Mazdaspeed's team manager (Ickx consulted for Oreca, which prepared and ran the car) - negotiating the 787B's weight, but the whole engine equivalence formula for rotaries, which translated to both reduced weight compared to the other C2s (which weren't even supposed to be there) and fuel allowance.

With that the team simply ran to set lap times, in order to use exactly the fuel they were allowed and to keep the stress off the engine. There is a piece of tape in the cockpit - which you can see in GT Sport - which has "1 lap = 7 litres" written on it in marker pen. That's because the drivers had to drive the car to use no more than 7 litres in a lap. And preferably no less either.

Mazdaspeed basically ran a 3,100-mile reliability test, while most everyone else went as fast as they could:

In essence, the 787B lucked into its win, for a few reasons. The FIA wanted to tie together the top prototype events and F1, so it introduced a sports car racing formula in 1989 for 3.5-litre, naturally aspirated engines, just like in F1. Exactly like in F1, in fact - the engines were F1 engines. And that was the point: the FIA wanted manufacturers not interested in F1 to make engines for F1.

1991 was supposed to be the first year of the new 3.5-litre World Sportscar Championship rules (C1), but there weren't many entries. The F1 engines were expensive, and budgets were huge - bigger than F1, in fact. For that event ACO invited a bunch of older Group C cars (C2). The older cars were subject to weight and fuel penalties based on engine capacity, using the old Group C rules, which the "2.6-litre" 787B running at 830kg did quite well out of compared to the 7.4-litre XJR-12 at 1,000kg. The new C1 cars were hideously unreliable, with a 12th place best finish, and the Mazda ahead of them all - with the drivers running to a strict fuel consumption index at the expense of lap times and Mazdaspeed/Oreca focusing on minimising the time lost in the pits with all sorts of schemes (helped by the weight).
It wasn't exactly slow either. Yes, it qualified in 12th with a 3'43 best lap, but this was one place and 0.3s behind the 1,000kg XJR-12 LM. The only Jaguar ahead of that was the new XJR-14, one of the new C1 cars. The newer Sauber C11 was quickest at 3'31, along with a gaggle of 962s, and the factory C1s of the Peugeot 905. And despite qualifying 12th, the team started 19th because all the C1s were shoved up to the front of the grid, with the 905s starting 1-2, because factory C1, despite being 4s behind Andy Wallace's C1 XJR-14...

The problem for the 787B was it was 12mph slower on the straights. That wasn't just down to the fuel-saving driving strategy - they wouldn't use that in qualifying - but use of a short gearbox to help the fuel economy. With the relatively small frontal area, it would have been just fine with a longer 'box on lap pace, but Mazdaspeed went for the race distance. It was as fast as anything on the rest of the track, just not as fast between the chicanes.

The pit stops were also meticulously planned too. They worked with Brembo to calculate brake wear and work these into their pit stops - the parts would be replaced at specific times in order to manage the exact timing of stops. Mazdaspeed replaced the rear pads one - ONCE - but didn't replace the discs at all, while the front discs were changed once and front pads three times. There was one unscheduled work item, when a rear wheel bearing might have become an issue so it was swapped out.

Ultimately the team planned a 367-lap race and reached 362 laps. It was very fortunate in that the equivalency formula gave it a fuel economy advantage and that the new engine formula was so unreliable in its first year (top C1 finished 12th). But even so, the planning that went into the 362-lap race would have won in both 1990 and 1992 (had the FIA not pushed ahead with the 3.5-litre formula).
 

J.D

342
Poland
Poland
I just bought 787B and the sound is much better than what i saw on watching yt videos it has more details in the sound than LM 55 VGT especially when you decelerate and during gear changes there is this wup wup sound inside interior when you start fom the stop. The only missing is brap brap when you stop hope they will add this.
 
1,150
Aruba
Paradera
SDSPOWER01


So the idle has been fixed but still doesn't quite match the GT6 one.


Real life:


In my opinion: they just added the idle as a cut in as soon as the RPM drops and doesn't really sound like (the brap brap) its reving up going faster each time like GT6 has it.
It sounds disconnected from the car IMO, glad they fixed it "somewhat" tho.
 
985
Singapore
Singapore
XSquareStickIt
Hey again. Sorry for the bump, but I came across something interesting on my Facebook news feed:

(I can't figure out how to embed Facebook posts to a forum, so have a link and a quick screenshot!)



According to this post by Defined Autoworks, PD approached DA to record sounds for the 787B in the game, from a 4 Rotor RX-7.

......what.

So... now I think it's safe to say that the 787B's sound in GTS is wrong, because it wasn't even recorded from the real 787B. Like, what even in the flying heck... It's sitting right there in Mazda's HQ in Hiroshima!
 
5,712
Ireland
Dublin
Paul2007
This is a frequent occurrence in the industry. It's a pity when a game with the budget and production values of Gran Turismo doesn't have the best sound for example, but there are several reasons that can lead to it. The 787B still sounds very good and just needs the idle sound to be louder.

The Zonda R would appear to be another example of not having the correct model sample. It is presumably the model we saw on Instagram which is missing the whail and ferocity of the real thing which is a big part of the drama of the car.

Quite what was recorded for the diesels is another mystery altogether.
 
Last edited: