unrealistic powerbands and rpm

[Adamaw11]

I've noticed a few cars where, after thinking about it, the powerband / rpm of the max power is just impossible for that engine size, well, I believe so anyway, so I want to see what other peoples opinions are or if other cars have been noticed with ridiculous, unrealistic powerbands.


This TRD celica seems to make 390hp @ 8400rpm is only 1.8L and its naturally aspirated???!?
maybe its a typing mistake and they meant to say it was supercharged??
Even if its possible for a 1.8L engine to make that much wouldn't it at least have to be revving over 12k rpm like a motorbike engine?

The S2000 engine is awesome, making over 400hp in NA form, but hang on, it makes that at only 9000rpm??!?! didn't it rev much higher in the older games?

I love Supras, and love the 2JZ engine. Seeing them make over 900hp is believable with big boost, and big turbos. but 944hp at only 5100rpm?? no way!

The Aristo has the same 2JZ engine, but for some reason they made the powerband a little more realistic and believable.

These numbers seem bad enough to me that its as though the game has been hacked. I'm sure I never saw powerbands and rpm this unbelievable in GT1 - GT4, I can't comment on GT5 though never having owned it. These are all with modifications, but I remember they used to at least attempt to make the mods seem realistic.

Can anyone comment on how small-ish engines could make these power levels at these rpms? does it defy the laws of physics?

Are there many other cars with such unrealistic power graphs when modified?

Do I have to just give up on PDs attempts at modeling engine powerbands from now on?

 

[Vegard]

Do I have to just give up on PDs attempts at modeling engine powerbands from now on?

For GT6, yes.

What will be done for GT7 is anyone's guess.

The main problem is that all tuning parts function as torque multipliers across the entire rev range!
The only exceptions are turbos and superchargers. These are modeled to give a torque boost in a specific rpm range.

What you end up with are engines that keep their original characteristics, but massively inflated and totally unrealistic.

I made a suggestion thread about this some time ago. Not sure if it's worth the time to vote on it since that ball has been laid dead though...

 

[Tornado]

This has been a problem since GT3. GT2 was the last game that had semi-realistic performance increases for highly tuned engines, so unfortunately I don't think it's something PD care to fix.

 

[eran0004]

What makes you think it's unrealistic? Do you have anything to compare with?

 

[Vegard]

What makes you think it's unrealistic? Do you have anything to compare with?

Compared to real life.

I just purchased a 2001 Opel Corsa comfort 1.4 and tuned the engine to the max (normally aspirated).

Fully tuned it puts out 179 bhp of power @ 6600 rpm and 22.2 kg/m (~217 nm) of torque @ 5000 rpm.

If you don't see the "problem" with this engine putting out 128 bhp/l @ 6600 rpm and 155 nm/l @ 5000 rpm I really don't know what to say.

Yes, it's a DOHC 16v with an oversquare design, but it's an economy engine built with low cost in mind.

I'm sure there are worse examples out there, however I think you can see my point.

 

[eran0004]

Compared to real life.

I just purchased a 2001 Opel Corsa comfort 1.4 and tuned the engine to the max (normally aspirated).

Fully tuned it puts out 179 bhp of power @ 6600 rpm and 22.2 kg/m (~217 nm) of torque @ 5000 rpm.

If you don't see the "problem" with this engine putting out 128 bhp/l @ 6600 rpm and 155 nm/l @ 5000 rpm I really don't know what to say.

Yes, it's a DOHC 16v with an oversquare design, but it's an economy engine built with low cost in mind.

I'm sure there are worse examples out there, however I think you can see my point.

And you tuned the crap out of it. It's no longer an economy engine built with low cost in mind, you've just spent 3 times the cost of the car on engine upgrades.

 

[Tornado]

What makes you think it's unrealistic?

240 lb ft from a normally aspirated 1.8 liter engine, for starters.

And you tuned the crap out of it. It's no longer an economy engine built with low cost in mind, you've just spent 3 times the cost of the car on engine upgrades.

And the final result doesn't actually emulate that. It sounds like it does a pretty good job of emulating a VTEC Prelude or a Quad4 Beretta, but those are both car with engines an awful lot larger and an awful lot less stressed than a Corsa 1.4 pushing 180 horsepower would be.

 

[Vegard]

And you tuned the crap out of it. It's no longer an economy engine built with low cost in mind, you've just spent 3 times the cost of the car on engine upgrades.

It's still a 1.4 Corsa engine with the mean effective pressure of a turbocharged engine and a torque profile that is identical to the stock car.

Edit - Here's the curves for the Corsa:

They very much look like the curves of the two 2.2 liter engines that @Tornado linked.
Either they are the result of boring and stroking the Corsa engine, supercharging it, or GT6's unrealistic engine tuning.

The Corsa has a MEP of >1960 kPa, or 19,6 bar*.

Atmospheric engines are typically in the 8,5 to 10,5 bar range while the highest** MEP for a atmospheric engine being the BMW S54B32 @ 15,1 bar (117 NM/l).

* Derived from flywheel torque figure, using this equation:

** Slightly outdated data, the Ferrari F136 F produces 120 NM/l.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Unrealistic tuning you say? Take any car, reduce power with the engine limiter, and watch your power and torque curves magically flatten out for thousands of rpm, instead of retaining their given power curve but smaller to reflect the lower PP levels.

 

[Adamaw11]

I think a lot of people don't get the idea of RPM.
To get a small engine to make lots of power, it needs to rev a lot higher
(unless using forced induction of course)

 

[jimipitbull]

I've not really noticed.

Too be honest, I don't even pretend I am driving real cars with my fake steering wheel on the TV in my lounge room. Most of the time I'm quite happy to believe it's a game, and I enjoy playing with whatever arbitrary numbers are used.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Wait till it become : The Real Tuning Simulator

PD should have followed Tokyo Extreme Racer Drift 2, it has much better tuning parts and more realistic power, although it's still need more freedom ( higher power limit )

A 2JZGTE can push over 1200+WHP at 9000+rpm, can't do that in GT6, already did it in GT5, a Boost Logic Supra replica that goes over 240+mph IRL.

It produces more than 1295HP, on a 3.4L 2JZ running a 91mm GT55 Turbo at 38PSI, and each mile-run ends in 5th gear on the limiter at 9600rpm.
The mile run was done on 1275 RWHP tune, the car is capable of 1580RWHP on full power tune.



Then it ran 243mph in '09 ( 246mph unconfirmed run, the owner said it should have ran 252+mph if not for engine trouble )


And we have AMS Alpha Omega with 2000+HP

 

[eran0004]

I think a lot of people don't get the idea of RPM.
To get a small engine to make lots of power, it needs to rev a lot higher
(unless using forced induction of course)

Unless you increase the torque.

 

[Tornado]

To think that all these decades professional engine builders and racing teams have been doing their jobs wrong. They don't need to make an engine rev higher to produce high power without changing aspiration or displacement when competing in series that prohibit both. They just need to "increase the torque"

 

[eran0004]

To think that all these decades professional engine builders and racing teams have been doing their jobs wrong. They don't need to make an engine rev higher to produce high power without changing aspiration or displacement when competing in series that prohibit both. They just need to "increase the torque"

Looks like all the professional engine builders and racing teams have done their jobs wrong either way, because apparently they don't need to increase the torque of the engines, they can just make them rev higher.

 

[Tornado]

You see, you're speaking English, but it is pretty clear that you don't know what the words mean when you try and throw quips back at people. How do engine builders "increase the torque" without increasing engine revs if they don't increase an engine's displacement? 120 years of engine development and no one except you has stumbled across a way to increase power without a direct increase in RPM?





Why do NASCAR race teams build large displacement pushrod engines that rev to 9500 rpm to get over 800 hp which can grenade every half dozen races? Pushrod engines are inherently hesitant to rev, so if there was a way to circumvent HP=(RPM * T) / 5252 it seems like it would be a lot easier to just do that.

Why do Formula 1 engines of the V10 era rev past 17000 rpm to make their even-higher numbers? Surely the cars would be faster if they just "increased the torque" at a lower RPM to achieve the same ultimate horsepower numbers a few thousand RPM sooner.

Why do motorcycle manufacturers even bother with the larger engined bikes? What is the point of a 1 liter bike if you can just "increase the torque" of their 750s or 600s and accomplish identical numbers in a much lighter package?








Even more curious, what is even the point of you talking out of your ass over this? You're acting as if absolutely common sense information about the subject is a wholly alien concept; and you've outright ignored every time your questions on the subject have been answered so it's clearly not an attempt to actually engage in discussion. If this is just another attempt to play Devil's Advocate on a subject you know nothing about, I'll make this next part simple for you: Piston engines can't make well over 100 lb-ft per liter without resorting to some form of forced induction. They cannot do so no matter how much money you throw at them. That was exactly why rotary engines drew so much initial attention in the 1970s (because Wankels can easily). That was exactly why turbocharging became popular in the 1980s and again in the past 5 years (because turbocharged and supercharged engines can easily). That was exactly why displacements grew so steadily during the 1990s and 2000s even as engine technology allowed engines with more reliable high RPM operation (because more displacement made higher torque/liter unnecessary).
And because horsepower is nothing more than a function of torque in relation to RPM, normally aspirated piston engines can't make those sort of power numbers shown in the OP of Vegard's post above at RPM that low.



Incidentally:

An actual, real life torque graph of a 1.4L inline 4 engine that produces around 180 horsepower.

And another one! A true shame how poorly those guys built that engine. They should have just added 45 lb ft more 2500 RPM sooner.

 

[Vegard]

Looks like all the professional engine builders and racing teams have done their jobs wrong either way, because apparently they don't need to increase the torque of the engines, they can just make them rev higher.

Bingo!

Porsche 991 Carrera S:----------------------3.8 liter 400 PS @ 7400 RPM - 440 NM @ 5600 RPM
Porsche 991 Carrera S Powerkit/GTS:------3.8 liter 430 PS @ 7400 RPM - 440 NM @ 5600 RPM
Porsche 991 GT3:-----------------------------3.8 liter 475 PS @ 8250 RPM - 440 NM @ 6250 RPM

Peak torque is the same, torque at high RPM is increased.

 

[Tornado]

Bingo!

Porsche 991 Carrera S:----------------------3.8 liter 400 PS @ 7400 RPM - 440 NM @ 5600 RPM
Porsche 991 Carrera S Powerkit/GTS:------3.8 liter 430 PS @ 7400 RPM - 440 NM @ 5600 RPM
Porsche 991 GT3:-----------------------------3.8 liter 475 PS @ 8250 RPM - 440 NM @ 6250 RPM

It's almost as if they are shifting the torque peak further up the RPM range to get a mathematically equivalent increase in horsepower at the expense of low end response.

 

[Vegard]

It's almost as if they are shifting the torque peak further up the RPM range to get a mathematically equivalent increase in horsepower at the expense of low end response.

 

[eran0004]

Bingo!

Porsche 991 Carrera S:----------------------3.8 liter 400 PS @ 7400 RPM - 440 NM @ 5600 RPM
Porsche 991 Carrera S Powerkit/GTS:------3.8 liter 430 PS @ 7400 RPM - 440 NM @ 5600 RPM
Porsche 991 GT3:-----------------------------3.8 liter 475 PS @ 8250 RPM - 440 NM @ 6250 RPM

Peak torque is the same, torque at high RPM is increased.

Tell me again about how the Opel Corsa 1.4 engine, ECU and exhaust system is tuned to perform as much power as possible, rather than - I don't know - keep the fuel consumption at a reasonable level.

 

[Tornado]

So simply increasing fuel consumption is how you get an engine with over 100lb-ft/liter before the RPM crossover point?

 

[Vegard]

@eran0004 Keep ignoring the facts and stick to your beliefs, I don't care.

 

[eran0004]

@eran0004 Keep ignoring the facts and stick to your beliefs, I don't care.

If it bothers you so much, just pretend like you did an engine switch. Problem solved.

 

[Tornado]

Well, at least we've finally gone from "that is realistic" to "just pretend it is something else that could be realistic".

That's measurable progress in situations like this.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If it bothers you so much, just pretend like you did an engine switch. Problem solved.

There ya go boys...

/end thread

 

[Vegard]

Here's another great example of the difference between real NA tuning and GT6 NA tuning.

Stock - Spoon Civic Type R (B16B)-----------------------------------------214 bhp @ 12000 rpm - 16,1 kgfm @ 8600 rpm.
Stock - Civic Type R EK (B16B)--------------------------------------------182 bhp @ 8200 rpm - 16,3 kgfm @ 7500 rpm.
GT6 tuned - Civic Type R EK (B16B*)-------------------------------------215 bhp @ 8200 rpm - 19,2 kgfm @ 7700 rpm.

* Oil change, isometric exhaust manifold, intake tuning and sports cat.

Note that the Spoon tuned B16B has less peak torque than a stock B16B.

 

[eran0004]

Well, at least we've finally gone from "that is realistic" to "just pretend it is something else that could be realistic".

That's measurable progress in situations like this.

I never said that it was realistic. I just asked why they think it's unrealistic and if they have something to compare with.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Seems PD put the wrong engine tuning code for some of the NA engines. Back in GT5, I can easily tailor NA engine power for realistic power curve and peak rpms - via hybrid. 10000rpm to 11000rpm NA F20C FTW then add twin turbo

 

[Tornado]

I never said that it was realistic. I just asked why they think it's unrealistic and if they have something to compare with.

And you were told why before you even made your first post and given multiple points of comparisons afterwards; and proceeded to throw around meaningless quips to argue with the few answers that you didn't just completely ignore. So you were either ignorant enough about the topic to think the GT3 and up performance tuning was realistic; or arrogant and ignorant enough about a topic where the facts are obvious to think that responding to easily researched information with zingers like "Unless you increase the torque" actually meant anything or counted as profound Devil's Advocacy on your part.

Either way it's alright. Really. You can stop trying so hard.

Here's another great example of the difference between real NA tuning and GT6 NA tuning.

Stock - Spoon Civic Type R (B16B)-----------------------------------------214 bhp @ 12000 rpm - 16,1 kgfm @ 8600 rpm.
Stock - Civic Type R EK (B16B)--------------------------------------------182 bhp @ 8200 rpm - 16,3 kgfm @ 7500 rpm.
GT6 tuned - Civic Type R EK (B16B*)-------------------------------------215 bhp @ 8200 rpm - 19,2 kgfm @ 7700 rpm.

* Oil change, isometric exhaust manifold, intake tuning and sports cat.

Note that the Spoon tuned B16B has less peak torque than a stock B16B.

The two S2000 race cars as well. PD even made up one of them themselves (the LM) and it still has a torque curve much closer to the real Spoon S2000 than the one in the OP, even though they are both significantly less powerful.

 

[eran0004]

And you were told why before you even made your first post,

The reason was "because we say so". That's why I asked.

and given multiple points of comparisons;

By multiple points of comparison you mean GT6 data...

...Compared to real life.

Which doesn't say anything unless you actually show the data for "real life".