Why some cars are arbitrarily better upgraded than others

  • Thread starter buttsneeze
  • 34 comments
  • 2,269 views
B

buttsneeze

298
I'm sure a lot of people have noticed cars like the Exige and '65 Mustang dominating certain classes. There's one reason for this: low top speed. Vehicles with low top speed can have that much better acceleration, handling, and braking, while staying within a class. On most tracks the speed deficit never comes into play so these cars are much faster than they should be. I'm not talking about the Dart or other glitched cars, just cars with naturally low top speeds (usually due to aerodynamics). Unfortunately this situation makes a lot of higher top speed cars mostly useless. For example the '92 Supra is utterly outclassed in B no matter how you upgrade it simply because it has a high top speed and no headroom for upgrades. The same situation is true with the Ford Fusion and Acura TSX. For whatever reason, maybe because of their low drag and lack of downforce, these cars have very high top speeds and so can't be made to accelerate or grip very well within a class.
 
No, I really don't think it's torque. The curve of the powerband only really comes into play with crappy gearing, and that doesn't really affect the PI. A car's top speed ability is pretty much hardcoded based on its aerodynamic drag and other factors, which is why my point that unaerodynamic cars with inherently poor top speed are better off holds true. This is also why the GMC Typhoon is competitive in A-class despite being AWD - it has the aerodynamics of a brick and can't go more than 150. Its acceleration and grip are on par with the best of the RWD cars in A-class, which no other AWD car can claim.
 
Fit front and rear aero and max the Downforce? That should give those 'top end' cars grip and the aerodynamic resistance they need, No? And if there's and PI left fit a sports gearbox to give some more accel. I'm not a tuner so..
 
hmm my 2 cents on this.

The lower grip of FM4 tires means being able to pick up speed matters more then outright top speed compare to FM3. This is especially true for lower class cars, how quick you exit corners matters a lot.

My prediction is that the imaginary track they use for calculating PI has at least one very very long straight that is not found anywhere in the game except on La Sarth, and cars that don't have massive acceleration but low drag will gain time on that imaginary straight hence getting a higher PI, but in actual racing application the high speed advantage is hardly utilized because of the generally lower grip and most tracks not having straights that long.

In simple terms, the track used for calculating PI is slightly biased towards extreme high speed acceleration ability, compare to the actual tracks we race on.

I found the most effective tuning is to have very good acceleration from 2nd to 4 gear (80kph to 200kph range) and good traction, and torque is seemingly more important than horsepower.

I don't blame Turn 10 for that because you can only know the balance when millions of players reflect it with laptimes. and frankly everytime when the physics changes the accuracy of the PI system is at best an educated guess.

Motarded: As downforce setup doesn't rebalance PI or boost your initial acceleration it is a moot point, and if you use manual clutch a sports gearbox provides no performance benefit. Unless there's someway you can make a "top end" car has more torque vs horsepower you can't compensate for it.
 
No, it IS aerodynamics. If I give a Typhoon and a Corvette the same power to weight ratio the Corvette is going to have a higher top speed because it's more aerodynamic. In fact I have an A-class Corvette and an A-class Typhoon. They both have about the same acceleration and power to weight ratio but the Corvette goes like 180 and the Typhoon only goes 150. Adding Forza aero affects it a little bit but not as much as the inherent behavior of the car that can't be changed.
 
I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I thought I pointed out pretty clearly that the key to a good performing car in Forza is to pick something with inherently poor aerodynamics and poor top speed ability so you can increase acceleration and handling that much more while keeping it within its class. It has almost nothing to do with torque or the power curve, since tight gearing makes that irrelevant anyways. The point of the thread is to make that clear, since it might not be obvious to some people why some cars are obviously worse than others despite being at the same PI.
 
buttsneeze
I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I thought I pointed out pretty clearly....
Click to expand...

Apparently not. I've read each of your posts multiple times and I couldn't figure them out. It couldn't be your sentence or paragraph structure or lack there off but me who can't read. Nice work though by trying to help people out then calling them dumb for not understanding. Classy.
 
I have no problem understanding his post..........just saying.

But personally, torque matters, especially on tracks where you have to accelerate with some lateral load.
 
BryCivicSi
Apparently not. I've read each of your posts multiple times and I couldn't figure them out. It couldn't be your sentence or paragraph structure or lack there off but me who can't read. Nice work though by trying to help people out then calling them dumb for not understanding. Classy.
Click to expand...

Well, if you're too dumb to understand, you could always stop posting in the thread :)
 
Sorry guys, but buttsneeze has it entirely right. Cars that are severly limited in terms of top speed are the best performing cars in a given class, unless you're on La Sarthe, or maybe the 'Ring. And there aren't that many different reasons that are limiting a car's top speed drastically enough to actually matter:

Gearing and RPM. This is what we're seeing with some of the muscle cars. Short gearing, combined with a low redline equals a low top speed. So, being stricken with a low top speed means that these cars have to accelerate and take turns far better than similar cars in their class on that fictional PI test track. This is the 'glitch' that caused the Dart to be the way it is.

Another thing that lowers top speed drastically is aerodynamics. Aerodynamics have, thus, a very similar effect on a cars PI as the gearing and low red line have on the Dart, for example: They limit the cars to low top speeds on the PI test track, meanng that it can be upgraded to out-accelerate and out-handle most cars in a given class, without receiving a proper increase in PI.

The difference in performance doesn't stem from things like torque. It's the PI system not equalizing the cars' perfomances.
 
@BryCivicSi

Didn't feel like multi quoting loads of your posts about torque but thats what i'm going to talk about.

Yes you need torque for quick acceleration, yes you need it to pull the cars weight but is it thee most important aspect of a car to enable it to go round a track fast? Hell no !

Take for example a Civic EK9 - it has terrible torque (on paper) so why can this low torque vehicle be capable of punching above its weight - thats right above !

Its all to do with how power is a multiplication of torque and RPM not to mention light car with light engine - doesn't produce much peak torque but it has bag loads of power for its engine size and producing torque throughout the RPM range.

If you had to place a bet on two cars which would win a 1.6ltr Civic 185bhp 111ft lbs torque @ 7500 RPM vs A car with lets say 5ltr 185bhp 300ftlbs torque @ 3000 rpm (drag or circuit race).

I know which one would be faster and I haven't even mentioned gearing.
 
barryl85
If you had to place a bet on two cars which would win a 1.6ltr Civic 185bhp 111ft lbs torque @ 7500 RPM vs A car with lets say 5ltr 185bhp 300ftlbs torque @ 3000 rpm (drag or circuit race).

I know which one would be faster and I haven't even mentioned gearing.
Click to expand...
What you're describing are the advantages of a low weight and a potentially better weight distribution, nothing that is inherently linked to having less torgue. Because, let's be honest, unless the power and torgue figueres drop significantly after that low RPM peak, having more torgue is always better - all else being equal, of course.
 
Luminis
What you're describing are the advantages of a low weight and a potentially better weight distribution, nothing that is inherently linked to having less torgue. Because, let's be honest, unless the power and torgue figueres drop significantly after that low RPM peak, having more torgue is always better - all else being equal, of course.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was insinuating a drop off in torque - whereas the Civic has a flat torque curve due to its variable valve timing providing an even torque distribution throughout the entire rev range.

Without variable valve timing only forced induction can help keep maintain the torque throught RPM range which most big n/a torque busting engines dont have.

I can provide a better and real life example of two cars similar in weight same engine size and power one has a crap load more torque but one is faster and guess what...... its the one producing less torque.....

Honda Civic Type R EK9

Year Introduced 1997
Kerb Weight 1090kg
Engine Type Straight 4
Valves 16 valve
Cylinders 4 cylinder
Aspiration Naturally Aspirated
Displacement 1595 cc
Fuel Petrol
Drive FWD
Transmission 5 speed Manual
Engine Location Front Mounted
BHP 183 @ 8200rpm
Torque (lbs/ft) 118 @ 7500rpm
BHP/Ton 171
0-60mph 6.6s
0-100mph 17.4s
60-100mph 10.8s
1/4 Mile 14.86s
Terminal Speed 94mph
Kilometre N/A
Top Speed (mph) N/A
Nürburgring Lap Time N/A

http://www.torquestats.com/index.php?car_id=401


Vauxhall Corsa VXR

Year Introduced 2007
Kerb Weight 1166kg
Engine Type Straight 4
Valves 16 valve
Cylinders 4 cylinder
Aspiration Turbocharged
Displacement 1598 cc
Fuel Petrol
Drive FWD
Transmission 6 speed Manual
Engine Location Front Mounted
BHP 189 @ 5850rpm
Torque (lbs/ft) 192 @ 1980rpm
BHP/Ton 165
0-60mph 6.8s
0-100mph 17.8s
60-100mph 11s
1/4 Mile 15.03s
Terminal Speed 94mph
Kilometre N/A
Top Speed (mph) 140
Nürburgring Lap Time N/A

http://www.torquestats.com/index.php?car_id=309




Now everybody knows figures on paper mean nothing however in this case I could confirm as i've seen these cars head to head numerous times.
 
Luminis
The difference in performance doesn't stem from things like torque. It's the PI system not equalizing the cars' perfomances.
Click to expand...

Thats why the Forza PI/class system is very flawed and always has been.

Its a play favorites, manipulation exercise for the most part.

Power to weight ratio is the baseline for all performance, but goes completely ignored at times in the game.

There are other factors, and a long flat torque curve is preferable sometimes.
However a car with 20% to 50% hp advantage, and fairly comparable otherwise, in the real world, is going to be faster almost anywhere.
 
JJ72
76kg isn't a small difference pal, if my car is 76 kg lighter my 0-100 time will at least be 0.5 sec less.
Click to expand...

Its about the weight of an average driver/passenger.

To have the advantage of well over one third more torque torque and not to mention producing it at under 2000rpm whereas the Civic doesnt produce maximum torque till its almost at the redline @ 7500.

How about we go all out and mention the fact the Corsa has a 6 speed shorter ratio gearbox? And how about it having a Turbo + a very very very slightly larger cubic capacity + more bhp.
 
barryl85
Yeah I was insinuating a drop off in torque - whereas the Civic has a flat torque curve due to its variable valve timing providing an even torque distribution throughout the entire rev range.

Without variable valve timing only forced induction can help keep maintain the torque throught RPM range which most big n/a torque busting engines dont have.

I can provide a better and real life example of two cars similar in weight same engine size and power one has a crap load more torque but one is faster and guess what...... its the one producing less torque.....
Click to expand...
On paper, it's faster by a hair's width in a straight line... And, generally speaking, that's not very suprising, as I'm expecting the Type R's gears to be shorter and still has a slightly better power to weight ratio and weight quite a bit less. If there's a pessenger in the Civic, we'll talk :D

That said, a flat torgue curve can make a lot of difference and even put a car with lower torgue ahead, that's why I said "all other things being equal". And even with the torgue dropping of early, it would still depends on the track; throw a lot of low-speed corners in, and the additonal low-end torgue will help quite a bit.
SuperCobraJet
Thats why the Forza PI/class system is very flawed and always has been.

Its a play favorites, manipulation exercise for the most part.

Power to weight ratio is the baseline for all performance, but goes completely ignored at times in the game.

There are other factors, and a long flat torque curve is preferable sometimes.
However a car with 20% to 50% hp advantage, and fairly comparable otherwise, in the real world, is going to be faster almost anywhere.
Click to expand...
Precisely. This debate about torgue and power is nice and all, but it will never explain the different performances of cars that are supposed to be roughly equally fast, due to the PI system.

Personally, I don't think that the PI system is that bad in general, though. The track that's used for testing would just have to be adjusted for upcoming releases.
 
WHY-Because-Racecar.jpg
 
Luminis

That said, a flat torgue curve can make a lot of difference and even put a car with lower torgue ahead, that's why I said "all other things being equal". And even with the torgue dropping of early, it would still depends on the track; throw a lot of low-speed corners in, and the additonal low-end torgue will help quite a bit.
Click to expand...

You know the low end torque is only good if you keep the rpm down, with a high revving engine you can keep the revs lively through the corner which helps keep the car under control + exiting the corner wont be an issue at all.
 
ehh no matter how you put it 76kg isn't little. much more than what 3cc (why do you even mention it I don't know) or 6hp is worth.

My mini cooper S does 0-60 in 6.7 second to 6.9 give or take and here's the spec

Year Introduced 2003
Kerb Weight 1140kg
Engine Type Straight 4
Valves 16 valve
Cylinders 4 cylinder
Aspiration Supercharged
Displacement 1598 cc
Fuel Petrol
Drive FWD
Transmission 6 speed Manual
Engine Location Front Mounted
BHP 170 @ 5850rpm (have aftermarket exhaust so may differ)
Torque (lbs/ft) 162 lb-ft @ unknown rpm, feels more like 3300
BHP/Ton 149.1
0-60mph 6.7s
0-100mph unknown
60-100mph unknown
1/4 Mile we don't have drag strips here :P
Top Speed (mph) 138 (factory)
Nürburgring Lap Time N/A

2nd gear goes to 120kph too so very long legged. also runs on OEM goodyear rubber, Pound for pound doesn't seem disadvantaged with a torque orientated engine curve.

I dunno about power vs weight as the baseline of performance either, just look at the NSX or lotus elise. it's very track and chassis dependent.
 
barryl85
You know the low end torque is only good if you keep the rpm down, with a high revving engine you can keep the revs lively through the corner which helps keep the car under control + exiting the corner wont be an issue at all.
Click to expand...

except realistically unless you have a full custom set of ratio your gear won't match every corner of the track, there will be corners where it lacks torque in a higher gear but run out of revs exiting at a lower gear.

Torque also comes in handy when you can't run the ideal line, or have to recover from a bad corner, it gets you out of trouble.
 
JJ72
except realistically unless you have a full custom set of ratio your gear won't match every corner of the track, there will be corners where it lacks torque in a higher gear but run out of revs exiting at a lower gear.

Torque also comes in handy when you can't run the ideal line, or have to recover from a bad corner, it gets you out of trouble.
Click to expand...
Precisely. Thus, it helps on very low speed courses, such as autocross tracks.

Torgue heavy engine are usually not found in cars that weight just a ton, so it's pretty hard to find a car that compares well to the EK9.

A better example (in my opinion): RX-7 FD3S vs. Honda S2000. Both have the exact same BHP, but the Rex has more torgue. And, although it is heavier, it accelerates faster from 0 to 60mph, faster from 0 to 100mph and does the quarter mile faster. Yup, gotta love torgue.
 
Good points, I guess you have to have each car set up exactly how you need it for each track, if you dont you will have weaknesses in a lot of different areas !

And good comparison Luminis, Although I have seen a Best motoring race between the two and it was a different story from the figures !

To me I prefer the high revving livelyness, its what i'm use to driving I feel like I can get more out of it than a lumbering torque monster.
 
JJ72
not often a Rotary is being praised for having more torque. :P
Click to expand...
Well, all it takes to undercut a rotary's torgue figure is a Honda engine :lol:

Anayways, I think the S2K vs. REX comparo shows exactly what I'm on about.

barryl85
And good comparison Luminis, Although I have seen a Best motoring race between the two and it was a different story from the figures !
Click to expand...
Well, given the amount of version of the FD3S and S2000, that's not suprising ;)
 
Apart from the torque and power issues, I think the problem of 'glitched' cars is caused by the transmission. For example, you can put a V10 Viper engine in a Dart without changing the transmission in FM4. This keeps the top speed low because the stock transmission just sucks. Once you put in a Viper engine and switch to race transmission (which is more realistic) the top speed goes way up and the PI accordingly. T10 needs to look at that.. switching the engine should be coupled with a mandatory switch of the gearbox.
 

Latest Posts

Back