- 824
- United States
Why does the Jaguar XJ220 have less BHP than IRL?
- Thread starter sejtur
- 58 comments
- 5,240 views
- 40,422
A "thing call a hotfix," huh? Fascinating. Is that why there's things that were obviously wrong with specs in multiple cars in GT5 that are still wrong 3 games later after appearing in every single game in the interim?
But yeah sure you're right they fixed the F40 eventually (after two games).
Last edited:
- 667
- Raleigh, North Carolina
- dawson864
The curb weight for many cars is drastically wrong.
The turbo boost shown for any AMG with the 4.0 liter TT V8 is also wrong. It only displays around 0.25 bar. Depending on the model, boost should go up to 1.2 bar.
The turbo boost shown for any AMG with the 4.0 liter TT V8 is also wrong. It only displays around 0.25 bar. Depending on the model, boost should go up to 1.2 bar.
- 761
- United States
Idk if it's incorrect stats but a few of the Group C cars with default setups are incredibly slow, in custom races the F1 GTR and CLK-LM are faster than the 962 and Sauber C9 on stock setups on tracks like Le Mans with chicanes while the 787B and XJR-9 seem to be the fastest on the straights??? The Sauber C9 did 249 at Le Mans but then again that could've been because boost was maybe at max for Qualifying but the car can barely break 190 when driven by AI that can't be right.
Last edited:
- 1,853
- A field in England
Custom race is notoriously bad at recreating a decent race because the AI often won't use full throttle on default settings. Try turning boost on to see if that helps things. Roflwaffle made a decent video on youtube explaining GT7's backwards AI.
- 604
- Austria
...and reduce Poweroutput on your car by 10%, then you are on the same level as the AI cars...
Besides that, the AI in custom races is pretty good compared to the AI in many standard races, especially when you use a grid full of garage cars, where you can choose the settings as you like...and yes, always set the boost on medium in custom races, that yields the best AI performance!
- 1,853
- A field in England
Crazy isn't it - Using the same tools as PD (if anything worse because we can only pick between stock tyres or RH tyres for AI), we can make much more exciting races that can be genuine good fun, despite the AI. It makes their chase the rabbit structure even more confusing.
- 1,054
- Braga, Portugal
- pedrocor
On Ferrari F40, the curb weight is listed around 1235-1254 kg for european version, the 1100kg being the dry weight, not usually considered because the car can't run on dry weight conditions (no oil, no fuel, no water, no brake fluid and so) and the american version, due to crash regulations was even over 1300kg, so not so wrong for GT4.
- 604
- Austria
- 1,853
- A field in England
Which is what makes the chase-the-rabbit races even more crazy. PD can get it right... or close at least, but they choose not to.
- 912
- Brazil
- 99
- United Kingdom
We all have different skill levels from absolute newb to Max Verstappen or Lewis Hamilton. Car tuning (and car choice) allows us to tailor the game to match those skill levels. We can make the game easier or harder to compensate for lack of skill.
PD can't set a skill level which pleases everyone. So they have to choose a starting difficulty level that works for most and then allow us to tweak.
If you think about it they can't really do anything else. Your idea of genuine good fun might be impossibly difficult for me. Or vice versa.
- 1,853
- A field in England
Older games got that balance much better, and people of all kinds of skill levels say as much. PD can very easily do something else. Making the vast majority of races the same rolling slalom formula where the player starts 30 seconds behind the lead car is objectively not fun.
All they have to do to improve the game over what we currently have is use standing starts instead of rolling starts (keeps the field closer to begin with), and use the same difficulty slider that they currently do (so people of different skill levels can still win), and then get rid of the crazy amount of rubberbanding that's present (so opponents don't randomly drive at half-throttle part of the race, and then suddenly start lapping 20 seconds faster). It's not a perfect solution, but it at the very least would make for more convincing racing for everyone.
But I think I'm derailing this thread, considering the whole reason for it was to point out inaccurate stats on a new car
- 667
- Raleigh, North Carolina
- dawson864
Weight of the C7 Corvette is way off. Should be roughly 300 lb lighter than in game weight.
- 758
- United Kingdom
- jonoholland29
This thread reminds me of this YT vid
At the end of the day, this is a game and it can't replicate cars exactly as it would upset the balance of some of the events in the game.
At the end of the day, this is a game and it can't replicate cars exactly as it would upset the balance of some of the events in the game.
- 99
- United Kingdom
Ah, the mythical "other people say". I'm not interested in "other people" who may or may not exist. I'm interested in what I can see and touch and experience.Older games got that balance much better, and people of all kinds of skill levels say as much. PD can very easily do something else. Making the vast majority of races the same rolling slalom formula where the player starts 30 seconds behind the lead car is objectively not fun.
All they have to do to improve the game over what we currently have is use standing starts instead of rolling starts (keeps the field closer to begin with), and use the same difficulty slider that they currently do (so people of different skill levels can still win), and then get rid of the crazy amount of rubberbanding that's present (so opponents don't randomly drive at half-throttle part of the race, and then suddenly start lapping 20 seconds faster). It's not a perfect solution, but it at the very least would make for more convincing racing for everyone.
But I think I'm derailing this thread, considering the whole reason for it was to point out inaccurate stats on a new car
And what I see is this: irl no two XJ220s rolled off the production line with exactly the same BHP. The tolerances simply were not that fine and manufacturers were not always wholly honest. More than that - 30 years later a classic XJ220 will certainly have lost some of its BHP.
Ahem. It's not a new car. It's 30 years old. Expecting it to have factory-fresh stats is a hell of a lot less accurate than what's in the game.
If you really want the factory claimed BHP you can adjust it with a customisable computer. I doubt you will notice the difference.
- 11,687
- Australia
- I_Grayson_Fox_I
How about instead of fixing your **** after the fact, you don't cause the **** to start with?
With the time between updates, you would think they would double check everything.
Also where are they getting their data from?
Remember this car from GT4?
1,890kg when it really weighs 1,290kg.
How one confuses an 8 for a 2 is hard to fathom.
600kg is not a small amount.
Here is a little fun fact.
The same car was in GT6, with the same weight.
They just ported it over, never fixing anything.
- 1,853
- A field in England
Wait, a car from 1992 isn't new? What I meant is that it's new to the game, and I figured that was obvious, but my apologies if not.
I'm aware of Jaguar's less-than-perfect approach to designing and building the XJ220, and I'm not even the one taking issue with the game's inaccuracy - I was simply pointing out that I was derailing the thread somewhat. I'm stoked they finally added it - it's one of my favourite cars of all time.
Either way, whether I've said something wrong or not, your condescending tone isn't needed. You don't have to reply to people as if they're morons.
- 99
- United Kingdom
If you think my tone has been condescending then I'm sorry. That wasn't my intention.
FWIW I didn't think you were derailing this thread. Whether we are talking about the XJ220's bhp or the overall game's difficulty level, both can be tweaked in game.
As for the XJ220 as a car, I am in two minds. For me, it's one of the most stunning looking cars of all time, but the implementation was disappointing. It wasn't a V12, it wasn't 4 wheel drive, it struggled to reach a top speed of 220mph. I remember the car magazine reviews when it came out and they were not gushing with praise.
Like you, I'm glad it's in the game and I bought one at the first chance I had. But it's always been one of my automotive "should have been better" cars.
- 1,853
- A field in England
I would certainly have like to hear it with a V12... it could have been a very different car indeed. I do like that they dropped the AWD though. I remember the car being criticised at the time for the brakes - I can't imagine how much worse they would've been with an extra few hundred kilos or so to try and stop.
My logic is that for Jaguar to have been able to make the XJ220 in the first place is something of a miracle, given their budget. That they still managed to make a car with those looks, and those numbers, even with next to no money if anything makes it more impressive.
I sat in one once, and one of the funniest things was the ignition key was from an old Fiesta.
INEEDNAWZZZ
Premium
- 1,757
- Lincoln
- EGGSBAWCKS
- DigitalLuke64DD
- 1,853
- A field in England
An old Rover 200 series. The mirrors are from a Citroen, and the interior air vents are from an Austin Metro. There's probably more parts-bin stuff but that's about as far as my knowledge goes.
Funnily enough I detailed a 2015 Lotus Elise last year, and it still used the same mirrors. Even better still, the indicator and wiper stalks were the same as my 20-year old Vauxhall Corsa.
- 99
- United Kingdom
I am deeply jealous! I saw the XJ at a couple of motor shows but never got inside. Jaw-droppingly beautiful and I so wanted it to succeed. For me it sits with cars like the DeLorean and, dare I say it, the first Countach which look great but the reality doesn't live up to the fantasy. Don't they say never meet your heroes?
- 74
- Latteland
- gtlover42
