Beater or Sleeper? GT6 Car of the Week Thread

[JuiceMcGoose]

Yeah, I think we all miss the test track.

I drove the RCZ yesterday stone stock with stock tires, and I think it's a pretty good car. With an oil change it's 414pp, and I don't have many times on my test track in that range, so I can't say how fast it is compared to other cars. But it's easy to handle with no big problems. You can give full throttle early on in corners and let the FWD pull you around.

So I can't call it a beater. But at 15 seconds slower at Tsukuba than my 499pp Tesla, it's no rocket either.

 

[Bumbaglat]

Interestingly, the MSV racing schools (incl. at Brands Hatch, Snetterton, Oulton Park) use RCZ’s, so clearly someone thinks this car is worth employing in a serious, race-driving, teaching context:

http://www.msvtrackdays.com/car-home/one-hour-driver-training

Also Peugeot is clearly aware that the standard car has been accused of lacking the power to match the looks, so have announced a more hardcore version - the RCZ-R - I guess in the Megane Renaultsport mould:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/peugeot/rcz/first-drives/peugeot-rcz-r-first-drive-review

...Perhaps we’ll eventually see that in the game. In the meantime, round Brands Hatch, (traction control 1; ABS on 2) and other aids off driving with a DS3 (controller sensitivity on 3), I find it a very neutral car to drive. Totally agree with MustangManiac that the standard brakes are great, with no squirrelling under hard braking with surprising stopping power into the corners for unexpected late-braking performance, even on Comfort-softs. And it responds nicely to upgrades, all along the upgrade path. As a FF it’s therefore great, and while the standard Turbo is gutless that’s totally fixable with upgrades. I could certainly think of worse base cars of that type to start with, drive and mod. I’d call it a sleeper.

 

[no1pal]

Pretty good looking car, but I find it some what weird from the side. The backend is longer than the bonnet

As other have mentioned, it`s quite ok to drive. Maybe a little «boring»
With an oil change it will give 207 bhp.

Took the RCZ around Ascari for a lap, and clocked in at 2:46:xx. It`s not too fast but decent enough.
Also tested it at RouteX for top speed: 251km/h when it is flat. It will hit the rev limiter at 256km/h on the downhill at RouteX

All in all, a car that the looks of it, promise too much compared to the performance of it out of the box.

 

[MustangManiac]

I see by Bumbaglat's autocar link that the RCZ-R is rated at 266bhp, with my tune at 264bhp perhaps a good comparison at least power wise to the R version?

 

[NixxxoN]

Interestingly, the MSV racing schools (incl. at Brands Hatch, Snetterton, Oulton Park) use RCZ’s, so clearly someone thinks this car is worth employing in a serious, race-driving, teaching context:

http://www.msvtrackdays.com/car-home/one-hour-driver-training

Also Peugeot is clearly aware that the standard car has been accused of lacking the power to match the looks, so have announced a more hardcore version - the RCZ-R - I guess in the Megane Renaultsport mould:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/peugeot/rcz/first-drives/peugeot-rcz-r-first-drive-review

...Perhaps we’ll eventually see that in the game. In the meantime, round Brands Hatch, (traction control 1; ABS on 2) and other aids off driving with a DS3 (controller sensitivity on 3), I find it a very neutral car to drive. Totally agree with MustangManiac that the standard brakes are great, with no squirrelling under hard braking with surprising stopping power into the corners for unexpected late-braking performance, even on Comfort-softs. And it responds nicely to upgrades, all along the upgrade path. As a FF it’s therefore great, and while the standard Turbo is gutless that’s totally fixable with upgrades. I could certainly think of worse base cars of that type to start with, drive and mod. I’d call it a sleeper.

To me it makes absolutely no sense that such sporty looking coupé is FWD. It must be RWD otherwise it sucks. It reminds me so much the non-quattro versions of the Audi TT.
FWD are only practical hatchbacks and family cars to drive the kids to school and stuff.

 

[McClarenDesign]

I'll be opening a room up at 10p CST US tonight. From 10p-11p, we'll be playing around with this and cars of similar power. Feel free to join us! I'm pretty sure my friends list is full, but send me a message and I should be able to clear up some spots.

Vid(s) to follow.

 

[Bumbaglat]

To me it makes absolutely no sense that such sporty looking coupé is FWD. It must be RWD otherwise it sucks. It reminds me so much the non-quattro versions of the Audi TT.
FWD are only practical hatchbacks and family cars to drive the kids to school and stuff.

Write to "Europe - France" to complain. They invented modern FF cars. At least (playing devil's advocate) it makes driving life more interesting.

 

[Bumbaglat]

To me it makes absolutely no sense that such sporty looking coupé is FWD. It must be RWD otherwise it sucks. It reminds me so much the non-quattro versions of the Audi TT.
FWD are only practical hatchbacks and family cars to drive the kids to school and stuff.

Well that's the thing… once you get to get to 250'ish Bhp you're arguably beyond overwhelming what a front wheel drive/front engined car can cope with and still get round a corner. The fact that the RCZ works so well to this limit, and it's still hanging on in there, is a testament to the basic design of the vehicle

Anyhooo, it seems that, regardless of the car, any manufacturer cannot but run up against the maximum that a FF car can take. So let's all push that limit! and still get round that track!

 

[McClarenDesign]

Well that's the thing… once you get to get to 250'ish Bhp you're arguably beyond overwhelming what a front wheel drive/front engined car can cope with and still get round a corner. The fact that the RCZ works so well to this limit, and it's still hanging on in there, is a testament to the basic design of the vehicle

Anyhooo, it seems that, regardless of the car, any manufacturer cannot but run up against the maximum that a FF car can take. So let's all push that limit! and still get round that track!

I'm interested to see what you and @NixxxoN can to at Cote d'Azur against my 2.01.xxx. I know there's more than a second out there, but I couldn't put it together within my session.

 

[NixxxoN]

Write to "Europe - France" to complain. They invented modern FF cars. At least (playing devil's advocate) it makes driving life more interesting.

FWD are good for everyday driving, a normal non-powered car for people who only want to go from A to B, thats for sure. But for racing and going fast? I think its horrible.

Well that's the thing… once you get to get to 250'ish Bhp you're arguably beyond overwhelming what a front wheel drive/front engined car can cope with and still get round a corner. The fact that the RCZ works so well to this limit, and it's still hanging on in there, is a testament to the basic design of the vehicle

Anyhooo, it seems that, regardless of the car, any manufacturer cannot but run up against the maximum that a FF car can take. So let's all push that limit! and still get round that track!

For me the Xsara rally car was the best FWD car in GT5, I dont know about GT6.

I'm interested to see what you and @NixxxoN can to at Cote d'Azur against my 2.01.xxx. I know there's more than a second out there, but I couldn't put it together within my session.

I'm not very good driving FWD cars because I hate them, but I'll give it a try. But whats the setting? Fully tuned?

 

[XDesperado67]

Has anyone tried the tune I posted a link for above?

@Niku Driver HC based its HP and weight on the R model and I was running 2:31s in the 500PP Clubman race at Bathurst in his pre-release tune of the car. Definitely not the fastest in the 450PP range but still very respectable.

 

[McClarenDesign]

The only things I changed were the edition of the generic spoiler (the tiniest one that looks stock), wheels (same diameter), and paint color (French Racing Blue). I hadn't even given her an oil change. Comfort Softs, I believe, are standard issue.

 

[Bumbaglat]

I'm interested to see what you and @NixxxoN can to at Cote d'Azur against my 2.01.xxx. I know there's more than a second out there, but I couldn't put it together within my session.

Well I can humbly say I can't get close to that with the stock car, so either I'm terrible (which is absolutely possible) or I need to soup that baby up and then some… I'm working on it…!!

 

[NixxxoN]

Ok. I did the test.

So much understeer...

The 6th lap was clean without mistakes, but of course clean lap doesnt mean perfect lap.
The car was all stock, with comfort soft tyres and no rear wing.

 

[McClarenDesign]

handbrake?

 

[NixxxoN]

handbrake?

I don't use handbrake. As the car understeers, I just tried to use as much track width as possible, and go the closest to the walls without touching them.
PS: Maybe the fact that I didnt have a rear wing helped me a bit (I dont think you need a rear wing for such a FWD understeering car?) it slows the car down a bit in the strights and since the car understeers, it doesn't help in the corners either, i think...

 

[McClarenDesign]

And found 3-4 seconds? I'd like to know where I was losing them.

 

[NixxxoN]

And found 3-4 seconds? I'd like to know where I was losing them.

I think you should try again without rear wing. I'd say you will go a bit faster.

Also, change the oil which will give you a few extra HP

I always change the oil when I buy a car and I couldn't undo it.

 

[McClarenDesign]

I think you should try again without rear wing. I'd say you will go a bit faster.

Also, change the oil which will give you a few extra HP

I always change the oil when I buy a car and I couldn't undo it.

Removing the wing shouldn't make that much of a difference, just like adding it didn't. Certainly not 3-4 seconds/lap worth. The oil change would likely put me into the sub-2:00 mark, but again, not the 1:57s.

 

[un4givn85]

did pd even include the difference between having a rear wing and not having one into the aerodynamic calculations?

 

[Ameer67]

Some great racing in that lobby. But I can tell when @McClarenDesign was having problems with that understeer. Good time overall.

 

[05XR8]

Its fun on The Mountain as well

 

[NixxxoN]

Removing the wing shouldn't make that much of a difference, just like adding it didn't. Certainly not 3-4 seconds/lap worth. The oil change would likely put me into the sub-2:00 mark, but again, not the 1:57s.

I watched your video and you certainly didnt make mistakes, but I think you didnt quite use all the available track width, and maybe on the brakes you could be a little more late.

did pd even include the difference between having a rear wing and not having one into the aerodynamic calculations?

Yes, if you put a rear wing on a road car it adds downforce (and you can set it up a bit), which can be useful for very rear-twitchy cars to control them, however for an understeering car like the RCZ I think the wing slows the car down (less straightline speed)

 

[McClarenDesign]

Le Mans is still uploading.

 

[un4givn85]

Yes, if you put a rear wing on a road car it adds downforce (and you can set it up a bit), which can be useful for very rear-twitchy cars to control them, however for an understeering car like the RCZ I think the wing slows the car down (less straightline speed)

I know that part, but what about vice versa
did they account for the different aerodynamics of not having a wing on a car that normally has one?


edit: it was nice racing with you guys, its nice to actually race, instead of the usual online bs
and i have to admit it was cool to see my driving on youtube lol

edit 2: where is the race at stowe circuit? still uploading?

 

[McClarenDesign]

Good racing last night, @un4givn85.

 

[un4givn85]

thanks
hope to join you again sometime

 

[NixxxoN]

I know that part, but what about vice versa
did they account for the different aerodynamics of not having a wing on a car that normally has one?


edit: it was nice racing with you guys, its nice to actually race, instead of the usual online bs
and i have to admit it was cool to see my driving on youtube lol

edit 2: where is the race at stowe circuit? still uploading?

You can always see if a car has downforce wings when you enter car setup and at the bottom section. Some non-race cars have stock wings that you can't modify (example Ferrari FXX IIRC), and some others have stock wings that you can modify.

 

[un4givn85]

You can always see if a car has downforce wings when you enter car setup and at the bottom section. Some non-race cars have stock wings that you can't modify (example Ferrari FXX IIRC), and some others have stock wings that you can modify.

so far the only car ive seen with that option is the r34 skyline, but i havent done a lot of looking lol

but i am talking about like doing a test with say a SVT Cobra in stock form and recording your lap time, then removing the rear wing and doing the same test and recording the lap time.
just to compare if removing a stock vehicles rear wing makes a difference or if it is just cosmetic.

 

[NixxxoN]

so far the only car ive seen with that option is the r34 skyline, but i havent done a lot of looking lol

but i am talking about like doing a test with say a SVT Cobra in stock form and recording your lap time, then removing the rear wing and doing the same test and recording the lap time.
just to compare if removing a stock vehicles rear wing makes a difference or if it is just cosmetic.

In this case I would say it's cosmetic only, but i'm not sure.
Lots of road cars stock wings have no downforce in the game and are only for decoration, like the Mitsubishi FTO for example.