Cars with high HP that are slow, how come?

[vette_7t9]

One car that realy gets me mad is the '67 Corvette Sting Ray. I got every mod and got it to about 630hp, and even turned it into a grand sport for godsake, and my lil stang can out run it 0-60 mph. No matter how much I tune it or adjust it, the car's best 0-60 time is 4.8 - 5.1 sec. I tried giving it GT40 settings, but that didn't quite work since it had just a lil better 0-60(4.6 sec) and the top speed bottomed out at 169 mph.

Anyone else kno of a high HP car that is slow?

 

[milefile]

It's heavy. Aston Martins are slow, too.

 

[thinkers]

Torque, weight to power ratio, gearing and horsepower should all be given consideration when you want to go fast.

 

[RB26DETT]

u can always hybrid them

 

[NOS_Conor]

Originally posted by RB26DETT
u can always hybrid them

Yeah, like what vette said. If you make his Vette about 1000 hp, It'll act like it was 600ish

 

[Pupik]

Weight is the enemy of most old cars. (And some new ones!)

However, with a little tuning practice, you can get a '67 Vette to win some All-Stars races. It's still as heavy as a ship, so it's tough to put together 5 consistent laps with that car.

 

[vette_7t9]

All Stars? I dont think my vette can handle that yet, still gotta excercise and lose some pounds

 

[TICAL]

orrr you could always buy a skyline

 

[Woolie Wool]

Some of the muscle cars seem too slow because the stats used are the manufacturer's ratings, which were gross HP (a system that grossly inflates power outout) before 1972. For example, the '71 Road Runner should take about 7 seconds to reach 60 mph. It's posted 400-something horsepower is actually around 300.

 

[SportWagon]

My theory is that light weight counts for too much, and aerodynamic differences do not count enough.

So a heavy, powerful Lister Storm ends up slower than it should be, while a light GT300 Subaru Impreza or Nissan Silvia ends up a little too fast.

It's a bit better than in [size=+1]GT1[/size], I think , but still too biased towards light cars.

 

[vette_7t9]

This game's biased alright. I've said that enough times. The newer muscle cars do go fast tho, such as Mustang SVT COBRA or CAMARO super sports.

 

[Pupik]

Originally posted by SportWagon
So a heavy, powerful Lister Storm ends up slower than it should be, while a light GT300 Subaru Impreza or Nissan Silvia ends up a little too fast.

I alwyas felt the lighter weight helps out becuase you make up time on the AI in corners, where it doesn't do as well. Lighter weight and a steady-handling machine help to erase a horsepower deficit, except at places like Test Course/Red Rock Valley/High Speed Ring. Thus, a more heavily weighted car is at a possible disadvantage.

Hmmm, I always wanted to put things to a test: which is better? Overweight and overpowered, or underweight yet slightly less powerful. Somehow, I think you still need to be in the range of 5.5-4.5 lb/hp to have a shot at winning any GT All-Stars races (except Super Speedway).

 

[Gil]

My favorite trick is to go in to the settings and play with the "Sports-Wide" slider. Work it down towards "sports" two clicks at a time till you hit the rev limiter in top gear on the longest straight on your chosen track.

 

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by vette_7t9
This game's biased alright. I've said that enough times. The newer muscle cars do go fast tho, such as Mustang SVT COBRA or CAMARO super sports.

The game is NOT biased against older muscle cars. It's just that the muscle cars themselves are much slower than their HP suggests. That's because the muscle cars' HP is in gross HP. which is an inflated measurement. The 426 Hemi produces around 300 horsepower, the 340 prouduces 175-225. And here's why they handle poorly:

-They have tiny little donuts for tires
-They have crude suspensions
-All their power goes into the tiny rear tires (With the '71 Plymouth Road Runner with a few engine mods and Super Soft slicks, there's horrid wheelspin all through first gear)

Oh, and tiny wheels have tiny brakes, and in the '60s and early '70s, drum brakes were still almost universal. Don't count on your muscle car stopping any time soon...

Even though they are not really competitive against modern cars (and rightfully so), they look cool, sound cool, are fun to drive (if you're good enough), and don't cost a whole lot.

Oh, and here's real-life 0-60 acceleration figures for several current and modern muscle cars:
'55 Chrysler 300 (300 hp): 8.1 seconds
'70 Plymouth Road Runner 426 Hemi (422 hp): 7.3 seconds
'70 Plymouth Hemi 'Cuda (not the 'Cuda from GT3, which has a 340): 6.5 seconds
'59 Chevrolet Corvette (287 hp): 5.7 seconds
'99 Chevrolet Camaro SS (320 hp): 4.7 seconds
'99 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra (320 hp*): 5.1 seconds
'04 Pontiac GTO (345 hp): 5.5 seconds**
'99 Ford Mustang GT (285 hp): 6.0 seconds
'03 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 (405 hp): 4.0 seconds***

* =Manufacturer's rating. Due to a defect in the Cobra's intake system, the car actually produced about 290 hp
**=My estimate
***=Car and Driver's acceleration time. GM tester John Heinricy managed a 0-60 time of 3.9 seconds, but he cheated because he didn't use the clutch when upshifting.

NOTE: The statistics for the old muscle cars were gleaned from several books I have on muscle cars and American automobiles in general. The acceleration times for the new muscle cars (except for the GTO) were taken from Car and Driver magazine. Some of the statistics might be in error by a couple of tenths, but they are really just there to give you an idea of how much faster cars are now than they were then.

 

[vette_7t9]

I guess you're right, the cars back then sure werent as good as the cars now. I mean, a 5 sec 0-60 achieved by a big block V8 can now be achieved by a small I4. That's crazy.

 

[SportWagon]

I still say the benefit of light weight is exaggerated in all [size=+1]GT[/size] games. Not only do light cars in [size=+1]GT[/size] accelerate well at low speeds, they keep their advantage after wind resistance should have wiped out the weight advantage, and end up with top speeds a little bit too high to be reasonable.

But I'm not arguing that's a bias against muscle cars.

In fact, if you count the 60's Cobras as muscle-cars, they perhaps benefited from the exaggerated benefit of light weight. They got some grace extra horsepower from reputation or something, and are reasonably light, so they perform pretty well. Unfortunately specs are so handy for the other [size=+1]GT2[/size] muscle cars, but many of them weigh in the high 3000lb range, IIRC, (as opposed to low 2000lb for the Cobras) and suffer for it.

 

[briankay]

one needs higher hp at 2000, 3000, 4000 rpm to get up to speed quickly. the quoted hp is peak hp at say 6000 rpm which is not the hp your seeing when you put your foot down at lower rpms.