Overestimated or surprisingly bad cars.

[Blaze_409]

Alfa Romeo 8C competizione- this car is a extremely dissapointing.

Mclaren MP412c. for all the rear end stableness it showed on top gear....this car is tail happy.

 

[gogatrs]

The LFA fully tuned with racing soft tires is absolutely terrible.
Ridiculous understeer.
But that was back when I was noob.
When I drove it stock, I was like:

 

[Roush_fan_99]

Mclaren MP412c. for all the rear end stableness it showed on top gear....this car is tail happy.

That can be fixed real easy with tuning

 

[MM1000]

Ferrari Enzo-Doesn't handle as well as anticipated, bad brakes


Ferrari SP1-Top speed is under 190, for a car priced at 1 million cr!!

The SP1's price is not a measure of its performance. Like many other cars in GT5, it's expensive to represent that it's a special and rare car.

The Enzo has a reputation (IRL) for being outstanding braking-wise. It has brakes that are more similar to an F1 car's than prior ferraris'.

But I do wonder if the reason the car appears to brake poorly is because you're going much faster than you feel you're going. I'd love to see a comparison of stopping power from GT5 to the real world for this car.

 

[VetteZR1]

To all the Enzo haters. Put a wing on the rear and you have one fast mother of a car.👍

 

[Highlandor]

Enzo, Lexus, Ferrari SP1, Scooby 2010, Viper, Alfa 8c - what are you guys talking about??

Lexus LFA and Scooby 2010 are seriously fast, the SP1 has got magical handling and the Enzo can easily be sorted (and NOT by using that ridiculous max front min rear ride hieght "glitch").

The Enzo has got insane straight line speed, even against cars wiith identical 'pp' rating or even power to weight ratio's. It also has a difference in minimum ride height - the front has min of 20 and rear has min of 25. To make the Enzo 'level' you need the rear -5mm different from the front i.e -15 fr and -20rr. There's a number of cars similiar to this, you just gotta keep an eye out for this in certain cars.

Also default LSD and suspension kits have built in understeer to them, unless you change the default settings that induce understeer ANY & ALL cars will understeer.

If you have the Enzo 'level' at -15 front and rear it's actually +5mm at the rear, which induces lift off understeer.

I would agree that the brakes on the Enzo do no seem right. Even taking into account it's awesome straight line speed, the braking points do seem quite long.

Take the BMW M5 for example (premium) - I race in a 530pp road car series with sports soft tyres, the M5 is one of the heaviest cars by a long way and also one of the fastest in a straight line, but it still brakes at similiar points as many or most of the other 530pp class cars.

We raced Monza last night, I used the M5 and was braking at very similiar points to cars weighing 3-500kgs less. When we raced at Le Mans, I was 'out braking' guys in RX7's.

The Enzo just doesn't seem to have the braking power it's supposed to have in real life with those F1 inspired brakes, I have to brake so much earlier it's crazy.

2010 Impreza is crazy fast, you just have to know how to stop 4wd cars from understeering and wearing their tyres out.

Tune braking sensitivity on LSD (high front low rear), lower rear ride height 3-10mm less than front, get rid of + rear toe and have rear brakes higher than front.

That'll make even the worst understeering offender (premium R34 GTR) turn on a dime.

As mentioned already in this thread, it isn't the cars, problem is between seat and steering wheel.

Keep going through the tuning section, there's so many threads that'll help you understand and tune your cars to do what you want them to do. Just keep looking and keep trying and sooner or later you'll start understanding what you need to do to a car to make it do what you want it to do.

There's plenty of 'good guys' on GTP who have spent alot of time explaining these things in the Tuning section - go check them out and stop posting crap like these cars are rubbish, when they aren't. It's a real slap in the face for the good guys who have spent so much time going out of their way to explain this and what you need to do to overcome the issues.

Almost any car be be tuned to feel 'ok', at least. But whether it's does competitive laps times, different story, but tuning it to have balance and turn in and grip etc, (once you know how to do it) isn't a major problem.

Just stop whinging and start learning.

Try these for starters:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=135268

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=198591

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=203009

 

[RCKakashi14]

For me these are the SURPRISINGLY bad cars:

McLaren MP4-12C - I did not expect it to handle that bad. Especially that it's the 2nd fastest car at the Top Gear Test Track. Nonetheless, it's a good performer in terms of power and speed.

Ferrari Enzo - Truly disappointing...

Bugatti Veyron - Does it even have a steering wheel?

Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG - The only thing that ticks me off is the LIFT. Other than that, it's fine...

Dodge Viper SRT10 ACR - Understeers a lot.

 

[mralexf1]

Dissappointed with the McLAREN MP4-12C. Lot of oversteer. Fun to drive but undrivable when you want to win races unless you buy Soft Racing Tyres.

 

[Jahodac]

Got my second Bugatti Veyron prize car and I must say, they thing still drives terribly.

 

[Merquise]

@ Derrict : very nice photo's dude

 

[GTRTurboSpool]

Enzo, Lexus, Ferrari SP1, Scooby 2010, Viper, Alfa 8c - what are you guys talking about??

Lexus LFA and Scooby 2010 are seriously fast, the SP1 has got magical handling and the Enzo can easily be sorted (and NOT by using that ridiculous max front min rear ride hieght "glitch").

The Enzo has got insane straight line speed, even against cars wiith identical 'pp' rating or even power to weight ratio's. It also has a difference in minimum ride height - the front has min of 20 and rear has min of 25. To make the Enzo 'level' you need the rear -5mm different from the front i.e -15 fr and -20rr. There's a number of cars similiar to this, you just gotta keep an eye out for this in certain cars.

Also default LSD and suspension kits have built in understeer to them, unless you change the default settings that induce understeer ANY & ALL cars will understeer.

If you have the Enzo 'level' at -15 front and rear it's actually +5mm at the rear, which induces lift off understeer.

I would agree that the brakes on the Enzo do no seem right. Even taking into account it's awesome straight line speed, the braking points do seem quite long.

Take the BMW M5 for example (premium) - I race in a 530pp road car series with sports soft tyres, the M5 is one of the heaviest cars by a long way and also one of the fastest in a straight line, but it still brakes at similiar points as many or most of the other 530pp class cars.

We raced Monza last night, I used the M5 and was braking at very similiar points to cars weighing 3-500kgs less. When we raced at Le Mans, I was 'out braking' guys in RX7's.

The Enzo just doesn't seem to have the braking power it's supposed to have in real life with those F1 inspired brakes, I have to brake so much earlier it's crazy.

2010 Impreza is crazy fast, you just have to know how to stop 4wd cars from understeering and wearing their tyres out.

Tune braking sensitivity on LSD (high front low rear), lower rear ride height 3-10mm less than front, get rid of + rear toe and have rear brakes higher than front.

That'll make even the worst understeering offender (premium R34 GTR) turn on a dime.

As mentioned already in this thread, it isn't the cars, problem is between seat and steering wheel.

Keep going through the tuning section, there's so many threads that'll help you understand and tune your cars to do what you want them to do. Just keep looking and keep trying and sooner or later you'll start understanding what you need to do to a car to make it do what you want it to do.

There's plenty of 'good guys' on GTP who have spent alot of time explaining these things in the Tuning section - go check them out and stop posting crap like these cars are rubbish, when they aren't. It's a real slap in the face for the good guys who have spent so much time going out of their way to explain this and what you need to do to overcome the issues.

Almost any car be be tuned to feel 'ok', at least. But whether it's does competitive laps times, different story, but tuning it to have balance and turn in and grip etc, (once you know how to do it) isn't a major problem.

Just stop whinging and start learning.

Try these for starters:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=135268

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=198591

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=203009

What, whining? We were simply stating our opinions on some of the cars we thought weren't good...and as for tuning, I haven't done much on that so I'll check it out. 👍

 

[Johnnypenso]

I have to say I agree with Highlandor...not the part about the whining, but that a lot of the problems with certain cars can be remedied with some tuning. There are plenty of cars in the game that don't handle all that well with stock settings even with upgrades but that can be tuned to perform much better. The Enzo is a great example. Stock it understeers quite a bit, but with some tuning you can make it a competitive and viable car on a lot of tracks. Can you race it on Deep Forest at 600pp and beat a well tune 458? Probably not. Take the two cars out to Monza or LeMans or HSR and it's a different story. It will never corner as well as the 458 because of the lack of downforce but on a track with some good straights it's competitive, with a good tune.

It's also true that even with tuning, there are some cars that just can't compete at certain PP levels. I found the Jag XJ220 to be like that. Corners like a demon, but really lags on the straights, and only has a 5 speed. C-West Razio GT300 car is just slow. A lot of the smaller MR cars like the Elises and Vauxhalls and Opel Speedsters, excel on shorter tracks but not so well on the longer tracks as they get robbed of HP in the PP system due to their exceptional handling.

All in all I'd have to say that with proper tuning, a great many of the cars in the game are competitive with each other, given certain standards of PP or of weight/hp. Amazingly so actually, given all the variables.

 

[MM1000]

I waited like a decade to drive the Nomad and when I got it it looked like it had been painted with a crayon. Though I think it drives well.

 

[Aaronrray]

Your all probably going to hate me for this... I think the zr1 RM is overrated! Zr1 this, zr1 that... I've used every tuning setup for it and it just doesn't satisfy! I'm also a relatively good driver too. I used to like the car when I was a lower level, but once I got the McLaren f1 and the furai, I had no use for the vette. I know the zr1 very well and I used to use it for everything, but it's not quite fast enough in high speed events and not quite agile enough for the technical stuff.

 

[Highlandor]

What, whining? We were simply stating our opinions on some of the cars we thought weren't good...and as for tuning, I haven't done much on that so I'll check it out. 👍

Apologies, nothing personal..

Just seen so many really good cars being labelled as 'bad' that it drives me mad, I guess I threw my toys out of the pram a bit.

I realize that everyone's opinion is subjective, but alot of people turn to GTP for good advice (quite rightly so as it's been a source of great help and infomation for so many for so long), so to see such great cars being labelled as bad I personally think reflects badly on GTP, makes us look like a bunch of numpties IMHO.

I just wanted to put the record straight, that's all. So many of those cars mentioned I either race or race against, and I know how good or great some of those cars can be, when either driven or tuned properly.

I am no expert, but by continuously scouring the tuning part of this forum I have slowly but surely got the hang of what does what in terms of setups. I have no race or mechanical knowledge in real life, but alot of the guys in the race series I'm in will ask my opinion about their cars when they hit a brickwall in setting them up.

All I did was look, read, test, test, test and test some more. It''s quite feasible for most others to do this.

One race series I'm in there's a 13yr old kid called Curtis, he's super fast (and VERY clean) and he listens and learns about what does what with setups and he's learning fast - nuff sed.

On the other side of the arguement - stock or unmodified cars, then yes, there are certain cars that unmodified maybe do not live up to expectations, but with so fews races, series or rooms dealing with umodified cars (and the repetitive nature of the same cars being in the recommended garage online), most cars would be modified in some way shape or form for online racing.

But I do acknowledge that some guys just enjoy driving cars as stock / unmodified, a few of my friends are really into this. But most of these guys will accept the car no matter what it feels like, good or bad.

 

[Tornado]

I just wanted to put the record straight, that's all. So many of those cars mentioned I either race or race against, and I know how good or great some of those cars can be, when either driven or tuned properly.

"Can be" is the important qualifier. It stands to reason that most of the cars in the game can be fixed with tuning, but it also stands to reason that the purposes of the thread was to note cars that aren't as good as they should be (or as you would think they would be, for the ones that are accurate to real life) when stock.

 

[Derrict]

@ Derrict : very nice photo's dude

Thanks.

Apologies, nothing personal..

Just seen so many really good cars being labelled as 'bad' that it drives me mad, I guess I threw my toys out of the pram a bit.

I realize that everyone's opinion is subjective, but alot of people turn to GTP for good advice (quite rightly so as it's been a source of great help and infomation for so many for so long), so to see such great cars being labelled as bad I personally think reflects badly on GTP, makes us look like a bunch of numpties IMHO.

I gave up in trying to rationalize with some people. I'm not going to generalize, but you'll find people with their opinions and they won't change regardless of reality. The reality is, a lot of people don't know how to properly tune a vehicle to their driving style (or just tuning a vehicle in general). 80% of the cars here can be "fixed" by a simple 10-15 minute tune. McLaren MP4-12C oversteer? Easy, have the front ride height higher than the rear, stiffen the front shocks more than the rear, stiffen the front sway bar more than the rear, more positive toe in the rear, increase the LSD initial & accel settings, etc. Most will never spend the short time tweaking their settings; they seem to expect a perfect handling vehicle with the default settings.

 

[TrackpadUser]

What about all the lotus`s they are really good in real life but on here its like ice road truckers but wat do u expect from a broken game how many updates.
ROLL ON FORZA 4 ILL DIG ME 360 OUT THEN

I have also heard that they aren't cars that can be easily trashed around like you can do with a skyline or an evo. They are much more unstable and require smooth driving, but that unstability is among the things that makes it so nimble, kinda like fighter jets.

And if that opinion comes from the TGTT challenge, let me remember you that in that challenge, the car is equiped with confort hards, which are similar in terms of grip to the tires equiped stock on econoboxes. These tires aren't made at all to be used on a sport car. Especially one as unstable as the elise.

 

[Highlandor]

"Can be" is the important qualifier. It stands to reason that most of the cars in the game can be fixed with tuning, but it also stands to reason that the purposes of the thread was to note cars that aren't as good as they should be (or as you would think they would be, for the ones that are accurate to real life) when stock.

What's "stock" - that's subjective too - just look at that thread that guy done where he used cornering G forces to calculate what tyres in GT5 were representative of the tyres that car came with in real life - how many cars were on the 'wong tyres' according to the 'G' they produced.

Also, look at the amount of mistakes Polyphony made with specs of certain cars (I think you did a thread covering these mistakes), then look at the differences between online physics and offline physics - trying to work out what GT5 scenario would accurately reflect a cars true "stock" feel in real life, for over 1000 cars, good luck!

Because of the above mentioned, it's going to be difficult to get a feel of a car as truely 'stock' in real life, so how can we pass accurate judgement? Especially as most of us haven't driven all the cars and aren't skilled or qualified to test the ones we do have, to their full potential in real life to compare with on GT5?

Look at the Elise's, I know people who have owned these in real life, they laugh at the GT5's version of the Elise's handling. Also, TVR speed 12, how come that was a death trap in real life (so much so TVR pulled the plug on it being sold to the public) but in GT5 it doesn't feel that awful at all.

As you mention, some people will have preconceived expectations and make snap judgements, that's fair enough, it's human nature, but as I mentioned in my post others will look at this thread and potentially think all cars on this thread are bad no matter what, which certainly isn't the case and exactly the point I was trying to make.

Apologies if that wasnt made clear. I have nothing against stock or 'bad' cars, I just felt the info on this thread had the potential to be misleading, that's all. To potentially write some of these cars off because of how they feel with no changes or modifications would be wrong, as some of the cars mentioned happened to be exceptionally good when tuned right.

 

[devildog666]

No offense, but you need to brush up on your research. Here's my two cents and you can take it for what it's worth.

I'm a freelance photographer and have worked with the Viper Club of America for the last several years on various events. Do you know who Ralph Gilles is? Father of the Viper, current President & CEO of Dodge. Here's his comparison between the Viper Competition Coupe, which is a race car, versus the ACR.


"For starters there is a reason the CompCoupe exists and that is to be the ultimate track Viper if not the ultimate turn key racer! That said the lap times between the two Vipers based on different runs through out the day was roughly 2 seconds. On a 2.5 mile course of this type that is to be expected. In most of our testing the ACR is very close to the Comp Coupe (non world Challenge) but it very much depends on the track. The ACR with the giant rear wing has more aero drag than the comp coupe which benefits from being a few inches shorter and has a more aero "friendly" body, not to mention light weight composite panels, no windows, no AC etc. Bob's car having the older smaller rear wing actually has the high speed straightline advantage. The banked corners at POCONO raceway mask the down force disadvantage. Even though my car had more power it was negated by all the air I am pushing around. On tighter tracks biased towards cornering the ACR has been able to get very close to the Comp coupe. "

^ read the bolded letters from the guy who led the design team on the original Viper. The ACR has a larger rear wing and more aerodynamic drag than the Viper Competition Coupe.

Here's the photo of the red Viper Competition Coupe (referenced as Bob in the text) along with Ralph's black Voodoo ACR and Steve Katz' white ACR (Steve is a former Skip Barber series champion)

The Viper owners always wanted a good comparison between the VCC and the ACR, so when Ralph drove out from Michigan to Pocono Raceway (Pennsylvania), they took the opportunity to stage this.

Here's a photo of the ACR rear wing, which is much wider than the VCC's rear wing

Nowhere did i read that the ACR was faster than the CC. Close isn't faster, faster is faster. All this means is if the CC was in GT5 it too would be faster than the ACR. I said the Viper ACR isn't a racecar and shouldn't be able to outrun a racecar. Thanks for proving it.

 

[Tornado]

Nowhere did i read that the ACR was faster than the CC. Close isn't faster, faster is faster. All this means is if the CC was in GT5 it too would be faster than the ACR. I said the Viper ACR isn't a racecar and shouldn't be able to outrun a racecar. Thanks for proving it.

You just seem intent on digging yourself deeper, don't you?

 

[devildog666]

Plenty of threads on the subject. Try reading them before you say things that aren't true.

Linky.

Two posts in a row where you did that? Then you tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about? Irony is a bitch, isn't it?



And by the way, don't double post.

1. how often are we at 150mph
2. I said compared to race cars
3. Downforce squares with speed so at 75mph the ACR makes about 250lbs of downforce.

 

[Bones Brigade]

Uh yeah, 1000lbs is a lot, but many race cars hit 2000lbs+ at 150mph. Clearly, not all have levels that high, and it is probably inaccurate to say that the Viper has less downforce than ANY race car. And from Derricts post, the ACR IS in fact slower than it's pure bred cousin.

So lets all agree that devildoggs sentiments are absolutely correct, but his supporting claims are exaggerated. The end! Hooray another argument solved!

 

[Derrict]

Uh yeah, 1000lbs is a lot, but many race cars hit 2000lbs+ at 150mph. Clearly, not all have levels that high, and it is probably inaccurate to say that the Viper has less downforce than ANY race car. And from Derricts post, the ACR IS in fact slower than it's pure bred cousin.

I don't want to muddle the picture with more data that wasn't posted previously but my post was in regards to the downforce of the two vehicles, not the actual track times & speeds.

the Viper Competition Coupe at Pocono that day was several tenths faster mostly because of the driver skill. Bob has driven at Pocono numerous times and is familiar with the course. This was Ralph's (black ACR) first time at the track and was still learning it, only have about 40 minutes of track time. Given more track time, I think Ralph would've been able to shave off another 2-3 tenths since he was clocked at 147 down the straightaway. Steve (white ACR) was clocked at 150 down the straightaway since he's familiar with the track.

What were we arguing about again? haha

 

[Seismica]

Uh yeah, 1000lbs is a lot, but many race cars hit 2000lbs+ at 150mph. Clearly, not all have levels that high, and it is probably inaccurate to say that the Viper has less downforce than ANY race car. And from Derricts post, the ACR IS in fact slower than it's pure bred cousin.

So lets all agree that devildoggs sentiments are absolutely correct, but his supporting claims are exaggerated. The end! Hooray another argument solved!

👍

And i'm going to say, the ACR isn't half bad in GT5 when I drive it. Infact, it's handling is excellent. It might not be very pointy on turn in, but make sure you're in second gear for slower turns to get the nose in. Also a little brake balance tweaking may improve it. I think the understeer 'problem' is the fact it has a little too much rear downforce in relation to front downforce, so the balance isn't perfect. But it still produces so much downforce that the nose doesn't get light like in similarly powerful supercars (see MP4-12c). This car does actually carry more speed through corners I noticed than say, a Mclaren F1 or a 430 Scuderia. Due to it's high downforce it is very easy to drive, and I would describe it's handling as neutral, not understeery.

The only problem I have with it is the gear ratios. it needs more than 5 gears, often you have situations where 2nd is at the limiter and 3rd isn't producing the torque required to get the car moving (Quite odd in a viper, I would have expected the opposite, too much torque).

I'm a big fan of the ACR in real life, it's among my top 5 all time favourite road cars. But one that sits higher in that list is the MP4-12c and i'm sorry, but that one is god-awful in GT5. Obviously in GT5 they replaced it's active suspension with something you might find on a carriage in the 1800s.

 

[gt addict]

The Enzo is an understeering bucket sadly, The Honda CRZ understeers a lot, the FGT is uncontrollable, The 599 GTB, very sadly, isn't as good as it looks, The LP640 understeers a lot, The 2005 Mustang GT understeers a lot, The RS200 is underpowered, The Suzuki Swift is underpowered, the Daihatsu OFC-1 is missiong something, The X1 SUCKS, The Ford GT isn't well balanced, and the Veyron takes days to corner.

👍 this game should be Understeer 5. Probably 75% understeer too much

 

[chris speed]

What is the point of this post? Anyway I have to say that the Enzo was a 1 mil disappointment also the F1s purely for the fact that you can't race them in anything except for that seasonal.

Hi, All the rights to F1 cars , drivers names and tracks went to Codemasters F1 2010, you're lucky to have any F1 cars to play with at all. You can race them however in Arcade Mode against other F1 cars or Time Trial mode and try to beat your best time against other cars on other tracks that F1 cars wouldn't usually race and the seasonals, on-line.

 

[chris speed]

👍 this game should be Understeer 5. Probably 75% understeer too much

Hi, Understeer? Try adding camber to the front +2, rear +1. You'll need to purchase the customisable suspension for this. Also more ABS will help when cornering, try 8. Skid Recovery Force - On (Driving Options) will probably help too, That's suposed to be for newbees but I set my fastest times with the SRF on. ASM though will slow you down.

 

[Roush_fan_99]

Hi, Understeer? Try adding camber to the front +2, rear +1. You'll need to purchase the customisable suspension for this. Also more ABS will help when cornering, try 8. Skid Recovery Force - On (Driving Options) will probably help too, That's suposed to be for newbees but I set my fastest times with the SRF on. ASM though will slow you down.

I used to be one of those people who was scared to turn asm off, but nowl I run SRF instead just asm when I need to

The understeer is a matter of people overshooting their braking points and this results in the understeer for a few reasons...

1. When the brakes are applied it becomes considerably harder to turn, the more brake the less turn, when they are LOCKED UP like in most cases when abs is 1 the car WILL NOT TURN, I have learned these things the hard way in real life

2. You are simply going TOO FAST for the corner

It is never the car's fault (or PD's) but only the driver's inability to adapt, tunes however are there to make it that much easier to adapt to a car and every car is different

But sometimes people get bad rumors on how a car should handle and those cars are therefore "overestimated" and not every car will react the same

 

[symustafa1996]

I hated the MP4-12C the most. So much oversteer! Also the Alfa 8C was disappointing.