400pp Perfection [Long Boring Thread]

[Rumface]

This post is written to explore the best 400pp track car for Deep Forest .

For a few days now me and a friend have been looking for the best of the best 400pp car, here are the regulations we've been working under:

Engine Restrictions -

• Aspiration : Free
• Capacity : Free
• Drivetrain : Free
• Modification : Free

Body Modification -

• Aero Parts : Allowed
• Race Modification : Free (Noted)

Tyre Restrictions -

• Front : Sports: Hard
• Rear : Sports: Hard

Driver Restrictions -

• Recovery Force : Disallowed
• TCS / ASM : Absolutely Disallowed

• ABS : Allowed
• Transmission : All Allowed

Special Restrictions -

• Concept / Prototype Vehicles are excluded
• Open Wheel Vehicles are excluded
• Cheated or Modified Game Code Vehicles

• Vehicles Within 400pp Restriction Only
• Race Vehicles / Space Frames / Speciality Vehicles Allowed (Noted)
• Italian / French / British cars allowed extra time for breakdowns

Hot Laps Must:

• Ran with Realistic Tyre Grip / Tyre Wear / Full Damage
• At least one tyre must have contact with the paved track / run off or curb at all times.
• This isn't a competition, your car is the highlight. We're looking for the best 400pp car not the best driver.

The track we've been using is Deep Forest (Normal Direction / Online Lobby) with Realistic Tyre Grip / Tyre Wear / Full Damage & Penalties on Weak. We're still looking for the best Vehicle and so far we've found some very close matches and got some solid times down, both me and my friend are using DualShocks for these laps.

Hot laps are performed in free run with all the same settings as the races, where as races are short 3 lap sprints working a tournament of 5 races. This ensures door to door racing all the time and cars that peak performance on lap 2.

General Theory (Important bit)
The formula for 400pp seems to rest your car between 155 - 195bhp @ ~30kgfm to be competative. Weight bounces between lower power cars reaching 900Kg up to a maximum competitive weight of 1350 for the higher - power cars. Cars outside of the ideal competitive band (Listed above) loose the edge when their performance is not extracted to it's fullest either in the corners or straights. Highest Output - 210bhp @ ~1450Kgs (+3s Split on Technical Section) / Lowest Output - 79bhp @ ~700Kgs (Far too Slow)

Engine Output & Aspiration (Blah Blah Blah)
Our findings are that to reach that sweet spot (165bhp @ 1100Kg) you need to be looking for unmodified vehicles with a starting output of around 350pp. Although exeptions to the rule crop up (Acura NSX '91 / Skyline GT-R V (R33) '97). Bringing cars down from around 450pp and above limits their output further to under 190bhp, ideally a narrow power band (Ideally Turbo Aspiration) have higher output between the crucial rpm's than the vehicles with higher stock bhp, which is aided further by short-throw high ratio gearing (Only 130mph needed for Start/Finish Straight).

Aero & Weight Neutrality (Just skip through this bit)
Finding a balance in weight seems to take a back seat to power. The heavier vehicles struggle to compete on the Sports: Hard tyres well, a light 55/45 balanced vehicle allows for limited traction loss on the tyre set whilst utilising the power quite effectively in earlier sections. Unfortunately, they suffer through the last section of sweeping high speed corners, inversely the mid-engined offerings which are able to put down enough balanced power through the final corners can make up for under steer in the beginning sections. Perfectly balanced vehicles seem to fall behind in both areas. Heavier vehicle warm tyres much faster and tend to become unstoppable once ahead.

It is vital to realise bhp and kg's cost different amounts of Performance Points. bhp is much more expensive than kg's, 200kg's can be added to a car only to add around 15-20bhp, making it crucial to narrow the power-band as much as possible. Aero is the last thing to worry about, only race-modified or heavier weight vehicles need worry about down-force as the lighter vehicles will gain sufficient lead in the slower sections, allowing for blocking of the racing line during later stages.

In conclusion to this it's better to know what balance your looking for and either add all of the ballast to gain power or maximise turn in on heavier cars, middle ground tends to fall short of achieving either technical or high speed sections with any memorable results.

Real World Examples (Read this bit at least)
I'll list a few cars I've set up for fastest laps, but also compete in 3 lap sprint races on Deep forest, I won't bother boring you further with set-ups and justifications but you'll see the relative and averaged times follow suit of the previous huge boring paragraphs.

Fastest: CSLACR's Lotus Elise Type 72 '01 1:28.850 - 90.76mph / 160.03kmph

Tier 1 (Race Modified Vehicles):

• Kirklesat's Acura NSX RM '91 [160bhp / 4300rpm @ 1245kg] - 1:31:400
• Kirklesat's Nissan SPEC-R Aero (S15) RM '02 [150bhp / 5800rpm @ 1200kg] - 1:32:200
• Rumface's Lotus Motor Sport Elise '99 [129bhp / 5800rpm @ 825kg] - 1:33:390
• -- RM [150bhp / 5200rpm @ 1100kg] - 1:34:---

Tier 2 (Production - Modified):

• CSLACR's Lotus Elise Type 72 '01 [147bhp / ----rpm @ 900kg] - 1:28.850
• praiano63's Toyota MR2 G-Limited '97 [193bhp / ----rpm @ 1210kg] - 1:29.950
• Highlandor's Toyota FT86 '12 [179bhp / ----rpm @ 1230kg] - 1:30:268
• Highlandor's Honda Integra Type R DC2 '99 [---bhp / ----rpm @ ----kg] - 1:30:454
• Johnnypenso's Ford RS200 84'[---bhp / ----rpm @ ----kg] - 1:30.530
• Rumface's Acura NSX '91 [180bhp / 4600rpm @ 1200kg] - 1:30:804
• Rumface's Mugen S2000 '00 [191bhp / 6400rpm @ 1240kg] - 1:30:927
• Highlandor's Ford Focus ST170 '03 [---bhp / ----rpm @ ----kg] - 1:31:078
• Kirklesat's Skyline GT-R V (R33) '97 [192bhp / 3900rpm @ 1525kg] - 1:31:500
• Highlandor's Lexus IS200 (J) '98 [---bhp / ----rpm @ ----kg] - 1:31:565
• Highlandor's MX5 (Roadster RS) '07 [---bhp / ----rpm @ 1100kg] - 1:31:656
• Rumface's Nissan SPEC-R Aero (S15) '02 [180bhp / 5200rpm @ 1250kg] - 1:32:000
• Rumface's Ford Focus ST170 '03 [180bhp / 5100rpm @ 1240kg] - 1:32:388
• Rumface's Infiniti G35 Coupe '06 [167bhp / 5100rpm @ 1295kg] - 1:32:904
• Highlandor's 190 E 2.5 - 16 Evolution II '91 [~210bhp / ----rpm @ 1340kg] - 1:32:030
• Highlandor's Mazda RX-7 GT-X (FC) '90 [---bhp / ----rpm @ 1250kg] - 1:32:233
• Rumface's Fiat Coupe Turbo Plus '00 [200bhp / 5100rpm @ 1365kg] - 1:34:494

Tier 3 (Production - Completely Stock):

• -- [200bhp / 4800rpm @ 1500kg] - 1:36:---
• -- [120bhp / 5800rpm @ 1100kg] - 1:38:---
• Keith's Rover 200 '96 [84bhp / 5800rpm @ 800kg] - DNF

Hope this thread is useful to you, I'll periodically update the method and lap times for a while to see if anyone can top the tiers. If any of the information I've provided is incorrect or inaccurate just give me a shout.

Thanks to Highlandor for Participating!

TLDR: Don't bother

 

[Master_gamer438]

I'd shoot for a NSX Type R, no aero, its weight distribution is 45/55 and I run it at 505PP and 550PP(though a no aero one will only net you 549PP, also its weight distribution seems for me a very nice balance for the PP I run at on RS tires.) Never ran it on any other tires but i'd imagine it would perfom pretty well with the right tune.

 

[Rumface]

505,550 and 549pp are all well over 400pp. So I'm not sure It'd pertain to a 400pp vehicle very well.

 

[Highlandor]

Hi...

Nice to see an online tuning test / contest. Good job m8

Few things "jump out" when reading your regulations for your test/contest, I think if you could clarify these then it'd help the validity of it.

1) "Race 3/5 laps"

So you're setting your lap times in race?? If so, are you taking into account possible affect of slipstream upon fastest lap..??

3/5 laps - seems very short, I know sport hard / road cars can do 3 laps of Nurb 24hr (45 miles) track with tyre wear on - why so few laps on such a short track..??

2) You don't mention "2 wheels on track at all times" - kinda univeral term for most clean lobbys / races to ensure no corner cutting - which is prevelant in random lobbies at Deep Forest (the "concrete" before first tunnel - turn 5).

How do we know contestants aren't cutting this concrete to gain advantage..??

3) These are quick times, and race distance very short. This will inevitably mean some people may scream it's perfect for "cheat setups" - what you going to do to stop guys from using the "ride height trick" to gain an unfair advantage over those who will setup their cars conventionallly..??

"ride height trick" give alot better front "turn in", very handy for these low(er) grip tyres, but at the expense of seriously bad tyre wear (online).

Nice little competition, but unfortanly Polyphony (and so many "in it to win it" guys who'll bend every rule) make things like this very difficut to ensure everything is fair and adhered to all the time, by alll competitors.

I've been organising online racing on GT5 for over a year now - alot of guys can be chilled out and trusted, but there's an endless supply of "in it to win it" guys who just don't seem to understand anything other than pushing every rule to it's limit and if you give them an inch - they take a mile, every time.

Don't mean to sound harsh, but after other competitions in this sub forum had a serious flaw in them, rendering the results invalid, it'd be cool to see something (especially online) that's 100% legit and fair.

Best of luck...

EDIT to avoid double post:

I'd shoot for a NSX Type R, no aero, its weight distribution is 45/55 and I run it at 505PP and 550PP(though a no aero one will only net you 549PP, also its weight distribution seems for me a very nice balance for the PP I run at on RS tires.) Never ran it on any other tires but i'd imagine it would perfom pretty well with the right tune.

Pfffft - 550pp and racing soft - that's serious overkill of grip. We run 530pp sports soft and 585pp racing hards for road cars, there's plenty of grip and tyre life available. Our races are around 20-25 miles on average, tyres can easily make that distance and provide plenty of grip.

 

[shmogt]

400pp is the hardest pp to get right. There are lots of cars capable of hitting it but usually really awful ones. All the great cars go way over or are just able to hit it. I made a Toyota 86 GT tune for 400pp and I find it works really well. I have various setups for it as well. The ultimate best I have found is high power, high downforce, and add weight to get closer to 50/50 as well as it lowers pp. At that low pp more power really helps as everything goes so slow.

 

[Rumface]

Thanks Highlandor, I'll be sure to clarify more, I thought I didn't want to turn people away with abrasive long list of rules, but I'll add everything in there - It's not so much a race set-up but a sprint set-up.

I'm not familiar with the turn-in "cheat" so if you could educated me I can add it to the rules list.

Yeah shmogt, 400pp is a nice balance where the cars can't use the full engine potential but get quite a good handling package to boot. Also it means you can have cars from '90 and '80 running side by side without someone bringing in any de-tuned LMP's or GT's. I've not tried the 86 GT but it seems as if it'd fit in really well.

Re-read the updated rules list I'd be glad to add some new times and cars to this "experiment".

PS: It's not a race series or anything - it's a tuning forum for comparing car set-ups. Finer points like final drive ect.. can be discussed after we find the best base model for 400pp racing. Just thought some others might of looked into this.

 

[Master_gamer438]

your right in the sense of 505PP and 550PP being well over 400PP, but a car like the 458 is amazing at 500PP to 600PP, thats over 100PP, in that sense most cars, like the LFA and Audi R8 are very fast at multiple PP levels. Some cars that are fast at 1 PP setting may also perform just aswell at another PP level. I know cars that are stock around 480PP to 490PP are very fast at 550PP, I saw you posted this aswell so its good to see someone else notice this. I would be looking for a car stock around 340PP. But the NSX is light, and I dont believe in its stock form its PP that low. But there is always those few cars that dont follow this rule of thumb.

 

[XDesperado67]

We recently ran CSLACR 400PP Nordschlief shootout here in the tuning forum. While most of the cars were tuned for offline hotlaping of the ring you can get a good idea of some of the top contenders at this PP. The cars were limited to no ballast and minimum use of the power limiter and ran on Comfort Soft tires. Switching to Sports Hard tires and free use of ballast and power limiter should make the top cars even faster.

After that shootout I'd be looking at a hot tune for an MR2/MR-S as they dominated the top of our shootout.

 

[Master_gamer438]

Def have to agree with you Desperado, on the MR2. Very good car in general

 

[Highlandor]

To find the best "all rounder" then you need to add track(s) to the test, reason being is that with "PP" racing some cars will be more competitive on certain tracks than others. The easiest split is "power/top speed" and "handling" tracks.

Deep forest has quite a low top speed, it isn't really an "all round track", by limiting the test to one track it limits the validity of the results.

Most of the road car series I race in, there are definately differences between the cars that are competitive on these different types of track.

Likewise, by using sport hard tyres, this kinda contradicts the race distance. Sport hards are rarely used in online lobbies, when they are you usually find race distance is alot longer. By having a short race distance, in affect, people can "turn up" the setup (Spinal Tap - turn it up to 11) and this setup wouldn't be as effective in a "normal" sports hard tyre race.

Sports hards have good durability, it's quite easy to not get enough heat in them, especially with the lighter cars. The difference between these tyres at full operating temperature and being cold (in effect "useless") can be quite big. Running in free run will give you plenty of time to warm them up, but a short online race you won't.

So the car may produce a good lap time i free run (eventually, but someone jumping in it for a short race will not have the same performance - if you see what I mean??

Little tip - anyone sturggling with getting heat into tyres, various things you can do with the setup OR increase the brakes and the tyres will heat up more as you brake, so when you turn in to the corner the tyres are nearer operating temperature and you can turn in better than when they're stone cold.

I know it sounds like I'm being critical, but it'd be good to have an online "experiment" like this, the more variables we can address to keep this as accurate as possible the better, in terms of accuracy and validity, the results will be.

Then, maybe, take the same formula and run it at different PP's

Only other thing is power limiter and ballast, quite often used in random lobbies, but forum / website racing - not so. However, if people quote these figures when they enter their time, at least all those looking at the results can see this and use this infomation how they see best, and the experiment can continue.

Despite all the points I raised, you need to draw the line somewhere, aslong as the most important variables are followed, I think minor ones can be used with descretion and this experiment can still be valid and very interesting.

 

[Highlandor]

OK - had a quick go after the footy and a mate joined us a bit later...

Production Modified (PL = Power limiter)

Merc 190e 2.5-16v - 1:32:03 - PL = 89%
(engine & weight STOCK, 0 ballast)

RX7 GT-X '90 - 1:32:233 - PL = 92.1%
(engine & weight STOCK, 0 ballast)

MX5 '07 (Premium car) - 1:31:656 - PL + 92.1%
(Stock engine, TURBO Kit, STOCK weight, 0 ballast)

Toyota FT86 '12 - PL = 89.1%
(engine & weight STOCK, 0 ballast)

Me = 1:30:544
M8 = 1:30:268

FT86 was a nightmare, MX5 and Merc 190e can go quicker, didn't reallly spend much time with any of them.

MX5 best feeling to drive, but all setups could be better as only spent less than 5 laps on each, apart from FT86.

 

[Rumface]

FT86 was a nightmare, MX5 and Merc 190e can go quicker, didn't reallly spend much time with any of them.

MX5 best feeling to drive, but all setups could be better as only spent less than 5 laps on each, apart from FT86.

I've managed the fastest NSX lap after 3 laps on the fresh setup. I've not managed it yet. Thanks for the input though, great work.

Just to re-iterate, the set-ups I'm looking for are the extremes of each car, the only reason I've gone for the Sports-Hard Tyres is because they can go through Cold to Peak and then slightly Worn stages on these "Sprint" set-ups in only 3 hard laps.

The racing is always very close, because the first lap is spent on the driver's skill of controlling the car, and also the ease of handling of the car on cold tyres, the second is spent on the cars maximum performance within the bracket of the tyres and finally the third lap is in place to weed out set-up anomalies causing excess wheel spin and other things which can bald tyres after just one hard lap. You are right though, the limited scope of the track does limit the set up, but I found the same set-ups to be quite effective on Trail Mountain and Autumn Ring. Perhaps after we've found the ideal car on this track a quick cross reference on different tracks will weed out the Alfa Romeo's from the Lancia Beta's.

If you wanted endurance of course you are right, it is up to your final set-up decisions like suspension and to some extent transmission - this is the reason I've not included the set-up information. I had a blast running a stock MX-5 '89 around nurburg on comfort-hard tyres through the day-night cycle, I was surprised how long they lasted, perhaps long enough for the car's first service 👍.

After that shootout I'd be looking at a hot tune for an MR2/MR-S as they dominated the top of our shootout.

Sounds good, I really like the MR2 models, AW11 ('82) especially. Which versions in-particular? Following the success of the Acura NSX I'd expect they'd make great starting points.

PS: Added Average Speed for Top 3 cars.

 

[Highlandor]

Endurance is totally different - we do endurance races with LMP / GT1 / Historic race cars, many of these cars feel different when running on 1/4 tank of petrol (compared to full tank @ start). So you need balance your setup between both handling charateristics.

We race around 20 miles for our "normal" races, every night, mainly because this is where tyre wear starts to have an affect, so you need to balance grip against tyre wear.

That's nothing like endurance racing, both also it's different to these almost sprint races of 3 laps.

Longer races are better for online racing as it means there's no rush to get to the front or overtake. It helps reduce aggressive driving and it puts off the rammers and "in it to win it" guys, so helps keep the lobby a bit cleaner, as well as attracting drivers who are normally a bit more chilled out and cleaner too.

All in all, makes for better racing.

Autumn Ring and Trial Mountain are not a million miles apart, both are quite tight and twisty circuits with elevation changes - albiet, Trial Mountain moreso than Autumn Ring. Compare these to somewhere like Le Mans and it's totally different.

We'd use Monza (if everyone can be trusted and is "cool"), Fuji F & GT, Le Mans and a custom track to test / look at high speed / power cars in each class.

There are usually cars in each class that favour one type of track more than the other, splitting the test racks into these 2 groups helps to highlight thsese differences, especially when power limiter is being used as heavily as in this test.

I just experiemented with a couple of cars. Put a low RPM turbo on one, now getting 37.4 kg/fm of torque, compared to the FT86 that's got 22.3 kg/fm. The car with 37.4 kg/fm weighs LESS (by 86 kgs) than the FT86 too. Both are 400pp road cars.

This is why I hate the power limiter being so "wide" (surely Polyphony could just limit cars by 5-15% max would be enough), it opens up a whole can of worms when trying to equalise and regulate race series online, and also, this is why we test on the 2 types of tracks mentioned, so cars like this are "exposed".

I'm gonna run a few laps with some other cars.....roast is nearly ready though

Yum yum - BURP.........

Not sure how many I'll have time to test, I'll try and get a few laps in as many as I can........probably be only a few..

 

[Rumface]

Any more lap-times will be great, I can't seem to get my efforts in the FT-86 anywhere close to what you guys posted. I'm still running above 1:31 on my set. Perhaps I should take another look at it.

What you do sounds interesting, I'll be honest this is a departure from what I usually do on GT, I'm usually found running Stock cars on Comfort Hard's on road courses or the likes. I used to play on a Play Seat with a G25 too, but since then my situation has changed. The races I play are usually on private lobbies anyway which weeds out the players less desired in place of people racing for the thrill.

I disagree though, having a short turnover of races with multiple heats makes it less annoying when inevitably you make a mistake, the races are set-up to be high-strung test of sprint racing and all participants are racing at the fullest of their potential all the time. Endurance or even slightly longer races become tactical tests of driving skill and car knowledge, also interesting but un-like what we're doing here which could be described as "European Drag Racing". Ironically we do the same length as you, Deep Forest is 2.24 miles, 3 laps of which is nearly 8, first to 3 wins can stretch a minimum of 23 miles (with 2 intermissions), that's 45 corners to navigate per race.

Endurance racing is defiantly great fun though, I once had a friend come around to do one of the A-Spec races, we swapped every so many laps, and got really attached to the car.

Enjoy your Roast mate

 

[Highlandor]

Ford Fcous ST170 '03 (Standard - NOT premium car) - 1:31:078 - PL = 93.3%
STOCK engine & weight - turbo kit added

(yes, 1:31:0 in a FWD )

That was on my 6th lap with my "usual" setup, tyre wear about 5-10%. For some reason the car felt better, it was almost 4w drifitng through some corners, a bit like the Merc 190e. I was able to carry alot more speed through certain corners, much fun with a FWD

We'll have to meet up in a lobby sometime, if you want I can try to help you with some tips for online stuff...??

I'm not the best or fastest, there's plenty of alien's out there who'd kick my ass online, but I do alot of different racing and always online, I never run offline. Plus, I race with a huge diversity of guys, so get to speak, setup, bounce idea's off many different people and it helps to form a picture of what "works" in what situation.

Helpful as there's a huge diversity of variables lobbys can be set to.

Gonna have a little blast in another car now...

 

[Rumface]

Yeah that'd be great. I'm sure we can learn a lot from each other! Your lap times are putting mine to shame for sure, what set-up you using? You on a wheel?

 

[Highlandor]

Lotus Esprit 'HC turbo '87 - 1:31:724 - PL = 75.4%
STOCK engine and weight.

More to come from this, methinks...

I use my own setup calculator, then adapt LSD / ride height / camber and toe to suit whichever type of car I'm using, then drive it, then tweak it depending on what needs to be done.

Isn't the fastest of the fast, but it works or everything from these cars to 700pp Le Mans cars - if you know how to use it and what goes with what.

Gives cars great balance & tyre wear, only takes 2 minutes for each car and always works online. Very helpful as I don't have a huge amount of time to setup cars, and I race in alot of different series and want to drive as many different cars as possible.

I just changed from Pad to a wheel and just learning differences between setups for both...

 

[Master_gamer438]

Stock Honda NSX '90, 1350kg, almost 200HP. I ran the track on sport softs, forgot to put sport hards on, so these laps dont count, first 5 laps at DFR: 6'28.7, next 5 laps after trying my 505PP suspension settings, 6'27.535. I still have to adjust gears but im sure with tranny tweaking 6'36 possible. Will update in a bit on sport hard lap times. BTW the NSX is 45/55 weight distribution and power limiter had to be dropped into the high 60% range.

 

[Highlandor]

FT86 '09 - 1:30:562 - (can't remember power limiter)
Stock engine and weight, 0 ballast.

A bit better than the '12 FT86 but still the same problem with inconsistency. Seems to randomly pick a different corner to spit you out of each lap.

Fast, but an onine "weapon" at 400pp, don't think so, it'd be a nightmare trying to race these in close quarters with others, changing lines etc.

I'd rather drive somethiing slower and less erratic. Managed more sub 1:31 las than the '12 version.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I just happened to be looking for a car to lap Nurb GP/F on CS tires around 1:53 and ended up in this car and thought I'd give it a spin here:

Ford RS200 84' - 1:30.53 - PL = 71%
(engine & weight STOCK, 0 ballast)

I was running identical lap times to the RS200 at GP/D with the Mugen S2000 so I expect it'll be in the same ballpark.

 

[Highlandor]

I just happened to be looking for a car to lap Nurb GP/F on CS tires around 1:53 and ended up in this car and thought I'd give it a spin here:

Ford RS200 84' - 1:30.53 - PL = 71%
(engine & weight STOCK, 0 ballast)

I was running identical lap times to the RS200 at GP/D with the Mugen S2000 so I expect it'll be in the same ballpark.

Nice 👍

I was thinking about the RS200 and Pug 205 T16 - both are superfast on twisty short(er) circuits in our Historic 450pp class.

Old skoool rules, good job

 

[Highlandor]

Lexus IS200 (J) '98 - 1:31:565 - PL = 98.1%
(STOCK engine & weight, 0 ballast).

Awesome car through 2nd half of track, slides beautifully but still in control (most of the time, anyway). Was up on split time, but kept pushing wee bit too hard.. Great car

Maybe not the fastest but a great drive...

 

[XDesperado67]

Try the Toyota 2000GT '67 out. You'll need to add a little power to get to 400PP but should be pretty quick.

Also any of the '97-'03 MR2/MR-S should be pretty quick at 400PP.

 

[Highlandor]

Try the Toyota 2000GT '67 out. You'll need to add a little power to get to 400PP but should be pretty quick.

Also any of the '97-'03 MR2/MR-S should be pretty quick at 400PP.

Why don't you do some laps with these cars and let us know what time(s) you're getting??

Surely some of the 400pp shootout cars must be usable (or tweaked to be able to run) online..??

 

[praiano63]

Try the Toyota 2000GT '67 out. You'll need to add a little power to get to 400PP but should be pretty quick.

Also any of the '97-'03 MR2/MR-S should be pretty quick at 400PP.

Should be?? It seems that a TOYOTA MR2 G-LIMITED 1997 // 400PP // COMFORT SOFT TIRES // ONLINE OK was the faster car of the ring shootout !!!! At least on this track.

><(((((°>°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

 

[Rumface]

Hey guys, thanks for the reply. Been a bit busy with driving lessons recently but I'll keep the thread up-to-date until the weekend when I can do some more serious benchmarking.

I'm pretty sure the '09 is a concept vehicle highlandor. I'm reading everything eveyone's putting I just don't have time to respond to everyone, so I'll cya this weekend.

 

[Highlandor]

Should be?? It seems that a TOYOTA MR2 G-LIMITED 1997 // 400PP // COMFORT SOFT TIRES // ONLINE OK was the faster car of the ring shootout !!!! At least on this track.

><(((((°>°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

Put a time in then....

Hey guys, thanks for the reply. Been a bit busy with driving lessons recently but I'll keep the thread up-to-date until the weekend when I can do some more serious benchmarking.

I'm pretty sure the '09 is a concept vehicle highlandor. I'm reading everything eveyone's putting I just don't have time to respond to everyone, so I'll cya this weekend.

LOL - yeh, kinda forgot about that...!!! I was curious to see the difference between the '09 and the '12, completely forgot it was a concept car...

 

[XDesperado67]

@Highlandor I can't get online for tuning or testing because of my internet connection.
If I could I would, even though I'm an average driver at best.

 

[praiano63]

Put a time in then....

TOYOTA MR2 G-LIMITED `97 // 1:29.950 // 193 HP - 1210 KG - 400PP- Sport hard tires.
PL=99.5%

><(((((°>°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

 

[Highlandor]

Integra Type R DC2 '99 - 1:30:454 - PL = 86.2%
STOCK engine and weight, 0 ballast

TOYOTA MR2 G-LIMITED `97 // 1:29.950 // 193 HP - 1210 KG - 400PP- Sport hard tires.
PL=99.5%

><(((((°>°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

Yeah, of course....

So what was your setup for this..??