- 11
- singapore
- K31thc0m
- K31thc0m
what an evil combo
Car of the Week | Toyota C-HR S '18
- Thread starter XSquareStickIt
- 1,193 comments
- 417,263 views
- 878
- Wales, UK
- Snake55wildcat
ThAT IS
Last edited:
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,790
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
A Chaparral 2J on Sports Softs outpaced a Mission X on Racing Softs at Watkins Glen Short. Said Mission X was being piloted by @Vic Reign93.
A Mazda 787b on RS was substantially faster than the fastest Mission X on RS at Suzuka Full.
A Genesis VGT and a Skoda VGT both performed better than the Mission X.
...Someone tell me why Porsche thought a fully RR EV with as much power as a Chiron was a good idea?
Beater, because somehow the ulta modern/near-future hypercar got spanked silly by a noisy brick built on 1960s racing technology and hobbled with tires worse than it's supposed to run.
Edit: I also believe a few of you owe the Chaparral 2J an apology for being so harsh on its handling, especially after tonight's experience. 😂
A Mazda 787b on RS was substantially faster than the fastest Mission X on RS at Suzuka Full.
A Genesis VGT and a Skoda VGT both performed better than the Mission X.
...Someone tell me why Porsche thought a fully RR EV with as much power as a Chiron was a good idea?
Beater, because somehow the ulta modern/near-future hypercar got spanked silly by a noisy brick built on 1960s racing technology and hobbled with tires worse than it's supposed to run.
Edit: I also believe a few of you owe the Chaparral 2J an apology for being so harsh on its handling, especially after tonight's experience. 😂
Last edited:
- 520
- Singapore
The Porsche Mission X Y - Because Y in the world did Porsche think sending 1300hp to the rear wheels only was a good idea?
It’s like Porsche received a commission from the queen of bad ideas to build something that can outdo the Mustang in the art of flinging oneself into the crowds at Cars and Coffee.
Or someone at Porsche finally went off the deep end and went full mad scientist.
TLDR: The Porsche Mission Y experience in a nutshell:
It’s like Porsche received a commission from the queen of bad ideas to build something that can outdo the Mustang in the art of flinging oneself into the crowds at Cars and Coffee.
Or someone at Porsche finally went off the deep end and went full mad scientist.
TLDR: The Porsche Mission Y experience in a nutshell:
- 1,774
- Singapore
- XSquareStickIt
Congrats to @K31thc0m for being the only one with the balls to try out last week's Mission Impossibull TT! He obliterated my initial time by almost 7 seconds, setting a 1:47.416! Well done!
And to the rest of you, yes, I did just call you out
We might not be featuring another automaker's birthday present to itself this week, but considering it's the returning @Baron Blitz Red 's car choice, it very nearly could've been
Instead, he went for something perhaps more apropos; it's red, and it also made a grand return not too long ago...
Please welcome back under the COTW spotlight, the Toyota GT-One (TS020) '99!
In the late 90s, Toyota Team Europe were notorious for pushing the envelope, first with the infamous cheat of the Celica Rally Car's turbo, and then in 1998 when they (successfully) argued to the FIA that the GT-One's empty fuel tank was space that would fit a suitcase, thereby allowing a purpose–built racecar to pass as a road car and be successfully homologated. On the track, the GT-Ones were heavy favourites to win, with a front–row lockout in the 1999 season of the 24 Hours of Le Mans, but fate—or perhaps even karma—had other plans for the impossibly optimised Toyotas, with TTE's highest finish being best of the rest. Of course, with the TS020's inclusion in Gran Turismo 2, the svelte TS020 has been fondly remembered by many, and it has finally made the big leap from Standard to "Super Premium" status in GT7!
Join us in racing the TS020 in our weekly lobbies to find out just how tenacious the TS020 is in GT7 in our weekly lobbies, where we'll be having a slight twist in proceedings...
Our weekly lobbies are ongoing as usual with slight twists. Anyone (not a dick) is welcome to join us!
First, @Obelisk will be hosting the Tuesday lobby instead of @Vic Reign93 just for this week. The Saturday lobby is unchanged and will still be hosted by me.
For both lobbies, we'll be running the first 3 races with BoP on to see how the GT-One compares against the established competitors of its new home, Gr.2. Then, the later 3 races will be BoP off to unleash the true might of the GT-One. For all 6 races, any car that fits under the regulations are welcome comparisons, so don't worry if you don't have a TS020 of your own!
Here in GT7, you'll be lapping a bone stock TS020 around the whole of Spa 24 Hour Layout, with a bit of an add–on...
Yep, your mission this week is to simply find the car in Gr.2 that is the closest match for the TS020, stock for stock! And of course, have fun with it
Of course, we always welcome opinions, tunes, liveries, photos, videos, or stories about the car here on the the thread!
And to the rest of you, yes, I did just call you out
We might not be featuring another automaker's birthday present to itself this week, but considering it's the returning @Baron Blitz Red 's car choice, it very nearly could've been
Instead, he went for something perhaps more apropos; it's red, and it also made a grand return not too long ago...Please welcome back under the COTW spotlight, the Toyota GT-One (TS020) '99!
1998 Le Mans Toyota GT-One #27 by ImbissBrunto
#esso #gtone #1998
#esso #gtone #1998
In the late 90s, Toyota Team Europe were notorious for pushing the envelope, first with the infamous cheat of the Celica Rally Car's turbo, and then in 1998 when they (successfully) argued to the FIA that the GT-One's empty fuel tank was space that would fit a suitcase, thereby allowing a purpose–built racecar to pass as a road car and be successfully homologated. On the track, the GT-Ones were heavy favourites to win, with a front–row lockout in the 1999 season of the 24 Hours of Le Mans, but fate—or perhaps even karma—had other plans for the impossibly optimised Toyotas, with TTE's highest finish being best of the rest. Of course, with the TS020's inclusion in Gran Turismo 2, the svelte TS020 has been fondly remembered by many, and it has finally made the big leap from Standard to "Super Premium" status in GT7!
Join us in racing the TS020 in our weekly lobbies to find out just how tenacious the TS020 is in GT7 in our weekly lobbies, where we'll be having a slight twist in proceedings...
Join Our Weekly Lobbies!
Our weekly lobbies are ongoing as usual with slight twists. Anyone (not a dick) is welcome to join us!
First, @Obelisk will be hosting the Tuesday lobby instead of @Vic Reign93 just for this week. The Saturday lobby is unchanged and will still be hosted by me.
For both lobbies, we'll be running the first 3 races with BoP on to see how the GT-One compares against the established competitors of its new home, Gr.2. Then, the later 3 races will be BoP off to unleash the true might of the GT-One. For all 6 races, any car that fits under the regulations are welcome comparisons, so don't worry if you don't have a TS020 of your own!
Click on the hyperlinks to convert the times to your time zone, and feel free to add the hosts as friends on PSN to make searching for the lobbies easier!
Tracks: Randomly selected by lobby participants (~5 mins practice, ~10 mins sprint)
PP Limit: 826 (first 3 races) / 840 (last 3 races)
Car: No Limit
Tyres: Racing Medium (first 3 races) / No limit (last 3 races)
The Americas Lobby
- Tuesday. 28th January, 10 P.M. CST
- Host: Obelisk (PSN: RMedia_Obelisk)
The Asia/Oceania also kinda European Lobby
- Saturday, 1st February, 4 P.M. Singapore Time
- Host: XSquareStickIt (PSN: XSquareStickIt)
Tracks: Randomly selected by lobby participants (~5 mins practice, ~10 mins sprint)
PP Limit: 826 (first 3 races) / 840 (last 3 races)
Car: No Limit
Tyres: Racing Medium (first 3 races) / No limit (last 3 races)
~Single–Player Challenge!~
This week's SPC is (unintentionally?) nostalgic: in GT2's IA-10 licence test, players are tasked to bring a TS020 through a faux Eau Rouge as quickly as possible.
Here in GT7, you'll be lapping a bone stock TS020 around the whole of Spa 24 Hour Layout, with a bit of an add–on...
Yep, your mission this week is to simply find the car in Gr.2 that is the closest match for the TS020, stock for stock! And of course, have fun with it
Of course, we always welcome opinions, tunes, liveries, photos, videos, or stories about the car here on the the thread!
Last edited:
- 1,774
- Singapore
- XSquareStickIt
When writing reviews for Car of the Week, I'm always acutely aware that I'm playing pretend: I'm pretending in a virtual environment to be a professional reviewer with real racing experience that has no trouble bringing a car to and keeping it at the limits. As such, I always try to be conscious of my target audience and medium when I write; I can't exactly slam my head into the back of my seat and make a convoluted face holding onto the steering wheel for my life and then write, "OH MY GOD THAT ACCELERATION IS INSANE OOF! HAHAHAHAHAHA!" in a written review of a car in a video game, nor can I ascertain how much towing capacity and wading depth a 2011 Ford Raptor has, or what kind of swag a Ferrari F8 would afford someone pulling up to a fancy hotel. After all, the digital world is very different from the real world, having very different limitations and priorities. And because standards and expectations are so different in a game, sometimes I can come to conclusions that would make me sound completely insane if expressed in the real world, like how a 2017 Ford GT feels soulless and boring, and that the Mazda RX-8 is one of the best sports cars ever made. But if I were to take my role–playing of a professional reviewer more seriously, I'd try to sugarcoat my harsh opinions more, perhaps by saying things like, "playing pretend isn't Porsche's forte", because the Mission X makes absolutely zero sense to me as a Gran Turismo 7 player.
In the medium of a video game that ought to be played for pleasure and maybe even an escape from reality, Porsche presents the Mission X to us players almost like an advertisement to drum up interest and hype for the eventual successor to the 918 Spyder. They pumped out a release video showing off the car on YouTube to coincide with the car being added into the game, and they'd proudly share with us in the car's description page trifling details like where its headlights draw inspiration from, or how a stopwatch can be installed in front of the passenger seat for whatever reason. As a GT7 player however, what I'd like to know before any of that is, "how much does this weigh?" and "which wheels on this are being propelled?" You know, the very bare basic of questions that usually don't bear asking. Except, Porsche would rather tell us that the Mission X has built–in video recording capabilities than the mass of the damn car. This is Gran Turismo 7 on the PlayStation 4 & 5; a 1956 356 Carrera would have built–in video recording function. It's called the Share button, and it's on every DS4 and DS5 controller.
The only hint of the Mission X's all–governing mass figure lies in a single sentence of the car's description: it is claimed to have a power–to–mass ratio of 1PS/kg. From this, we could infer from the Mission X's 1,360PS (1,341HP, 1,000kW) figure and conclude that the it weighs 1,360kg (2,998lbs). However, if we pay for the privilege of PS+, we can attempt to verify this hypothetical mass figure: Create an Open Lobby, set the minimum mass of entrant cars to 1,361kg, and, oh, what's this? The Mission X can still enter! In fact, the Mission X remains eligible all the way until the Minimum Mass is set to no lower than 1,601kg (3,530lbs), meaning that the Mission X's actual mass is 1,600kg (3,527lbs), and that Porsche and/or Polyphony Digital outright lied to our faces about how much the Mission X actually weighs. It breaks my heart to see this kind of shenanigans from a car bearing the Porsche emblem, because that's the company I had previously praised for being honest with their mass figures by quoting kerb mass instead of dry mass, and the Mission X's undisclosed mass figure veiled behind a paywall feels like a bitchslap of betrayal. It's one thing not being able to meet a performance target, but to then obscure basic facts and tell a bold–faced lie that Porsche have achieved said target is a scumbag move both in the real and virtual worlds alike, especially when said lie could endanger others.
Here's some free information for a change: In the hugely popular Amazon series, "The Grand Tour", the predecessor to the car the Mission X previews, the 918 Spyder, set the fastest lap time among its "Holy Trinity" rivals—the McLaren P1 and LaFerrari—around Algarve International Circuit, despite the Porsche being the heaviest with the least combined power of the trio. That might, might, be testament to the wisdom of Porsche engineers making the 918 drive all four of its wheels, making it much easier to handle than its boneheaded rivals that try to put down almost a thousand horsepower through just their rear wheels. With that being said, can anyone in any world tell me why the HELL does the Mission X, with over 50% more power than the 918, drive 50% less wheels than the 918?! While Porsche are tight–lipped about which wheels of the Mission X are driven, it's depicted in the game as being RR for some unfathomable reason, and even asking anyone to imagine what that does to the handling of the car ought to be a crime, to say nothing about actually subjecting someone to have to wrangle it around a track.
The Mission X is completely undrivable without TCS. Don't just take my word for it; Ex–World Tour driver Tidgney recommends TCS even when the Mission X is wearing Racing Soft rubber, which is three whole compounds up from the Sports Soft the car comes default with. It's so incalculably awful on Sports Hard tyres that it breaks the PP system of the game. I personally drive it on TCS 2/5 on said Sport Soft tyres, and even then, it feels every bit as lairy and unwieldy as a Dodge Demon without aids. It wheelspins well into the 200km/h range on TCS2 in the dry. It's always at the limit of its tyres' grip, so much so that even cresting a gentle hill—such as the one right before the triple high speed sweepers of Dragon Trial Seaside—with TCS on 2/5 is enough to send the car spearing off into the barriers. On cold tyres, it wouldn't even need the crest of a hill to kill its driver; my Mission X lost itself going in a straight line in the dry, WITH TCS ON AT 2/5, on the slight downhill straight between Turns 1 and 2 of Red Bull Ring. And while it's normally very taut and flat in the corners, the rear tyres of the Mission X don't like to be leaned on too much. If the car is steered too hard in an attempt to fight the understeer when rolling on the accelerator pedal for high speed sweepers (such as Turns 2 & 3 of Watkins Glen, or most of Tokyo East), the car is prone to suddenly penduluming and fishtailing like an air–cooled 911, which blows my mind because the MX is much better balanced as an EV, with a weight distribution of 45/55. I suspect there's some shenanigans going on with rear steer and/or torque vectoring that causes this suddenly nostalgic behaviour in the MX, because it also acts unnaturally if one side of its wheels are placed off–track, giving that sensation of being sucked off the paved road by the grass or gravel. I haven't noticed any rear steering with the Mission X in Scapes, though.
The most egregious part of driving the MX, of course, is the sheer distance it needs to adequately slow for a corner, better measured in time zones than distance boards. To illustrate my point, I did a quick little experiment wherein I brought three cars—a first gen 911 (a 1973 901 Carrera RS 2.7), an eighth–gen 911 (a 2022 992 GT3 RS), and the Mission X '23—to Watkins Glen, and I'd approach Turn 1 at full speed and try to take T1 as quickly as possible with all three cars bone stock with their default tyres.
Despite both 911s varying greatly in overall speed and capabilities, there was only about 30m in difference between the braking points of the 901 and the 992; the 901 braked at around 320m before the corner, while the 992 needed to brake around 350m. That's an increase of just 30m across 50 years of evolution of the 911. Now, take a guess how much longer a 2023 Mission X needs to slow for the very same corner under identical conditions than the 2022 992 GT3 RS.
It needed to brake around 660m away from T1.
The Mission X needed to apply its brakes fully 310m further away from the 992 GT3 RS just to make the damn apex of the turn! The distance boards only go up to 400m because no one expects a car to need that long to slow for the turn! 400m is usually just a wake–up call that the corner is approaching, especially in a GT3 racecar that usually brakes closer to the 250m mark on Racing Hard tyres. And yet, the Mission X had to brake WAY before it even approaches the first distance marker for the turn. It's asking me to brake even before I can SEE the damn corner I'm braking for! I've even had to count the number of catch fence stakes, each 20m apart from the other, to even give you that 660m approximation! Because of these impossible–to–judge braking distances, I've had to, for the first time in playing GT games, go full n00b mode and turn on braking zone markers to help me when driving the Mission X. They're usually not very precise at all, but they're very poignant and VERY necessary reminders nonetheless for just how obscenely long the MX needs to slow for a corner, where there otherwise would be none.
To be entirely fair, the Mission X would be a technological marvel in its own right if it materialised into the real world behaving exactly like it does in Gran Turismo 7: 1,600kg is unbelievably, impossibly light for a performance EV that has a thousand kW and enough range for 10 laps of Red Bull Ring at full tilt. Its top speed of 328km/h (204mph) ought to sate all but the clinically insane of Autobahn cruisers. It's just that, in Gran Turismo, there really isn't much that gives players a sense of speed; all we get is wind noise, which gets mostly drowned out by the electric motors at full blast. Absent any feelings of g and not even having the periodic reminder of speed that is shifting gears ourselves, the way in which the Mission X gathers speed is not just akin to getting sucked into a wormhole; it's also paradoxically stealthy. I think that most of the complaints about the car not stopping well is down to just how unaware we as players before a TV screen are of how quickly the Mission X is flinging us through the straights of any given circuit and into its corners. It does LMP1 speeds on the straights, naturally leading players to fall back onto their LMP1 instincts with braking and cornering, but the Mission X has only road car brakes and tyres. Excellent they may be by road car standards, those brakes and tyres are completely disproportionate to the straight line speed the Mission X has. The Mission X actually has slightly higher minimum corner speeds than even the stripped out, winged track toy, the 992 GT3 RS, but it never feels as agile in the corners as the 992 because it's SO MUCH goddamn faster than the 992 in a straight line. In other words, I think the Mission X is so unreasonably, irresponsibly fast on the straights that it completely warps all understanding and perception of distance, time, and speed in my head, and I highly suspect this is true for most other players as well.
Therefore, to help ground my expectations and set a baseline, I thought I'd do my pretend reviewer thing and bring a comparison car that has much more comparable lap times to the Mission X: A 1970 Chaparral 2J, and I'm going to run them back–to–back on the same track.
Yes, the 2J is a racecar, while the Mission X previews a road car. But, I think this is a fair comparison nonetheless because, despite the game tagging the Mission X as a #Road Car, I call ******** on that tag. The Mission X in real life is, to the public's knowledge, a one–off, life–sized car model with little to no mechanical bits underneath. It doesn't even come with licence plates for crying out loud, nor can it be fitted with plates in GT Auto. I simply reject the notion that the Mission X is a #Road Car. And if it isn't road–legal, why shouldn't it be compared to racecars? If anything, Porsche have the advantage in this comparison test, because all Porsche had to do was to build a model car and pretend that it has a 1PS/kg power–to–mass ratio; Chaparral actually had to build a (however briefly) functioning car that extends beyond theory and speculation. Chaparral didn't just say that the 2J had 509kW and weighs 821 kilos; the 2J has 683HP and weighs 1,810 pounds. If or when the car the Mission X previews makes it to GT7 and gets chosen to feature on Car of the Week, I'll pit it against road cars then. The Mission X on its own is simply not a road car to me.
The mathematically inclined among you might have worked out that the Chappie has just a little over half the power and mass of the Mission X, giving them very similar power–to–mass ratios. Both cars have their own vices and quirks when driven quickly, but the Chappie is much faster around a racetrack, having braking performance proportionate to the speeds it can do, and has much more range on a full tank of fuel than the Mission X has on a full charge. Okay, yeah, the Chappie is on Racing Hard tyres, one grade up from the Sports Soft that come default with the Mission X. But I set a 1:19.9 around Red Bull Ring with little effort in the Chappie, and the absolute quickest time achieved by the very best players of the game with the Mission X and Racing Soft tyres was a 1:20.6. I'm sorry, but when a futuristic make–believe car gets walloped by an antiquated box from the seventies in terms of outright speed, range, and ease of use, I find it impossibly difficult to even pretend to be mildly impressed by that or excited for what the future brings. Like... what is the Mission X even good for in this game?
At the end of the day, I'm playing pretend. I pretend to be an experienced racing driver and a writer who knows how to cite sources and when to use a semicolon. I pretend my opinions matter in a small corner of the internet I made. For what it's worth, I think Porsche hasn't taken into account the medium at all when creating for it, and I think the medium the Mission X is an ill–fit for has exposed a lot of ugly truths about it. What does it say about a car in real life if it is too cartoonishly quick and dangerous even in a video game? While I admit to the shortcomings of myself and my mediums, I very much like that this digital world eliminates a lot of real world pains and politics to place a laser–focus on the cars' own merits and driving sensations; no one is going to ban the sale or use of ICEs in this game, and I don't have to beg to be loaned a car to review, meaning I don't have a working relationship with anyone, be they car owners or manufacturers, and thus I can be entirely honest with my writing with nothing to lose. And my personal thoughts and opinions of the Mission X as someone who paid a million of his own Credits to judge it free of politics on its own merits across several racetracks are thus: I just don't know what the hell anyone is supposed to do with 1,360PS. I think the Mission X is just performance for the sake of it, just so that Porsche can remain part of the Holy Trinity. It's not something I want to drive nor find meaning in, and the thought of someone in the real world with way more money than skill and experience being able to buy something resembling it genuinely terrifies me. After driving the Mission X in the virtual world, I deeply suspect that, if I were a regular Porsche customer in the real world with a deep respect for the 911 and an even deeper love for the Cayman, that the Mission X would convince me that Porsche have completely lost the plot and all their marbles, completely evaporating whatever faith and goodwill I have for the company. The only thing they got right with the Mission X is its sole body colour of brown, because the car's a heap of ****.
Am I only pretending to care to justify being so harsh? I'll let you figure that out yourself.
In the medium of a video game that ought to be played for pleasure and maybe even an escape from reality, Porsche presents the Mission X to us players almost like an advertisement to drum up interest and hype for the eventual successor to the 918 Spyder. They pumped out a release video showing off the car on YouTube to coincide with the car being added into the game, and they'd proudly share with us in the car's description page trifling details like where its headlights draw inspiration from, or how a stopwatch can be installed in front of the passenger seat for whatever reason. As a GT7 player however, what I'd like to know before any of that is, "how much does this weigh?" and "which wheels on this are being propelled?" You know, the very bare basic of questions that usually don't bear asking. Except, Porsche would rather tell us that the Mission X has built–in video recording capabilities than the mass of the damn car. This is Gran Turismo 7 on the PlayStation 4 & 5; a 1956 356 Carrera would have built–in video recording function. It's called the Share button, and it's on every DS4 and DS5 controller.
The only hint of the Mission X's all–governing mass figure lies in a single sentence of the car's description: it is claimed to have a power–to–mass ratio of 1PS/kg. From this, we could infer from the Mission X's 1,360PS (1,341HP, 1,000kW) figure and conclude that the it weighs 1,360kg (2,998lbs). However, if we pay for the privilege of PS+, we can attempt to verify this hypothetical mass figure: Create an Open Lobby, set the minimum mass of entrant cars to 1,361kg, and, oh, what's this? The Mission X can still enter! In fact, the Mission X remains eligible all the way until the Minimum Mass is set to no lower than 1,601kg (3,530lbs), meaning that the Mission X's actual mass is 1,600kg (3,527lbs), and that Porsche and/or Polyphony Digital outright lied to our faces about how much the Mission X actually weighs. It breaks my heart to see this kind of shenanigans from a car bearing the Porsche emblem, because that's the company I had previously praised for being honest with their mass figures by quoting kerb mass instead of dry mass, and the Mission X's undisclosed mass figure veiled behind a paywall feels like a bitchslap of betrayal. It's one thing not being able to meet a performance target, but to then obscure basic facts and tell a bold–faced lie that Porsche have achieved said target is a scumbag move both in the real and virtual worlds alike, especially when said lie could endanger others.
Here's some free information for a change: In the hugely popular Amazon series, "The Grand Tour", the predecessor to the car the Mission X previews, the 918 Spyder, set the fastest lap time among its "Holy Trinity" rivals—the McLaren P1 and LaFerrari—around Algarve International Circuit, despite the Porsche being the heaviest with the least combined power of the trio. That might, might, be testament to the wisdom of Porsche engineers making the 918 drive all four of its wheels, making it much easier to handle than its boneheaded rivals that try to put down almost a thousand horsepower through just their rear wheels. With that being said, can anyone in any world tell me why the HELL does the Mission X, with over 50% more power than the 918, drive 50% less wheels than the 918?! While Porsche are tight–lipped about which wheels of the Mission X are driven, it's depicted in the game as being RR for some unfathomable reason, and even asking anyone to imagine what that does to the handling of the car ought to be a crime, to say nothing about actually subjecting someone to have to wrangle it around a track.
Porsche VGT Vexx by Sagittarius
#vexx #porschevgt
#vexx #porschevgt
The Mission X is completely undrivable without TCS. Don't just take my word for it; Ex–World Tour driver Tidgney recommends TCS even when the Mission X is wearing Racing Soft rubber, which is three whole compounds up from the Sports Soft the car comes default with. It's so incalculably awful on Sports Hard tyres that it breaks the PP system of the game. I personally drive it on TCS 2/5 on said Sport Soft tyres, and even then, it feels every bit as lairy and unwieldy as a Dodge Demon without aids. It wheelspins well into the 200km/h range on TCS2 in the dry. It's always at the limit of its tyres' grip, so much so that even cresting a gentle hill—such as the one right before the triple high speed sweepers of Dragon Trial Seaside—with TCS on 2/5 is enough to send the car spearing off into the barriers. On cold tyres, it wouldn't even need the crest of a hill to kill its driver; my Mission X lost itself going in a straight line in the dry, WITH TCS ON AT 2/5, on the slight downhill straight between Turns 1 and 2 of Red Bull Ring. And while it's normally very taut and flat in the corners, the rear tyres of the Mission X don't like to be leaned on too much. If the car is steered too hard in an attempt to fight the understeer when rolling on the accelerator pedal for high speed sweepers (such as Turns 2 & 3 of Watkins Glen, or most of Tokyo East), the car is prone to suddenly penduluming and fishtailing like an air–cooled 911, which blows my mind because the MX is much better balanced as an EV, with a weight distribution of 45/55. I suspect there's some shenanigans going on with rear steer and/or torque vectoring that causes this suddenly nostalgic behaviour in the MX, because it also acts unnaturally if one side of its wheels are placed off–track, giving that sensation of being sucked off the paved road by the grass or gravel. I haven't noticed any rear steering with the Mission X in Scapes, though.
The most egregious part of driving the MX, of course, is the sheer distance it needs to adequately slow for a corner, better measured in time zones than distance boards. To illustrate my point, I did a quick little experiment wherein I brought three cars—a first gen 911 (a 1973 901 Carrera RS 2.7), an eighth–gen 911 (a 2022 992 GT3 RS), and the Mission X '23—to Watkins Glen, and I'd approach Turn 1 at full speed and try to take T1 as quickly as possible with all three cars bone stock with their default tyres.
Despite both 911s varying greatly in overall speed and capabilities, there was only about 30m in difference between the braking points of the 901 and the 992; the 901 braked at around 320m before the corner, while the 992 needed to brake around 350m. That's an increase of just 30m across 50 years of evolution of the 911. Now, take a guess how much longer a 2023 Mission X needs to slow for the very same corner under identical conditions than the 2022 992 GT3 RS.
It needed to brake around 660m away from T1.
The Mission X needed to apply its brakes fully 310m further away from the 992 GT3 RS just to make the damn apex of the turn! The distance boards only go up to 400m because no one expects a car to need that long to slow for the turn! 400m is usually just a wake–up call that the corner is approaching, especially in a GT3 racecar that usually brakes closer to the 250m mark on Racing Hard tyres. And yet, the Mission X had to brake WAY before it even approaches the first distance marker for the turn. It's asking me to brake even before I can SEE the damn corner I'm braking for! I've even had to count the number of catch fence stakes, each 20m apart from the other, to even give you that 660m approximation! Because of these impossible–to–judge braking distances, I've had to, for the first time in playing GT games, go full n00b mode and turn on braking zone markers to help me when driving the Mission X. They're usually not very precise at all, but they're very poignant and VERY necessary reminders nonetheless for just how obscenely long the MX needs to slow for a corner, where there otherwise would be none.
To be entirely fair, the Mission X would be a technological marvel in its own right if it materialised into the real world behaving exactly like it does in Gran Turismo 7: 1,600kg is unbelievably, impossibly light for a performance EV that has a thousand kW and enough range for 10 laps of Red Bull Ring at full tilt. Its top speed of 328km/h (204mph) ought to sate all but the clinically insane of Autobahn cruisers. It's just that, in Gran Turismo, there really isn't much that gives players a sense of speed; all we get is wind noise, which gets mostly drowned out by the electric motors at full blast. Absent any feelings of g and not even having the periodic reminder of speed that is shifting gears ourselves, the way in which the Mission X gathers speed is not just akin to getting sucked into a wormhole; it's also paradoxically stealthy. I think that most of the complaints about the car not stopping well is down to just how unaware we as players before a TV screen are of how quickly the Mission X is flinging us through the straights of any given circuit and into its corners. It does LMP1 speeds on the straights, naturally leading players to fall back onto their LMP1 instincts with braking and cornering, but the Mission X has only road car brakes and tyres. Excellent they may be by road car standards, those brakes and tyres are completely disproportionate to the straight line speed the Mission X has. The Mission X actually has slightly higher minimum corner speeds than even the stripped out, winged track toy, the 992 GT3 RS, but it never feels as agile in the corners as the 992 because it's SO MUCH goddamn faster than the 992 in a straight line. In other words, I think the Mission X is so unreasonably, irresponsibly fast on the straights that it completely warps all understanding and perception of distance, time, and speed in my head, and I highly suspect this is true for most other players as well.
Therefore, to help ground my expectations and set a baseline, I thought I'd do my pretend reviewer thing and bring a comparison car that has much more comparable lap times to the Mission X: A 1970 Chaparral 2J, and I'm going to run them back–to–back on the same track.
Yes, the 2J is a racecar, while the Mission X previews a road car. But, I think this is a fair comparison nonetheless because, despite the game tagging the Mission X as a #Road Car, I call ******** on that tag. The Mission X in real life is, to the public's knowledge, a one–off, life–sized car model with little to no mechanical bits underneath. It doesn't even come with licence plates for crying out loud, nor can it be fitted with plates in GT Auto. I simply reject the notion that the Mission X is a #Road Car. And if it isn't road–legal, why shouldn't it be compared to racecars? If anything, Porsche have the advantage in this comparison test, because all Porsche had to do was to build a model car and pretend that it has a 1PS/kg power–to–mass ratio; Chaparral actually had to build a (however briefly) functioning car that extends beyond theory and speculation. Chaparral didn't just say that the 2J had 509kW and weighs 821 kilos; the 2J has 683HP and weighs 1,810 pounds. If or when the car the Mission X previews makes it to GT7 and gets chosen to feature on Car of the Week, I'll pit it against road cars then. The Mission X on its own is simply not a road car to me.
The mathematically inclined among you might have worked out that the Chappie has just a little over half the power and mass of the Mission X, giving them very similar power–to–mass ratios. Both cars have their own vices and quirks when driven quickly, but the Chappie is much faster around a racetrack, having braking performance proportionate to the speeds it can do, and has much more range on a full tank of fuel than the Mission X has on a full charge. Okay, yeah, the Chappie is on Racing Hard tyres, one grade up from the Sports Soft that come default with the Mission X. But I set a 1:19.9 around Red Bull Ring with little effort in the Chappie, and the absolute quickest time achieved by the very best players of the game with the Mission X and Racing Soft tyres was a 1:20.6. I'm sorry, but when a futuristic make–believe car gets walloped by an antiquated box from the seventies in terms of outright speed, range, and ease of use, I find it impossibly difficult to even pretend to be mildly impressed by that or excited for what the future brings. Like... what is the Mission X even good for in this game?
At the end of the day, I'm playing pretend. I pretend to be an experienced racing driver and a writer who knows how to cite sources and when to use a semicolon. I pretend my opinions matter in a small corner of the internet I made. For what it's worth, I think Porsche hasn't taken into account the medium at all when creating for it, and I think the medium the Mission X is an ill–fit for has exposed a lot of ugly truths about it. What does it say about a car in real life if it is too cartoonishly quick and dangerous even in a video game? While I admit to the shortcomings of myself and my mediums, I very much like that this digital world eliminates a lot of real world pains and politics to place a laser–focus on the cars' own merits and driving sensations; no one is going to ban the sale or use of ICEs in this game, and I don't have to beg to be loaned a car to review, meaning I don't have a working relationship with anyone, be they car owners or manufacturers, and thus I can be entirely honest with my writing with nothing to lose. And my personal thoughts and opinions of the Mission X as someone who paid a million of his own Credits to judge it free of politics on its own merits across several racetracks are thus: I just don't know what the hell anyone is supposed to do with 1,360PS. I think the Mission X is just performance for the sake of it, just so that Porsche can remain part of the Holy Trinity. It's not something I want to drive nor find meaning in, and the thought of someone in the real world with way more money than skill and experience being able to buy something resembling it genuinely terrifies me. After driving the Mission X in the virtual world, I deeply suspect that, if I were a regular Porsche customer in the real world with a deep respect for the 911 and an even deeper love for the Cayman, that the Mission X would convince me that Porsche have completely lost the plot and all their marbles, completely evaporating whatever faith and goodwill I have for the company. The only thing they got right with the Mission X is its sole body colour of brown, because the car's a heap of ****.
Am I only pretending to care to justify being so harsh? I'll let you figure that out yourself.
Last edited:
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,790
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
A little under ten years ago, I was heckled by some dude on Youtube who went by the name McClaren Designs. He’d found a video I posted of a dramatic one lap race of the Nurburgring in a Toyota TS020, and he felt that it warranted me paying a thread to some dinky thread on a Gran Turismo forum called “Car of the Week”. That week, they were reviewing the TS020, and McClaren Design felt I’d have a worthy contribution in that Youtube video.
A little under ten years ago, I joined Car of the Week.
It’s amazing how much can happen in that time span. At the time I joined, I was just starting my sophomore semester in college.
Now, nearly ten years later, I find myself staring at a GTPlanet Car of the Week thread that has decided to review the TS020. Time is a flat circle, huh? It would be remiss of me not to comment on this week’s car.
Added to Gran Turismo 7 as part of the March 2024 / v1.44 Update, the TS020 has finally come home after nearly six years of absence from the franchise; in doing so, it has also rightfully received the super-premium upgrade it so desperately needed back when GT5 first released.
I’m sure others will speak of the GT1 era it was produced in, the older version of it from 1998, or how the fuel tank counted as a boot for a suitcase. I’m not too interested in discussing the history of the car - just the car itself.
The TS020 in this game is specifically TS020 chassis number LM804, meaning that this is the one and only GT-One to have entered the Le Mans 24hr race both as a GT1 (1998, #28) and as a LMGTP (1999, #3). So technically speaking, the car we are reviewing is both a GT and a Prototype class car at the same time.
So what exactly does a racing machine with high pedigree and dual designations mean for the average GT player and their hard-earned 2.5 million credits?
For one thing, it’s one of only three historic cars available for GT’s quasi-homologated Group 2 category - the others are the McLaren F1 Longtail and the CLK LM. Whether by choice or by coincidence, the CLK LM featured in GT7 was one of this specific TS020’s rivals in the 1998 24 Hours of Le Mans.
Bone stock, this car is rated at 764 HP @ 7500 RPM and 605.3 ft-lbs @ 6000 RPM. All of that thrust is sent through a 6 speed sequential transmission, and is used to propel a mere 1,984 lbs (900 kg) up to a purported top speed of 217 MPH (350 kph). All of this adds up to a car with stats almost identical to the Nissan R92CP, a Group C monster made some seven years prior. They weigh the same, but the R92 has 24 more ponies pushing it forward.
In theory, the TS020 should be capable of tackling the Group 1 machines as well as absolutely dominating in its assigned category of Gr.2.
After all, for something as high-powered as it is, it’s a surprisingly sure-footed car on its default Racing Mediums, has quite good speed and acceleration, and is quite pleasant to wrestle through the corners.
When it came time to test it against Sophy, the TS020 fell apart.
You see, there’s a little something called Balance of Performance. And the TS020, quite unfortunately, has too much power for Group 2 and winds up getting reeled in with a drop from 764 HP to 550 HP. Yep, you’re reading that right. It has to lose 214 HP just to be competitive… Which is not a good thing.
For starters, BOP locks the car to its default, non-adjustable transmission, meaning your driving experience will be limited to the first 5 forward gears, rather than the full gearbox. Acceleration gets hurt from this, but I suppose you get some fuel economy out of it? Then you get to the brakes, which are 26 year old racing brake technology… Even against just the Sophys, I was getting massively outbraked by the more modern 2000s and late 2010s GT500s.
And the problems don’t end there. You’d think a Le Mans monster like this would have the downforce to deal with these cars, right?
Hahaha… No. I noticed it in the Sophys first, but all of the classic Le Mans machines in Gr. 2 were struggling more in mid to high speed corners compared to the modern machines.
So…
Bad brakes, not quite enough downforce, not enough forward thrust. What is the redeeming factor in cars like these?
Sadly, the only thing the classic Gr. 2 cars seem to be good for are tracks that heavily favor “power” setups (Le Mans, Fuji in particular). What they lack in stopping power, acceleration and cornering speed they more than make up for in straight line speed.
As for putting this car in Gr. 2/1/etc? It doesn’t generate enough downforce (600/900 default) versus the Gr.1/Gr.C cars (700/1500 default). And relative to the screwballs that float between groups, the TS020 is tame.
So unfortunately, what we have here is a car that is, on its own merits, an excellent machine that will serve its driver dutifully. But when it’s introduced to its competitive peers, it loses its cohesion and winds up relegated to niche situations.
A car that once stood shoulder to shoulder with Gr.Cs and early LMPs no longer stands tall.
It is, in some ways, a polar opposite to the Chaparral 2J. Where the 2J is boisterous, unforgiving and psychopathic, the TS020 is friendly, composed and pleasant.
Where the 2J continues to throw middle fingers at everyone and everything, the TS020 retreats from the spotlight.
The TS020 has become a victim of the inexorable march of time and technology, its successors outperforming it at almost every step of the way in a fair fight. Better than what came before, but bested by what comes after. Even with that, I cannot find it in me to say “ignore this car”. It is still a gorgeous car to look at, and a beautiful machine to take to its limits. Definitely keep one in your collection for a Gr.C Weekly race, the WTC900, or whatever else tickles your fancy. It will still serve you well.
As far as legends go, the GT-One is aging gracefully and slowly... but it is clearly starting to run out of time. I wonder how much longer we’ll have until the sun sets on this remarkable machine.
Rating:
BOP: Beater
Unrestricted: Neutral
A little under ten years ago, I joined Car of the Week.
It’s amazing how much can happen in that time span. At the time I joined, I was just starting my sophomore semester in college.
Now, nearly ten years later, I find myself staring at a GTPlanet Car of the Week thread that has decided to review the TS020. Time is a flat circle, huh? It would be remiss of me not to comment on this week’s car.
Added to Gran Turismo 7 as part of the March 2024 / v1.44 Update, the TS020 has finally come home after nearly six years of absence from the franchise; in doing so, it has also rightfully received the super-premium upgrade it so desperately needed back when GT5 first released.
I’m sure others will speak of the GT1 era it was produced in, the older version of it from 1998, or how the fuel tank counted as a boot for a suitcase. I’m not too interested in discussing the history of the car - just the car itself.
The TS020 in this game is specifically TS020 chassis number LM804, meaning that this is the one and only GT-One to have entered the Le Mans 24hr race both as a GT1 (1998, #28) and as a LMGTP (1999, #3). So technically speaking, the car we are reviewing is both a GT and a Prototype class car at the same time.
So what exactly does a racing machine with high pedigree and dual designations mean for the average GT player and their hard-earned 2.5 million credits?
For one thing, it’s one of only three historic cars available for GT’s quasi-homologated Group 2 category - the others are the McLaren F1 Longtail and the CLK LM. Whether by choice or by coincidence, the CLK LM featured in GT7 was one of this specific TS020’s rivals in the 1998 24 Hours of Le Mans.
Bone stock, this car is rated at 764 HP @ 7500 RPM and 605.3 ft-lbs @ 6000 RPM. All of that thrust is sent through a 6 speed sequential transmission, and is used to propel a mere 1,984 lbs (900 kg) up to a purported top speed of 217 MPH (350 kph). All of this adds up to a car with stats almost identical to the Nissan R92CP, a Group C monster made some seven years prior. They weigh the same, but the R92 has 24 more ponies pushing it forward.
In theory, the TS020 should be capable of tackling the Group 1 machines as well as absolutely dominating in its assigned category of Gr.2.
After all, for something as high-powered as it is, it’s a surprisingly sure-footed car on its default Racing Mediums, has quite good speed and acceleration, and is quite pleasant to wrestle through the corners.
When it came time to test it against Sophy, the TS020 fell apart.
You see, there’s a little something called Balance of Performance. And the TS020, quite unfortunately, has too much power for Group 2 and winds up getting reeled in with a drop from 764 HP to 550 HP. Yep, you’re reading that right. It has to lose 214 HP just to be competitive… Which is not a good thing.
For starters, BOP locks the car to its default, non-adjustable transmission, meaning your driving experience will be limited to the first 5 forward gears, rather than the full gearbox. Acceleration gets hurt from this, but I suppose you get some fuel economy out of it? Then you get to the brakes, which are 26 year old racing brake technology… Even against just the Sophys, I was getting massively outbraked by the more modern 2000s and late 2010s GT500s.
And the problems don’t end there. You’d think a Le Mans monster like this would have the downforce to deal with these cars, right?
Hahaha… No. I noticed it in the Sophys first, but all of the classic Le Mans machines in Gr. 2 were struggling more in mid to high speed corners compared to the modern machines.
So…
Bad brakes, not quite enough downforce, not enough forward thrust. What is the redeeming factor in cars like these?
Sadly, the only thing the classic Gr. 2 cars seem to be good for are tracks that heavily favor “power” setups (Le Mans, Fuji in particular). What they lack in stopping power, acceleration and cornering speed they more than make up for in straight line speed.
As for putting this car in Gr. 2/1/etc? It doesn’t generate enough downforce (600/900 default) versus the Gr.1/Gr.C cars (700/1500 default). And relative to the screwballs that float between groups, the TS020 is tame.
So unfortunately, what we have here is a car that is, on its own merits, an excellent machine that will serve its driver dutifully. But when it’s introduced to its competitive peers, it loses its cohesion and winds up relegated to niche situations.
A car that once stood shoulder to shoulder with Gr.Cs and early LMPs no longer stands tall.
It is, in some ways, a polar opposite to the Chaparral 2J. Where the 2J is boisterous, unforgiving and psychopathic, the TS020 is friendly, composed and pleasant.
Where the 2J continues to throw middle fingers at everyone and everything, the TS020 retreats from the spotlight.
The TS020 has become a victim of the inexorable march of time and technology, its successors outperforming it at almost every step of the way in a fair fight. Better than what came before, but bested by what comes after. Even with that, I cannot find it in me to say “ignore this car”. It is still a gorgeous car to look at, and a beautiful machine to take to its limits. Definitely keep one in your collection for a Gr.C Weekly race, the WTC900, or whatever else tickles your fancy. It will still serve you well.
As far as legends go, the GT-One is aging gracefully and slowly... but it is clearly starting to run out of time. I wonder how much longer we’ll have until the sun sets on this remarkable machine.
Rating:
BOP: Beater
Unrestricted: Neutral
Last edited:
- 2,460
- South Auckland, New Zealand
- Nismonath5
The Toyota GT-One is one of those funny regulation-cheating stories of the motorsport world. Built for GT1 regs, the two big rules for any cars to be allowed was that it had to have a road going model, and had to have trunk space. Building a chassis and labelling it a "road car" was easy enough, but as for the trunk space? Well, as you've already read in Square's post, someone at TTE managed to convince the bigwigs in charge that an empty fuel tank counted as trunk space! (And what's more hilarious is they said "Fair enough" and gave them the tick of approval!)
Stories aside, this is one of those cars that really should be Group 1.5. This left PD with a choice. Put it in Gr.2 and let it be the pay-to-win option (alternatively bop it to oblivion), or put it in Gr.1 and see it forever gapped by actual LMP models. To be honest, I'm glad they went with the Gr.2 option.
I did a league recently in the TS020, and it was such fun! It goes well, it's nice and stable. It's engine noise has a distinctive sound to it, especially when you're pushing hard. A couple of times I noticed it was sounding particularly nice going up the cogs. In a way, it performs so well you'd think it was almost cheating in the class it was trying to- wait a minute...
It's definitely a must have for any good Gran Turismo player. I'd be keen to join in the races this week, if I'm able. It'll be good fun!
Stories aside, this is one of those cars that really should be Group 1.5. This left PD with a choice. Put it in Gr.2 and let it be the pay-to-win option (alternatively bop it to oblivion), or put it in Gr.1 and see it forever gapped by actual LMP models. To be honest, I'm glad they went with the Gr.2 option.
I did a league recently in the TS020, and it was such fun! It goes well, it's nice and stable. It's engine noise has a distinctive sound to it, especially when you're pushing hard. A couple of times I noticed it was sounding particularly nice going up the cogs. In a way, it performs so well you'd think it was almost cheating in the class it was trying to- wait a minute...
It's definitely a must have for any good Gran Turismo player. I'd be keen to join in the races this week, if I'm able. It'll be good fun!
- 1,831
- Space City, USA
- GTP_MPower
- JetsE36
I’m back, hopefully for good! Sorry that I pretty much picked a car and disappeared. Real life got in the way and never really had time for anything other than sleep. So, what a week to come back to being active! I had a few runs earlier this evening with the GT-One and its contemporaries. There will be a write-up later in my usual style.
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,790
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
While having one of my usual heated debates with @XSquareStickIt about the TS020, TS010, downforce in general, etc - which, to be fair, was ignited by him implying Gr.C cars had unrealistic downforce - I happened to find a resource that very succintly explains why our beloved TS020 ended up in Gr. 2 instead of Gr. 1.
Have a look at this website if you want to see for yourself, otherwise let me sum it up:
TS020
Nissan R92CP (Gr.1, near the bottom of the group by default PP)
Long story short, the TS020 literally cannot produce enough downforce to match a Group C car, and it also falls short of the earliest LMP-1 cars by about 550 lbs. at 150 MPH.
Polyphony made a surprisingly rational and educated decision when they chose to filter the TS020 into Gr.2.
Have a look at this website if you want to see for yourself, otherwise let me sum it up:
TS020
Nissan R92CP (Gr.1, near the bottom of the group by default PP)
Long story short, the TS020 literally cannot produce enough downforce to match a Group C car, and it also falls short of the earliest LMP-1 cars by about 550 lbs. at 150 MPH.
Polyphony made a surprisingly rational and educated decision when they chose to filter the TS020 into Gr.2.
- 1,774
- Singapore
- XSquareStickIt
After the online TT featuring the GT-One at Fuji several moons ago, I've sworn off the TS020 for its spiky rear end. It has the very familiar problem that the FT-1 Gr.3 suffers from, in that it just can't seem to load up its rear tyres at all; no matter how gradually I roll onto the throttle pedal and ease off the steering, there will come a point where the rear end just breaks sideways suddenly and violently. At the risk of sounding completely moronic, I think this is due to the Toyotas both running tyre pressures too high for their own good. The same fault in other cars can be assuaged by switching to lower diameter wheels, but neither of these Toyotas can change their wheel sizes, so both are stuck with that Achilles' Heel for life, with tuning only going so far to assuage the issue.
That bad experience at Fuji is enough for me to write off the car, but it only gets worse the deeper one digs into the TS020 rabbit hole. Obelisk has already pointed out that the TS020 doesn't make enough downforce to fit into Gr.1, but even by Gr.2 standards, the TS020 doesn't push itself into the pavement enough to compete. The TS020 needs to brake Eau Rouge and lift completely for a bit to make 130R, which are corners that even the 2008 GT500 cars needn't lift for. The TS020, with its lower downforce (and arguably drag) numbers, can't brake for corners nearly as late as the 2016 GT500 machines, it can't carry the same speeds through said corners as said Gr.2 meta cars, and it has to tiptoe out of every corner with its spiky rear end, making it lag behind anything comparable to it, be they Group C, GT500, or F1.
To really drive the final nail home in the vacuum–packed coffin, Polyphony Digital really, really hates old cars in its group categories, and they showed this disdain yet again when, in v1.55 that dropped in the middle of our two weekly lobbies, they widened the performance gap more between the TS020 and the meta Gr.2 car, the 2016 NSX-P, under BoP, resulting in a whopping 69.74PP difference between the two cars supposedly balanced to be competitive with each other when both are wearing their default Racing Medium tyres. For some context, we run our COTW lobbies with a 10PP headroom over the featured car normally, because anything more than that usually just becomes an uninformative slaughter. A 70PP difference is the difference between a grandma grocery getter C-HR and a track–focused sports car ND Roadster NR-A. Around even a short lap like Laguna Seca, my TS020 was some FIVE SECONDS A LAP slower than the GT500 machines, meaning I would risk being DNF–ed by race timer had the race been six laps long. Toss in some infighting and some mistakes, and K31thc0m DNF–ed SPD, RX8, and I at Suzuka using a RS 5 Turbo DTM with just four laps of Suzuka. I get that PD hates old cars being competitive in grouped categories, but even a 1 s/lap deficit would've been huge enough to dissuade anyone seriously trying to win to choose the TS020; five is just bloody dangerous. The TS020 didn't need a power nerf to slot into Gr.2; it needed to be lightened further just to vaguely hope to keep up with more modern machinery.
Aside from its looks, the TS020 truly has nothing going for it in GT7. It's expensive, selectively available, drives terrible, and is so woefully slow around a circuit under BoP that it's a legit cause for concern and protest. Like the beloved tracks and career modes of old GT sorely missed by its fans, the GT-One was brought back to GT7 barely a recognisable silhouette of its old shelf, butchered beyond any reasonable belief, and almost comes across like a slap in the faces of those who grew up in love with these older classics. Unless there ever comes a Gr.2 race on Le Mans, Monza, or Route X, the TS020 is just completely hopeless in Gr.2. Forget Gr.1 or Gr.2; the TS020 might be a better fit for Gr.3.
Gr.2 BoP (RM Tyres) | Power (1.54) | Mass (1.54) | PP (1.54) | Power (1.55) | Mass (1.55) | PP (1.55) |
TS020 | 550PS | 900kg / 1,984lbs | 788.49PP | 574PS | 900kg / 1,984lbs | 797.39PP |
NSX-P | 545PS | 1,175kg / 2,590lbs | 825.94PP | 611PS | 1,049kg / 2,313lbs | 867.13PP |
NSX-P v1.52 / 1.55
TS020 v1.54 / 1.55
No BoP change in Gr.2 from v1.52 to v1.54.
Last edited:
jrbabbitt
Premium
- 3,006
- Charleston, SC
- TCR_JimyBee
But is there any improvements in the new 1.55 physics upgrades?
After the online TT featuring the GT-One at Fuji several moons ago, I've sworn off the TS020 for its spiky rear end. It has the very familiar problem that the FT-1 Gr.3 suffers from, in that it just can't seem to load up its rear tyres at all; no matter how gradually I roll onto the throttle pedal and ease off the steering, there will come a point where the rear end just breaks sideways suddenly and violently. At the risk of sounding completely moronic, I think this is due to the Toyotas both running tyre pressures too high for their own good. The same fault in other cars can be assuaged by switching to lower diameter wheels, but neither of these Toyotas can change their wheel sizes, so both are stuck with that Achilles' Heel for life, with tuning only going so far to assuage the issue.
That bad experience at Fuji is enough for me to write off the car, but it only gets worse the deeper one digs into the TS020 rabbit hole. Obelisk has already pointed out that the TS020 doesn't make enough downforce to fit into Gr.1, but even by Gr.2 standards, the TS020 doesn't push itself into the pavement enough to compete. The TS020 needs to brake Eau Rouge and lift completely for a bit to make 130R, which are corners that even the 2008 GT500 cars needn't lift for. The TS020, with its lower downforce (and arguably drag) numbers, can't brake for corners nearly as late as the 2016 GT500 machines, it can't carry the same speeds through said corners as said Gr.2 meta cars, and it has to tiptoe out of every corner with its spiky rear end, making it lag behind anything comparable to it, be they Group C, GT500, or F1.
To really drive the final nail home in the vacuum–packed coffin, Polyphony Digital really, really hates old cars in its group categories, and they showed this disdain yet again when, in v1.55 that dropped in the middle of our two weekly lobbies, they widened the performance gap more between the TS020 and the meta Gr.2 car, the 2016 NSX-P, under BoP, resulting in a whopping 69.74PP difference between the two cars supposedly balanced to be competitive with each other when both are wearing their default Racing Medium tyres. For some context, we run our COTW lobbies with a 10PP headroom over the featured car normally, because anything more than that usually just becomes an uninformative slaughter. A 70PP difference is the difference between a grandma grocery getter C-HR and a track–focused sports car ND Roadster NR-A. Around even a short lap like Laguna Seca, my TS020 was some FIVE SECONDS A LAP slower than the GT500 machines, meaning I would risk being DNF–ed by race timer had the race been six laps long. Toss in some infighting and some mistakes, and K31thc0m DNF–ed SPD, RX8, and I at Suzuka using a RS 5 Turbo DTM with just four laps of Suzuka. I get that PD hates old cars being competitive in grouped categories, but even a 1 s/lap deficit would've been huge enough to dissuade anyone seriously trying to win to choose the TS020; five is just bloody dangerous. The TS020 didn't need a power nerf to slot into Gr.2; it needed to be lightened further just to vaguely hope to keep up with more modern machinery.
Aside from its looks, the TS020 truly has nothing going for it in GT7. It's expensive, selectively available, drives terrible, and is so woefully slow around a circuit under BoP that it's a legit cause for concern and protest. Like the beloved tracks and career modes of old GT sorely missed by its fans, the GT-One was brought back to GT7 barely a recognisable silhouette of its old shelf, butchered beyond any reasonable belief, and almost comes across like a slap in the faces of those who grew up in love with these older classics. Unless there ever comes a Gr.2 race on Le Mans, Monza, or Route X, the TS020 is just completely hopeless in Gr.2. Forget Gr.1 or Gr.2; the TS020 might be a better fit for Gr.3.
NSX-P v1.52 / 1.55
TS020 v1.54 / 1.55
No BoP change in Gr.2 from v1.52 to v1.54.
jrbabbitt
Premium
- 3,006
- Charleston, SC
- TCR_JimyBee
Sorry i had to ask, now I feel the fool for I didn't know the extent that @XSquareStickIt go to in the reviews...
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,790
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
No worries. Square invests a lot of time into these reviews, to the point that I've had to heckle him a few times to actually get them up on the thread... i.e. the Mission X review.
The original question's completely fair, though, and I'm curious as well. I'll circle back with a post update when I get some time tomorrow to drive it.
Last edited:
- 1,774
- Singapore
- XSquareStickIt
- 83
- South Africa
- atom_bomb1953
...but how, though? Are we seriously being led to believe that Ove Andersson went up to the office of Michel Cosson and said in his ridiculous Swedish accent "Thë gäshentànken can holdsh in shüitencâsen, björk björk björk" and no one bat an eyelid? It didn't work for Max Mosley apparently, since the car never appeared in the GT Championship, and the only other track the TS020 raced at was Fuji in 1999 under ACO and JAF supervision. So I did some digging around, and while I couldn't find anything from the ACO's side, I did find this, the FIA's Appendix J book from 1998. And what I found inside is this unassuming little paragraph...
What this means is that any empty space in the car that isn't the cockpit or engine bay is a trunk. Now, notice how "fuel tank" isn't listed alongside the former two.
Yeah.
THAT is how TTE got away with it - by an oversight typed down by some French dude who had a really funny idea.
I also found out that this is Group B eligible...
...and if someone at Renault were especially drunk, we could have seen this battling Vipers and Porsches at Hockenheim.
What this means is that any empty space in the car that isn't the cockpit or engine bay is a trunk. Now, notice how "fuel tank" isn't listed alongside the former two.
Yeah.
THAT is how TTE got away with it - by an oversight typed down by some French dude who had a really funny idea.
I also found out that this is Group B eligible...
...and if someone at Renault were especially drunk, we could have seen this battling Vipers and Porsches at Hockenheim.
Last edited:
- 1,774
- Singapore
- XSquareStickIt
The results of the close but no luggage space trials are in!
@Baron Blitz Red managed to get a 2008 NSX GT500 to within 0.219s of the TS020! How did he get it so close? Ask him, don't ask me!
It's @K31thc0m 's turn to pick this week, and he uh...
chose... this thing.
Apparently it's the Toyota C-HR S '18.
This is usually where I'd give a brief overview of the car, but I deadass have no idea what it does. It's a Car... for the Human Resources department?
Why is it in Gran Turismo 7? What is it good for?
And why the heck did two individuals reserve the car to feature???
Hell if I know!
I'm pretty sure it didn't use a CVT, though.
We're stuck with the CVT gearbox in the game, however. So prepare for some eight minutes of continuous monotony as you aim to set the fastest lap time C-HR–ly possible around the Nordschleife.
The rules are:
That's it! Go ham with your C-HR, see how far PD lets us take a soccer mom CUV!
Of course, we always welcome opinions, tunes, liveries, photos, videos, or stories about the car here on the the thread!
@Baron Blitz Red managed to get a 2008 NSX GT500 to within 0.219s of the TS020! How did he get it so close? Ask him, don't ask me!
It's @K31thc0m 's turn to pick this week, and he uh...
chose... this thing.
Apparently it's the Toyota C-HR S '18.
This is usually where I'd give a brief overview of the car, but I deadass have no idea what it does. It's a Car... for the Human Resources department?
Why is it in Gran Turismo 7? What is it good for?
And why the heck did two individuals reserve the car to feature???
Hell if I know!
Join Our Weekly Lobbies!
Our weekly lobbies are ongoing as usual, and anyone (not a dick) is welcome to join us in racing C-HRs under BoP conditions!
Click on the hyperlinks to convert the times to your time zone, and feel free to add the hosts as friends on PSN to make searching for the lobbies easier!
Tracks: Randomly selected by lobby participants (~5 mins practice, ~10 mins sprint)
PP Limit: 366PP
Car: No Limit
Tyres: Comfort Medium
Click on the hyperlinks to convert the times to your time zone, and feel free to add the hosts as friends on PSN to make searching for the lobbies easier!
The Americas Lobby
- Tuesday. 4th February, 10 P.M. CST
- Host: Victory_Reign93
The Asia/Oceania also kinda European Lobby
- Saturday, 8th February, 4 P.M. Singapore Time
- Host: XSquareStickIt
Tracks: Randomly selected by lobby participants (~5 mins practice, ~10 mins sprint)
PP Limit: 366PP
Car: No Limit
Tyres: Comfort Medium
~Single–Player Challenge!~
Okay fine, a C-HR did race at the 24 Hours of Nürburgring.I'm pretty sure it didn't use a CVT, though.
We're stuck with the CVT gearbox in the game, however. So prepare for some eight minutes of continuous monotony as you aim to set the fastest lap time C-HR–ly possible around the Nordschleife.
The rules are:
- Grip Loss: Real
- Track Cut Penalty: Weak
- Save a Best Lap Replay
That's it! Go ham with your C-HR, see how far PD lets us take a soccer mom CUV!
Of course, we always welcome opinions, tunes, liveries, photos, videos, or stories about the car here on the the thread!
- 3,940
- On the move
- SomePlayaDude
- 11
- singapore
- K31thc0m
- K31thc0m
pretty sure that was a regular old FL5 Civic Type R
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,790
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
Oooooh boy. We sure hit an interesting point in COTW. On the one hand, props to K31 for staying on the 8 ball and nominating a car the week it releases (something COTW is only able to pull off sometimes) but… The C-HR is a choice of all time. And I’m cool with that.
We can only theorize as to the reasoning behind Polyphony’s effort to include this in Gran Turismo, but I have a feeling that the car will age better with time. Gran Turismo has always had a track record of including cars that could be best described as… a certain type of box, so this isn’t really an unprecedented choice. I, for one, like that modern commuters are being included.
So why is everyone so mad at the C-HR, when a literal work van (HiAce), ambulance (HiMedic), MPV (Alphard), diesel econoboxes and hybrids (the starter triplets - Demio, Aqua, Fit Hybrid) are all in the game?
I feel like all the anger is very severely misplaced. Keep in mind folks, many of the cars we have a huge need for (in GT and IRL) were once in the same position as the C-HR. Even the absolute legend that is the Daihatsu Midget II was once included in GT2 as a contemporary footnote for its more powerful kei car peers of the late 90s and early 00s. And it got absolutely roasted by Polyphony’s European localization team.
Yet, if it came back now, I would bet that about 70% of the active GTP users would absolutely lose their minds.
For a truck/van that is, arguably, even more useless out of the gate than the C-HR ever would be.
See why I’m so confused? We’re seeing inclusions that people wouldn’t have thought twice about in older GTs, particularly not in GT6. So why now, of all times, is a relatively decent commuter getting so much unwarranted hate?!
Before we go any further, all of the above griping has to do with people who aren’t talking about specific faults with the C-HR.
There are definitely folks tired of the surge of Toyotas in recent updates, and there are folks who have legitimate problems with the C-HR’s capabilities in the game (more on that later).
But, I’ve also seen way too many people who feel that the slot was better used for something like a modern hypercar or a GT class car, and my take is that they’re missing the point. Controversial, I know.
Onwards with the rest of this, starting with the car itself. It’s an obscure car, and somewhat of a failed product in most markets… Let’s back up a bit.
Sharing the rear half of its chassis with the GR Yaris and GR Corolla, and otherwise built up on the TGNA-C architecture, the AX10 generation C-HR first entered the market in 2016 as a subcompact crossover. It’s roughly positioned in between the Yaris Cross and the Corolla Cross (as of the AX20 generation)... Except in the US market, where it was replaced by the Yaris Cross after 2022.
The name, rather than being Xtreme Kool Letterz, actually stands for a couple of different things. Depending on who you ask, C-HR stands for one of the following three things:
What you got in the C-HR depended on what market you were in.
In Japan, you either got a turbocharged 1.2L engine or a 1.8L hybrid engine. You could get it in FWD or AWD
In Thailand, you got the 1.8 litre engine.
Singapore only got the 1.2L FWD.
You get the gist. The C-HR had way too many configurations for too many places.
However, the American C-HR got the 2.0 litre engine, and was meant to be a Scion initially.
This version only came with FWD and CVT, which pretty much killed its momentum here in the States. It was a commercial flop elsewhere too - enough to the point that the AX20 is only being sold in Australia and Europe.
So we have a car that’s a commercial failure, with too many configurations to count. I think that’s reason enough to include it in a Gran Turismo as a historical footnote. It’s not the first, and definitely not the last, failure of a car added to the game. (cough 2J cough Minolta cough cough)
The one we get in the game is the 1.8L engine with the hybrid system mated to a CVT. The combined powerplant is good for 136 HP and 104.8 ft-lbs. That’s pulling a package weighing 3,175 - for a crossover, that’s remarkably light. However, like Square’s observed with prior Toyota hybrids in COTW, the power is wrong.
From what I can gather, the C-HR we got is the JDM spec C-HR S, which comes with a 121 HP combined rating and shares its hybrid heart with the Prius - the very same 2ZR-FXE powerplant in the 2009 Prius G we reviewed. That same Prius, after v.1.55, is listing 146 HP. The Aqua, which uses a different power plant, was downrated to 109 HP.
There is something very, very weird going on with the Toyota hybrids.
With the CVT transmission, it’s going to end up requiring a specific driving style - which is to say, you have to keep the throttle about 50% to keep the CVT from reverting to a fuel-efficient ratio. This is not unprecedented - the Prius and Aqua (previous COTW entrants) both require this exact same driving behavior to get the best results on track.
And this is where I’m a little frustrated. For some reason, the C-HR never got the (IMHO) excellent Toyota K120 “Direct Shift” CVT, which came with one physical launch gear, and nine “ratios” you could row through (almost like how the Honda Fit Hybrid has seven “ratios” it could go through). Given that the C-HR entered different markets in different years, it could have been plausible to launch the 2018 MY C-HR with the K120. I suppose the logistics and cost of having to re-engineer the car for this unit meant that it was forced to carry on with the K312 CVT.
Anyways, the C-HR S comes on a set of 205/60R17 Comfort Mediums, though apparently it could also equip 235/60R16 - no idea what that’s about.
Our in-game example comes in starting at 356.40 PP, which means comparison cars (under 357 PP - as far down as 300 pp) for Tuesday and Saturday would be some of the following:
(you’re welcome, SPD)
In the settings sheet, the C-HR reports the following stats:
Quarter mile: 18.15s
1000 meter: 33.08s
62-93: 16.04s
The quarter mile tracks. I once drag raced against a stock Corolla S that ran an 18.4, so that’s not unreasonable for an economy car.
Quick disclaimer ahead of the below: the CVT in the C-HR is programmed to sit at the peak torque rather than the peak power, meaning the first stop it makes on open throttle is right at maximum shove, which then turns into a smooth climb up to max rpm. Keep that in mind.
With that said, I took it on the Nurburgring to try out the SPC and to better form my thoughts on its handling and performance. Couple of key observations off the bat:
The hybrid battery runs out quickly, much like the Aqua. On my flying lap, it stopped depleting around 2 minutes and 50 seconds into the run and refused to assist the 1.8 with anything until it recharged back up to about 15-20%, at which point it almost immediately dumped all that power back into the drivetrain and shut back off.
It also seems to behave better at higher speeds, since the cvt’s idle ratio at those speeds is higher and it cannot get to the point of inducing terminal understeer.
Even without the hybrid assist, I found that the C-HR was surprisingly capable in a straight line - I was able to hit 120 MPH at the bottom of Foxhole, and it was able to maintain 95 MPH down the Dottinger Hohe with a 19.4 ft/s headwind - all on the 1.8’s shove alone.
And in the corners, it’s surprisingly capable. There were a few corners where it didn’t feel like the compact crossover that it’s supposed to be, and a few where I could have sent it a lot harder.
I ultimately logged a 10:12.540 that you can verify with my uploaded Best Lap replay. Tags are #spc, #cotw, #chr.
At full bore, the best Understeer can massage out of it is 175 HP on a platform weighing about 2475 lbs. With a widebody equipped and the height lowered as far as i could take it, the C-HR is capable of a mere 131 MPH and never exceeds 4,500 RPM. I assume this is down to the peak torque preference baked into the CVT. The car doesn’t even get the luxury of a proper diffuser to alleviate the drag, as the only downforce-altering part for Rear Aero is a rear bumper that doesn’t reduce the drag around it, similar to the rear aero options on the Kei cars.
Ultimately, I think the C-HR is a solid car. It’s not the best pick, but it’s also not a total wash. The only thing that’s keeping it from being a car worth your time is the CVT. That’s it. The rest of the package is actually solid, and it’s a fun car to toss around. It literally boils down to the fact that the car’s been saddled with a CVT designed for commuting rather than any other transmission.
And in some ways, I’m quite sad about this. It’s not a particularly bad car. In the context of daily commuting, it makes all the sense in the world - more cargo room than a Corolla, as fuel efficient as a Corolla, but not as massive as other CUVs. Fairly understated but handsome design, nice paint colors...
It’s a shame it failed, but I also kinda get why.
To quote Square from yet another one of our squabbles/debates:
“The [1.8] Hybrid CVT is the C-HR equivalent of the 4 speed slushbox on the RX-8. It's precisely because we can see the potential that was ruined that makes us mad.”
Sadly, I have to rate it a Beater, but please don’t be angry at the C-HR. Be angry at Toyota instead, as they’re the ones who let it down by giving it a rubbish CVT.
We can only theorize as to the reasoning behind Polyphony’s effort to include this in Gran Turismo, but I have a feeling that the car will age better with time. Gran Turismo has always had a track record of including cars that could be best described as… a certain type of box, so this isn’t really an unprecedented choice. I, for one, like that modern commuters are being included.
So why is everyone so mad at the C-HR, when a literal work van (HiAce), ambulance (HiMedic), MPV (Alphard), diesel econoboxes and hybrids (the starter triplets - Demio, Aqua, Fit Hybrid) are all in the game?
I feel like all the anger is very severely misplaced. Keep in mind folks, many of the cars we have a huge need for (in GT and IRL) were once in the same position as the C-HR. Even the absolute legend that is the Daihatsu Midget II was once included in GT2 as a contemporary footnote for its more powerful kei car peers of the late 90s and early 00s. And it got absolutely roasted by Polyphony’s European localization team.
Yet, if it came back now, I would bet that about 70% of the active GTP users would absolutely lose their minds.
For a truck/van that is, arguably, even more useless out of the gate than the C-HR ever would be.
See why I’m so confused? We’re seeing inclusions that people wouldn’t have thought twice about in older GTs, particularly not in GT6. So why now, of all times, is a relatively decent commuter getting so much unwarranted hate?!
Before we go any further, all of the above griping has to do with people who aren’t talking about specific faults with the C-HR.
There are definitely folks tired of the surge of Toyotas in recent updates, and there are folks who have legitimate problems with the C-HR’s capabilities in the game (more on that later).
But, I’ve also seen way too many people who feel that the slot was better used for something like a modern hypercar or a GT class car, and my take is that they’re missing the point. Controversial, I know.
Onwards with the rest of this, starting with the car itself. It’s an obscure car, and somewhat of a failed product in most markets… Let’s back up a bit.
Sharing the rear half of its chassis with the GR Yaris and GR Corolla, and otherwise built up on the TGNA-C architecture, the AX10 generation C-HR first entered the market in 2016 as a subcompact crossover. It’s roughly positioned in between the Yaris Cross and the Corolla Cross (as of the AX20 generation)... Except in the US market, where it was replaced by the Yaris Cross after 2022.
The name, rather than being Xtreme Kool Letterz, actually stands for a couple of different things. Depending on who you ask, C-HR stands for one of the following three things:
- Compact High Rider
- Cross Hatch Run-about (a/n: actually a pretty cool name, tbh)
- Coupe High Rider (a/n: what? it has five doors how is it a coupe)
What you got in the C-HR depended on what market you were in.
In Japan, you either got a turbocharged 1.2L engine or a 1.8L hybrid engine. You could get it in FWD or AWD
In Thailand, you got the 1.8 litre engine.
Singapore only got the 1.2L FWD.
You get the gist. The C-HR had way too many configurations for too many places.
However, the American C-HR got the 2.0 litre engine, and was meant to be a Scion initially.
This version only came with FWD and CVT, which pretty much killed its momentum here in the States. It was a commercial flop elsewhere too - enough to the point that the AX20 is only being sold in Australia and Europe.
So we have a car that’s a commercial failure, with too many configurations to count. I think that’s reason enough to include it in a Gran Turismo as a historical footnote. It’s not the first, and definitely not the last, failure of a car added to the game. (cough 2J cough Minolta cough cough)
The one we get in the game is the 1.8L engine with the hybrid system mated to a CVT. The combined powerplant is good for 136 HP and 104.8 ft-lbs. That’s pulling a package weighing 3,175 - for a crossover, that’s remarkably light. However, like Square’s observed with prior Toyota hybrids in COTW, the power is wrong.
From what I can gather, the C-HR we got is the JDM spec C-HR S, which comes with a 121 HP combined rating and shares its hybrid heart with the Prius - the very same 2ZR-FXE powerplant in the 2009 Prius G we reviewed. That same Prius, after v.1.55, is listing 146 HP. The Aqua, which uses a different power plant, was downrated to 109 HP.
There is something very, very weird going on with the Toyota hybrids.
With the CVT transmission, it’s going to end up requiring a specific driving style - which is to say, you have to keep the throttle about 50% to keep the CVT from reverting to a fuel-efficient ratio. This is not unprecedented - the Prius and Aqua (previous COTW entrants) both require this exact same driving behavior to get the best results on track.
And this is where I’m a little frustrated. For some reason, the C-HR never got the (IMHO) excellent Toyota K120 “Direct Shift” CVT, which came with one physical launch gear, and nine “ratios” you could row through (almost like how the Honda Fit Hybrid has seven “ratios” it could go through). Given that the C-HR entered different markets in different years, it could have been plausible to launch the 2018 MY C-HR with the K120. I suppose the logistics and cost of having to re-engineer the car for this unit meant that it was forced to carry on with the K312 CVT.
Anyways, the C-HR S comes on a set of 205/60R17 Comfort Mediums, though apparently it could also equip 235/60R16 - no idea what that’s about.
Our in-game example comes in starting at 356.40 PP, which means comparison cars (under 357 PP - as far down as 300 pp) for Tuesday and Saturday would be some of the following:
- Aqua S ‘11
- Fit Hybrid ‘14
- S660 ‘15
- Demio XD Touring ‘15
- Jimny Sierra JC ‘18
- Honda Beat ‘91
- Giulia Sprint Velocie ‘67
(you’re welcome, SPD)
In the settings sheet, the C-HR reports the following stats:
Quarter mile: 18.15s
1000 meter: 33.08s
62-93: 16.04s
The quarter mile tracks. I once drag raced against a stock Corolla S that ran an 18.4, so that’s not unreasonable for an economy car.
Quick disclaimer ahead of the below: the CVT in the C-HR is programmed to sit at the peak torque rather than the peak power, meaning the first stop it makes on open throttle is right at maximum shove, which then turns into a smooth climb up to max rpm. Keep that in mind.
With that said, I took it on the Nurburgring to try out the SPC and to better form my thoughts on its handling and performance. Couple of key observations off the bat:
The hybrid battery runs out quickly, much like the Aqua. On my flying lap, it stopped depleting around 2 minutes and 50 seconds into the run and refused to assist the 1.8 with anything until it recharged back up to about 15-20%, at which point it almost immediately dumped all that power back into the drivetrain and shut back off.
It also seems to behave better at higher speeds, since the cvt’s idle ratio at those speeds is higher and it cannot get to the point of inducing terminal understeer.
Even without the hybrid assist, I found that the C-HR was surprisingly capable in a straight line - I was able to hit 120 MPH at the bottom of Foxhole, and it was able to maintain 95 MPH down the Dottinger Hohe with a 19.4 ft/s headwind - all on the 1.8’s shove alone.
And in the corners, it’s surprisingly capable. There were a few corners where it didn’t feel like the compact crossover that it’s supposed to be, and a few where I could have sent it a lot harder.
I ultimately logged a 10:12.540 that you can verify with my uploaded Best Lap replay. Tags are #spc, #cotw, #chr.
At full bore, the best Understeer can massage out of it is 175 HP on a platform weighing about 2475 lbs. With a widebody equipped and the height lowered as far as i could take it, the C-HR is capable of a mere 131 MPH and never exceeds 4,500 RPM. I assume this is down to the peak torque preference baked into the CVT. The car doesn’t even get the luxury of a proper diffuser to alleviate the drag, as the only downforce-altering part for Rear Aero is a rear bumper that doesn’t reduce the drag around it, similar to the rear aero options on the Kei cars.
Ultimately, I think the C-HR is a solid car. It’s not the best pick, but it’s also not a total wash. The only thing that’s keeping it from being a car worth your time is the CVT. That’s it. The rest of the package is actually solid, and it’s a fun car to toss around. It literally boils down to the fact that the car’s been saddled with a CVT designed for commuting rather than any other transmission.
And in some ways, I’m quite sad about this. It’s not a particularly bad car. In the context of daily commuting, it makes all the sense in the world - more cargo room than a Corolla, as fuel efficient as a Corolla, but not as massive as other CUVs. Fairly understated but handsome design, nice paint colors...
It’s a shame it failed, but I also kinda get why.
To quote Square from yet another one of our squabbles/debates:
“The [1.8] Hybrid CVT is the C-HR equivalent of the 4 speed slushbox on the RX-8. It's precisely because we can see the potential that was ruined that makes us mad.”
Sadly, I have to rate it a Beater, but please don’t be angry at the C-HR. Be angry at Toyota instead, as they’re the ones who let it down by giving it a rubbish CVT.
Last edited:
- 3,940
- On the move
- SomePlayaDude
Quick dump on cars I didn't give a score yet
Porsche 959
Song: Bonfire - Bang The Door Down
— When you thought we have American cars with bad brakes, that idea changes as a car from the Bundesrepublik be the king of them all, packaged as this technologically advanced, retro shaped supercar that led Porsche to wins on and off the road. Combining the strengths of an AWD rally car with the unpredictability of a classic mid engined supercar, the 959 is hilariously quick, but just as hilariously uncertain if you're going to win or die trying. There's a whole list of what you can achieve in it, but one errant twitch in the wrong way, and there's a fair chance you're not coming out of it easily. Not everyone's kind of car, even though it has all the potential to dominate anything it reaches. Personally my number 2 Porsche behind the Carrera GT, and you can say I do want my Porsches dangerous and mysterious.
Neutral.
Alpine A220 Race Car
Song: Zoot - The Freak
— Defining the badassery of racers in the 60s, the Alpine is blisteringly quick, but in return: promises to provide blisters to those that try to tame it, mainly because of its current stock compound. As it stands, it's much too light, much too merciless, and much too challenging to manage in its current standing. But not all is wrong: it indeed one of the greatest examples of being saved by the tune, and when that's done right, has worked wonders for all those that put their faith behind it.
Neutral.
Toyota SF-R
Song: The Sweet - Little Willy
— Acting as a Roadster-alike for Toyota, the SF-R has the same style, same offerings, and rather same-ish numbers, all placed in a lime green package of petit purity. But not having the lightweight 2-door compact coupe in the company's resume for decades really brings out a lot that's not desirable, such as the handling being prone to losing out the rear. This shows an identity crisis: one the Racing Concept's existence is made true, and sadly also has to alleviate. All-in-all, what's supposedly going to be a rival to a Roadster is more evident as an understudy to said Roadster: a bleeding shame it is.
Neutral.
Mazda RX-8 Spirit R
Song: (from Week 39) Simple Minds - Speed Your Love To Me
— What vibed with me from Week 35 on that other COTW thread is a car that's the definition of mediocre in every single way. In a car that's styled as a sports car, it doesn't act like one. It's well designed, but widely regarded to be estranged, ugly and bloated. It is planned to succeed the RX-7, but its beating heart didn't even get the same loving treatment in terms of power and straight up exaggeration. Very little stands out that's positive from my end. If you want to tell me this week celebrating this is to say you have some form of hope for it, consider me still unmoved and thus unconvinced, especially when I've found a great few PP-adjacent alternatives that I'd rather put in its place.
It's Car of The Year alright, but it's not my Car of The Year.. for the whole week, I was struggling to find an expression of joy behind it. Just a waste, really.
Ford Escort RS Cosworth
Song: Axus - When I Fall in Love (Strike Acid Dub)
— This car is like experiencing adult love on easy mode: you're welcome to push as many buttons, go wild at any speeds, and have a grand of a time with little risk or repercussion, and should you leave for new pastures, it'll wait for your return. You realize where you're not quite so quick in other cars for the little things, in here it doesn't even matter. After taking on the challenge from Jewel and Julie, you'll find it's perfect car to start off skating about the narrow streets of Paris, because in both there and here, it remains an agile, grippy compact with a lot of leeway to push and push. Put aside my own personal love for the Cossie, and with confidence I can say it's another big winner in a sensual, boxy compact package. So big, I feel it's appropriate to hand it my periodical Mark of Zen award for this car going through the full Glen experience: you HAVE to try it.
Top Sleeper.
Porsche Mission X
Song: Boston - Higher Power (Kalodner Edit)
— Nothing like another deathboat that I perhaps see everyone beg for it to run on racing tires. So, everyone was afraid of it as a silent, personal schadenfreude following when the pieces of the puzzle came to. Umm.. I mean.. just an unfortunate case of when overkill isn't enough in a prototype EV package. It's blindingly fast, can handle okay, but not even traction control can help you here: you have to go with its thin as ice brittle flow, or you might as well go drive something else. Which is quite true: it's treated worse in terms of flexibility. An example of a technological marvel executed rather poorly, as it also serves well for an example of when you really don't need all that power.
Beater.
Toyota GT-One (TS020)
Song: Apollo 440 - Cold Rock The Mic
— Take off the nostalgia tinted glasses, and the car is a display of the worst a turbocharger provides with RPM related woes combined with an unhinged anti-lag system. But not all is bad as is, rather it's the BOP that screws it like what we got with the DBR9 GT1 that time. A car not for the faint of heart for you to exploit, meaning it's definitely not for everyone.
Neutral.
Toyota C-HR S
Song: Fatboy Slim - Praise You
— Let's be realistic.. if we wanted a hybrid crossover from Toyota, it should've been the Crown Sport. It'd be quite a hoot with a 300 horsepower CVT with 400 foot pounds of torque. Someone's nominating this thing just so I can announce it to be some negative award like I have with the Prius and Prius C, but hey: unlike those two, at least it looks fetching and sporty. The drive, the potential, how GT treats CVTs, any little quirk it needs to show me.. yeah. The general outlook is anything but, however.
Beater.
I know.
Will I upload it or not? That is the real question.
This SPD sneak of a Sport era Flashback isn't complete without some music.. and context? Well, take it away, Devin Townsend.
Porsche 959
Song: Bonfire - Bang The Door Down
— When you thought we have American cars with bad brakes, that idea changes as a car from the Bundesrepublik be the king of them all, packaged as this technologically advanced, retro shaped supercar that led Porsche to wins on and off the road. Combining the strengths of an AWD rally car with the unpredictability of a classic mid engined supercar, the 959 is hilariously quick, but just as hilariously uncertain if you're going to win or die trying. There's a whole list of what you can achieve in it, but one errant twitch in the wrong way, and there's a fair chance you're not coming out of it easily. Not everyone's kind of car, even though it has all the potential to dominate anything it reaches. Personally my number 2 Porsche behind the Carrera GT, and you can say I do want my Porsches dangerous and mysterious.
Neutral.
Alpine A220 Race Car
Song: Zoot - The Freak
— Defining the badassery of racers in the 60s, the Alpine is blisteringly quick, but in return: promises to provide blisters to those that try to tame it, mainly because of its current stock compound. As it stands, it's much too light, much too merciless, and much too challenging to manage in its current standing. But not all is wrong: it indeed one of the greatest examples of being saved by the tune, and when that's done right, has worked wonders for all those that put their faith behind it.
Neutral.
Toyota SF-R
Song: The Sweet - Little Willy
— Acting as a Roadster-alike for Toyota, the SF-R has the same style, same offerings, and rather same-ish numbers, all placed in a lime green package of petit purity. But not having the lightweight 2-door compact coupe in the company's resume for decades really brings out a lot that's not desirable, such as the handling being prone to losing out the rear. This shows an identity crisis: one the Racing Concept's existence is made true, and sadly also has to alleviate. All-in-all, what's supposedly going to be a rival to a Roadster is more evident as an understudy to said Roadster: a bleeding shame it is.
Neutral.
Mazda RX-8 Spirit R
Song: (from Week 39) Simple Minds - Speed Your Love To Me
— What vibed with me from Week 35 on that other COTW thread is a car that's the definition of mediocre in every single way. In a car that's styled as a sports car, it doesn't act like one. It's well designed, but widely regarded to be estranged, ugly and bloated. It is planned to succeed the RX-7, but its beating heart didn't even get the same loving treatment in terms of power and straight up exaggeration. Very little stands out that's positive from my end. If you want to tell me this week celebrating this is to say you have some form of hope for it, consider me still unmoved and thus unconvinced, especially when I've found a great few PP-adjacent alternatives that I'd rather put in its place.
It's Car of The Year alright, but it's not my Car of The Year.. for the whole week, I was struggling to find an expression of joy behind it. Just a waste, really.
Ford Escort RS Cosworth
Song: Axus - When I Fall in Love (Strike Acid Dub)
— This car is like experiencing adult love on easy mode: you're welcome to push as many buttons, go wild at any speeds, and have a grand of a time with little risk or repercussion, and should you leave for new pastures, it'll wait for your return. You realize where you're not quite so quick in other cars for the little things, in here it doesn't even matter. After taking on the challenge from Jewel and Julie, you'll find it's perfect car to start off skating about the narrow streets of Paris, because in both there and here, it remains an agile, grippy compact with a lot of leeway to push and push. Put aside my own personal love for the Cossie, and with confidence I can say it's another big winner in a sensual, boxy compact package. So big, I feel it's appropriate to hand it my periodical Mark of Zen award for this car going through the full Glen experience: you HAVE to try it.
Top Sleeper.
Porsche Mission X
Song: Boston - Higher Power (Kalodner Edit)
— Nothing like another deathboat that I perhaps see everyone beg for it to run on racing tires. So, everyone was afraid of it as a silent, personal schadenfreude following when the pieces of the puzzle came to. Umm.. I mean.. just an unfortunate case of when overkill isn't enough in a prototype EV package. It's blindingly fast, can handle okay, but not even traction control can help you here: you have to go with its thin as ice brittle flow, or you might as well go drive something else. Which is quite true: it's treated worse in terms of flexibility. An example of a technological marvel executed rather poorly, as it also serves well for an example of when you really don't need all that power.
Beater.
Toyota GT-One (TS020)
Song: Apollo 440 - Cold Rock The Mic
— Take off the nostalgia tinted glasses, and the car is a display of the worst a turbocharger provides with RPM related woes combined with an unhinged anti-lag system. But not all is bad as is, rather it's the BOP that screws it like what we got with the DBR9 GT1 that time. A car not for the faint of heart for you to exploit, meaning it's definitely not for everyone.
Neutral.
Toyota C-HR S
Song: Fatboy Slim - Praise You
— Let's be realistic.. if we wanted a hybrid crossover from Toyota, it should've been the Crown Sport. It'd be quite a hoot with a 300 horsepower CVT with 400 foot pounds of torque. Someone's nominating this thing just so I can announce it to be some negative award like I have with the Prius and Prius C, but hey: unlike those two, at least it looks fetching and sporty. The drive, the potential, how GT treats CVTs, any little quirk it needs to show me.. yeah. The general outlook is anything but, however.
Beater.
I know.
Will I upload it or not? That is the real question.
This SPD sneak of a Sport era Flashback isn't complete without some music.. and context? Well, take it away, Devin Townsend.
Similar threads
