GT Comparisons/Reviews - "Back w/ Euro-flair"

GT_Prologue5

GT_Prologue5

3,131
GTP_GTPrologue5
None
This thread is for the sole purpose so that I can answer some questions like "is x car better or is y car better?" The purpose is so I can give the commuters a better look into what they are buying. It also serves as a potential buying guide for the GT crowd.

I know a lot of you GT guys are mad collectors with the full garage. I'm not that way. I buy what's fun and try it out. Exactly what I'm doing here.

Changing in rules makes me say this: don't request a comparison or review. I'll do them myself UNLESS demand is high. Remember, money hasn't been the easiest thing for anyone to get in GT5. So don't bother me, o.k.?


**If you want to do reviews yourself (and respect my place in doing this first), I have some requirements for people.

1. You MUST drive a wheel. No exceptions. I'm sorry to any Pad drivers, but a wheel just tops in the way these reviews go
2. If you are going to start, please PM me the review/comparison first so I can go over it. I'd just like to be safe with the quality of work on display.
3. Provide interesting pieces. Not necessarily the ones people want. Be creative, and don't be afraid to provide pictures.
4. Anyone can do one. Don't be afraid to ask.
5. This is not exactly my thread. It falls in the hands of the Moderators of GTPlanet. Keep everything AUP-friendly, including any regular posters. This applies to everyone across the site, but I'd like to remind you all.
 
Last edited:
 
Last edited:
Well, I'd actually like to make a request.

I think the Mazda RX-7 Spirit R Type A (FD) '02 and the Honda NSX Type R '02 would make for a good comparison. Both cars weigh the same, are very close in terms of power, both are premiums and available at lvl7, both are rear wheel drive, so it comes down to front mounted rotary engine vs. mid mounted V6 👍

Thanks in advance.
 
"JDM Toys"​

2002 Honda NSX Type R vs. 2002 Mazda RX-7 Spirit R Type A (FD)​

Specs:
Honda NSX Type R '02
Engine: 3.2L V6, 296hp, 241lb.-ft.
Drivetrain: MR
Weight: 1,270 kg

Mazda RX-7 Spirit R Type A (FD) '02
Engine: 1.3L Twin-Turbocharged 2-Rotor Wankel, 284hp, 237lb.-ft.
Drivetrain: FR
Weight: 1,270 kg

-How can this be? I've brought 2 cars from the same year, the same weight, and extremely close power levels, and yet they are so different in attitude. The NSX was designed as the follow-up to the 1992 Type R, outfitted with carbon parts, and really was Japan's exotic. This RX-7 was the last of a 25 year series, the best RX-7 to come from Mazda. Fitted with the famous lightweight Wankel Rotary, it was light and took on cars like the Skyline GT-R (R34) and the Toyota Supra. The NSX's advantage comes in the form of it's odd MR drivetrain, which was rarely used by someone like Honda. The RX-7, however, had 2 ingredients: more torque and power in the lower rpm ranges, and adjustable aerodynamics STOCK. Right now, I've got my money on the supposedly-quicker NSX and it's balance. It'll be close to call...-

-So I decided to discard lap times for this. I didn't think they needed it, because we all know how super competitive the JDM was at this time. I decided to take the cars to Italy's Autodromo Nazionale Monza (No Chicane), because I love the track and I could get a better feel of the speed. When it comes to the NSX, I get in and look at the better cockpit, it looks more simple and has better visibility. I get on the pedal and am accompanied by a rich note from the Naturally-Aspirated 3.2L. Heading into the first corner, the car falls apart. Driving in 5th Gear, I grab the shifter and prepare to shift to 4th, and yet, the steering will not comply. I hold on and just dust the rear wheels, but by that time I'm heading into the 1st chicane, and I just nick the wall, giving some slight front mechanical damage. Now that it's ruined, I trut along with an annoying clatter in my wheel, having to hold it slightly to the right. The shifter though, is still magnifico, and makes me love these Honda Manuals even more. Driving the NSX down the pits, I get out and instruct one of my test drivers, Ray Giordano, to get the RX-7 for me. Prepping it up down the longer straight, the cars note is whiny and muffled, much like most turbo'd
JDM cars. Plowing down the straight, I notice its speed is limited by having low amounts of power at the redline, but it's still pulls within 10m/h of the NSX's speed. Through the first sweeper, the car is excellent. Turning is crisp, the car is responsive. Into the chicane, it still holds its balance and really looks fantastic. Into the Lesmo corner, I go off track, but with pedal control I ease it back on. Down through the next chicane, I go off track at the final hairpin, but still, it pulled out and crossed the line (albeit time nullified)-










-So with this said, I have to throw my vote in for the RX-7. It's closer to competing with its rivals better than the NSX does, and does it in a helluva better fashion.


1st- 2002 Mazda RX-7 Spirit R Type A (FD)
*It's a much better car to drive. Its shifter is a bit off compared to the Honda's, but value goes much farther for a car in such a contested market.

2nd- 2002 Honda NSX Type R
Still fun and fiendish, but it's not right for anyone looking for a real JDM car. Price slipping into Dodge Viper ACR territory really hurts the way I see it. Keep up the transmission work though. If only money was no object...
 
Last edited:
Like I've said, I can't handle many at once. That may be next but again, I have to get the money. I don't need a large influx, especially after I just finished one. Plus it's getting late for me.
 
No. I had it at both Monza and Suzuka. It was slippery and awful, I gave it 10 tries on each track and the thing wouldn't comply. In parts that the RX-7 was smooth, the NSX was sliding all over. Plus, keep an eye on the price. Cut me some slack man, I'm still getting used to a wheel and I haven't written comparos for a couple months back when I did GT2 ones.

Remember, you don't HAVE to listen to me. I'm one guy.

Civic vs. GTO? No.

ACR vs. ZR1? I said I'll get to it tomorrow.

**No more suggestions for now please.**

And remember, this is a new thread, so please, lay off while I still have time to figure this out.
 
Nice write up, and thank you for accepting my request.
I've got one suggestion for future comparisons, though. You might want to include lap times. The way it is now, all you're doing is telling people which car felt better to you.
While that's not a bad thing, it doesn't go very well with the idea of giving the community an advice to which car to buy or not.

That's just my personal opinion, though.

For example, after reading your review, I decided to get the RX-7 only to find that it's roughly 10 seconds slower around the 'Ring than the NSX, even though it's easier to drive - and a lot easier to get to the limit and keep it there.
 
GT_Prologue5
No. I had it at both Monza and Suzuka. It was slippery and awful, I gave it 10 tries on each track and the thing wouldn't comply. In parts that the RX-7 was smooth, the NSX was sliding all over. Plus, keep an eye on the price. Cut me some slack man, I'm still getting used to a wheel and I haven't written comparos for a couple months back when I did GT2 ones.

Remember, you don't HAVE to listen to me. I'm one guy.

Civic vs. GTO? No.

ACR vs. ZR1? I said I'll get to it tomorrow.

**No more suggestions for now please.**

And remember, this is a new thread, so please, lay off while I still have time to figure this out.
Click to expand...

I do say if u really wanna see the weakness of a car go to the Nurburgring there u can say which is better but if you relay only on how muhc the other cost that not comparing the proformance of the car.
 
Alright, alright, alright. I've had nothing better to do lately in the world of GT5, so I've decided to thread dig and pull this out of the dirt. Instead of just coparos, I thought about it and I'm redoing it so so I can review single cars.
 
GT5 Car Review​

"More than a Tankful"​

Specifications
Car: 2003 Jay Leno Tank Car
Engine: 29333 cu. in. (29.3L) V12
Power: 900hp
Torque: 1,500lb.-ft.
Weight: 3500kg (7,716lbs.)
Gearbox: 6 Speed
Additional Parts: Chassis Reinforcement, Racing Soft Tyres
Price: $3,900,000 (est.); prize for A-Spec American Championship




Pure Amazement
No one I know flogs the big, bad vehicle we know as the Tank Car. Since it appeared in GT4, it's been a rather useless car. (as it wasn't raceable in that game) For good or bad, PD lifted it's exemption from motorsports and is now a bit of a race car. Right? The odd thing is, is that despite the fact that it's probably bigger than 3 Miatas end-to-end, it is.

But how does it drive? Like a giant, crashy, slidy, mess? Let me think about that...no. I entered the Tank Car into the Level 19 Polyphony Digital Cup. The first race is at Curicuito de Madrid Mini, if you didn't know, which is a very small course with, like, 4 turns. So here comes the old military barge, floating on its odd chassis that looks visible. All of a sudden, here comes Turn 1. Wall approaching. Ford GT in front of you. Turn the wheel. It reacts slowly. Dial in more, the front tires claw for grip. Smoke begins to billow out. Floor the pedal, no torque spin whatsoever. And then...you're done. It finishes the turn with not a scrape.

How? I don't know. The car is the heaviest in any GT, period. It has 1,500lb.-ft. of torque. Again, most in a GT. Ever. Yet with the TCS dialed up 2 notches, the rear lightly kicks out in the switchbacks, making the car so much fun to toss. The power is smooth, reacting at about 200rpm. (redline at about 3000rpm, remember) Suddenly, you're not just learning the car, you're flat out eating up the miles, riding on the cushy suspension.

Drive into a hairpin, however, and the one big problem (despite that the car itself is, well, big) is the brakes. Stopping a massive V12 and 7700lbs. requires super brakes the Tank Car doesn't possess. The car will head into a hairpin, and the front billows smoke. The wheel suddenly won't seem to push the car. It's extremely hard to turn. Set the brakes to 10/10, and it's a bit better. The wheels still attack the track like a lion on a zebra, but the lion loses this round, and instead, you have to power out of corners.

After a good many drives in the behemoth, you learn a few things. One, this car defies the laws of physics. It is so sweet and gentille in the corners you think it's magic. The power, used accordingly, doesn't do any bad things. And while flooring it faster and faster, the car just feels smaller and smaller. And if racing dirty is your thing, (I hope not) the car's massive inertia (3700kg of force being exerted is hard to slow or change direction) means that no car can push back against a Tank Car. Clip the rear wheels, pull to the P.I.T. maneuver. It's so easy, I wonder why punters have never thought about this car.

So it's a big, smooth, fast, dangerous roadster that can actually win events and move any car out of its path. Is it worth $4,000,000?

That's the only question I can't answer.
 
What I want to know is why is it that the 10 million dollar cars or more seem to be the best when you are pitted against them according to Polyphony? Let me explain.

In the Professional "Gran Turismo World Championship" I was using my LP 670 (irrelevant) and the computer had some seriously good cars like the Pagani Zonda R and the GTR race version. When the race ended, the car that took 1rst place was a GT40 MK IV from 1967. It even beat the NEW GT40 race version.

How can you explain Polyphony thinking a supercar from the 60's can beat a Pagani Zonda R that has 100% carbon fiber, Aerodinamics tested in modern wind tunnel, ceramic brake disks, much more HP, less weight, v12 instead of v8, and the list goes on.

Specs:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/3406/Ford-Mk-IV.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagani_Zonda

Sure a 550hp car can beat a 700+ hp car right Polyphony?

PLEASE NOTE THAT BOTH CARS WERE BEING DRIVEN BY THE COMPUTER SO I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RESULT.
 
Tonkz
lol...

i can... Definately NOT worth it.
Why do you think PD made the car a reward car, Coz NO-ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would spend $4 million + on that trash
:)
Click to expand...

Well that's the thing, I made it up to you to decide. I don't find it trash besides the awful brakes.
 
Well, I'll join with my impressions of the latest beauty I danced with around Eifel: The Ferrari SP1.

Bella Machina

Recently, I bought an HDTV and it was the first time I could experience GT in HD. With the impetus of a kid with a new toy I quickly thought I had to go around for a spin in a great looking circuit in a great looking car new car. A quick browse trough the premium dealership showed me an expensive but ideal alternative: the gorgeous Ferrari SP1. The first track I drove with it was Rome, and needless to say, I had an absolute blast for my first HD experience. Not only my TV blew me away, that curvy Ferrari left an impression on me, and it's not hard to see why.

I must first clarify that the car is a Pininfarina designed body over a standard F430 chasis. But, there's so much more to it that it'll amaze you. The body, which Pininfarina says was inspired by the curves of the femenine body is a work of art. It still keeps some characteristic F430 touches, but it adds to them a series of touches that makes it so much fluid and special. The shape is at the same time organic and sublime. I even painted it in Azzuro blue to match it's "sublime beauty" nature. I really love the way it looks, there's not a single angle where the car looks "meh".

However, looks are merely a matter of taste. Does the SP1's silhoutte really resembles a woman's waistline? Is it pleasing to the sight? Should it be on a canvas rather than a garage? To me, the first two questions a straight "Yes", but you could argue with them and you would be right if to you the car looked like a messed up F430 (I would find it nonsensical but to each their own...whatever...). What you can't argue with is my answer to the last of the questions: the SP1 is not only an art piece, it's a divine track performer. You also can't argue with the delicious voice of the engine (partly because it'll just sound louder than you), you can't argue with the precise steering, you can't argue with the chasis, and you can't argue with the transmission. Beauty is a matter of opinion, speed is a matter of fact, and the SP1 is the queen of both of them.

Being a MR car with Sports Hard tires and no aids other than ABS, it still requires a bit of technique to drive and feels a bit on the edge sometimes (blame the tires) but the car lets you know every single detail, every movement of it's gorgeus buttocks, so you can brake, or steer, or let off the gas, or floor it. When you brake, the car stops with immediacy and without drama (unless you turn while braking which is a no-no by my books). When you steer, the car just glides trough where you want it to go not even a bit of over/understeer. When you let off the gas, the car gets back into shape most of the time (unless you've been reaaally stupid). When you floor it this beauty will take you to a nirvana of speed, sound, beauty and above all: feel. With a FFB wheel this car gives you a sense of attachment that it's really hard to rival.

I found no problem in any of the Nordschleife's turns with this car. It was such a thrill, such an emotion...it's just lovely. My lap was 7:51 which quite frankly has lots of room for improvement, but in the SP1's defense I'm not very used to MR cars. By comparison, My EVO X did a 7:58, but then it's to be said that it has Sport Softs, an aero kit, a semi-racing exhaust, a carbon fiber hood, and is 4WD. But I'd still go with the Ferrari, for the sheer thrill, the musical sound, the gorgeus looks, and above all else: the unforgettable feeling of a challenge never to easy, never too hard, but just perfect for enjoyment.
 
Last edited:
Wow CarBastard, nice write-up! I have to give it to you, the SP1 is a hell of a pretty car, and is divinely fast in its own right. I'm putting that in the reviews cause that was nice. I probably won't put up ones by other users, but if it's good enough, hell it saves me time and cash. :D

I'd use it for the comparison I have upcoming, (the one after that is probably going to be massive) but the more conventional 430 Scuderia was within my reach. Now that you all know that, think about what the other cars going to be...

(Please don't guess)
 
GT_Prologue5
Wow CarBastard, nice write-up! I have to give it to you, the SP1 is a hell of a pretty car, and is divinely fast in its own right. I'm putting that in the reviews cause that was nice. I probably won't put up ones by other users, but if it's good enough, hell it saves me time and cash. :D

I'd use it for the comparison I have upcoming, (the one after that is probably going to be massive) but the more conventional 430 Scuderia was within my reach. Now that you all know that, think about what the other cars going to be...

(Please don't guess)
Click to expand...

Thanks dude :). I'm sorry I didn't read your first post, I thought it was a thread for everyone to post reviews. Still, if you need a hand with a review (I have some quite expensive cars in GT5, and most premiums) just ask and I'll be glad to help!
 
Schnitter
What I want to know is why is it that the 10 million dollar cars or more seem to be the best when you are pitted against them according to Polyphony? Let me explain.

In the Professional "Gran Turismo World Championship" I was using my LP 670 (irrelevant) and the computer had some seriously good cars like the Pagani Zonda R and the GTR race version. When the race ended, the car that took 1rst place was a GT40 MK IV from 1967. It even beat the NEW GT40 race version.

How can you explain Polyphony thinking a supercar from the 60's can beat a Pagani Zonda R that has 100% carbon fiber, Aerodinamics tested in modern wind tunnel, ceramic brake disks, much more HP, less weight, v12 instead of v8, and the list goes on.

Specs:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/3406/Ford-Mk-IV.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagani_Zonda

Sure a 550hp car can beat a 700+ hp car right Polyphony?

PLEASE NOTE THAT BOTH CARS WERE BEING DRIVEN BY THE COMPUTER SO I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RESULT.
Click to expand...

quoting myself since I was a new user and my post didnt show up for 3 days so maybe OP skipped it. I really want to know why this game is like this.
 
Schnitter
quoting myself since I was a new user and my post didnt show up for 3 days so maybe OP skipped it. I really want to know why this game is like this.
Click to expand...

I agree, that is really silly. Seems like the AI in GT5 is too slow to find paths to overtake, like a racing driver with no balls.
 
Sorry Schnitter, I didn't see your post and I apologize. (first one I saw was the one under yours) Unfortunately, I don't understand your "question" very well, and second off, things like that are not my domain right now.
 
"The World's Greatest Supercar"​

1994 McLaren McLaren F1 vs. 2002 Ferrari Enzo Ferrari


​

Prologue
It's a very interesting query. What is the world's greatest supercar? Veyrons? No, too fat. Zondas? Maybe, but only the R model. Koenigseggs? SSCs? What is it!!??

The answer lies right here. These 2 cars are the most fantastic cars to appear that rise the name to supercar. Case in point, every Ferrari, faster or slower, is compared to an Enzo. Then again, every supercar is compared to the F1.

So we have 2, MR, V12 powered cars. Each cost $1,000,000. The V12's are 6 Litres or over. They both weigh less than 1260kg. The names both say the name of their founder, twice. Both have a funny rear wing device. (the McLaren's is just an airbrake, like a Veyron's) And each car says it's the F1 car for the road. So let us coomence the trials, and figure out the greatest supercar.

**Both were driven on Sports Hard tyres. The McLaren had 1 part, a fixed suspension (which comes stock)**

Stats:
McLaren F1
6.1 Litre V12
638hp @ 7500rpm
489lb.-ft. @ 5500rpm
4288mm x 1820 x 1140
1140kg
614PP

Enzo Ferrari
6.0 Litre V12
671hp @ 8000rpm
494lb.-ft. @ 5500rpm
4702mm x 2036 x 1147
1255kg
587PP


Step 1. - Time Trial
Track: Nurburgring 24H

McLaren F1- 9'28.171
Enzo Ferrari- 9'38.952

Winner: obviously McLaren. The numbers don't tell you the drive and what happened; the F1 was the only car to really "spin", on its way towards the winding back straightaway after the Exmuhle section, it spun maybe 4-5 times before the regaining control. The Enzo didn't spin, but oversteered into 2 walls, but they were relatively minor. It also went off course on the GP/F portion of the track.

​

Step 2. - Top Speed/0-60 Trial
Track: Special Stage Route 7
Rules: TCS off, Manual transmission

McLaren F1- 220m/h, average 0-60 of 3.6 seconds
Enzo Ferrari- 219m/h, average 0-60 of 3.1 seconds

Winner: have to say the Ferrari. The .5 seconds faster to 60 easily negate the 1 mph lost to the F1. The Enzo has this time pulling out of 2nd gear; not 1st; as 1st gear launches put it more equal to the F1. The F1 is a lot more annoying, 2nd gear shift doesn't occur until around 70+m/h, meaning acceleration suffered for top speed. And the top speed wasn't much; although it was drag that stopped the McLaren, the Enzo stopped due to redline in 6th.

Step 3. - Race Trial
Track: Autodromo Nazionale Monza
Rules: 1 Lap. Professional Level.

McLaren F1- 4th Place
Enzo Ferrari- 7th Place

Winner- McLaren. Pulled up to 4th in a field of Veryon's, F1's, Enzo, ZZII's, and Cien's. The Enzo got 7th in one with an F1, a Viper ACR, Corvette ZR1, W12 Nardo, etc. Placing worse than your competitor in an easier field means the Enzo goes down in this round.

Step 4. - The "How's it drive?" Trial
Track: AUTOBACS Test Track I (My own Eifel course)

McLaren F1- The lightweight Brit pulls around the test track with monstrous, race car abilities. The fast V12 has a note that's not as great compared to the higher redlineing Enzo's, but it's fine. The fixed supension means it's more racy in the turns but not bouncy.It oversteers, easy yet hard to control.Small bumps may cause it to crash. The interior is yay-and-nay, good outwards expansion (kinda like a convertible), but the rear view is awful.

Enzo Ferrari- Feels very different. Shove it into a corner, and it does understeer, almost like how the F1 oversteers; it's easy to control but you need to pay attention to it. The car feels a bit more racy somehow, higher redline, more power, and a solid, substantial system all around. It is a lot easier mentally to drive it. The interior is a lot more fuller, with guages and metes on the dash, unlike the F1's "3 dials, 4 buttons" directly in front of you. It's a bit more constricting but it's still fine.


So who wins? The whole time driving, I knew it would be the F1. It's faster on the track and an almost equal on a drag strip. The visiblity is amazing, the seating nice, the sound okay, and it oversteered a lot more than the Ferrari could. But I can't say it wins. The F1 is too raw. It lacks any comfort. It's a car for the die-hards, the death machine of those willing to drive it. The Enzo is nice, equally competitive and a better car whole. The F1 can't hit all the right spots, unfortunately. It's a good supercar, a great supercar that fires off all the synapses. But is it the greatest?

Just ask the Ferrari.

​
 
Last edited:
Cool reviews, but your latest is a bit of a controversial decision, those are two cars that I drive more than any in GT5 and as much as i love the Enzo it is outshone in every way by the F1! I was able to take the Mclaren to 224mph at SS7, I can drive both cars without spinning them, while both are hard to drive on the sports hard tyres they are still amazing fun if you can avoid lead foot on the throttle. For me the greatest supercar is obvious though.

The Mclaren F1 is the greatest supercar.
 
Isn't that the greatest thing about it though? I'm just blowing off time, paper, and pen ink, and yet you don't have to listen to me. It's all opinions. I was just the first to start opinionating like this.

For me, the Enzo is better.
For you the F1 is better.

I just make people really think about what the car really is. It isn't numbers and facts, it's feel and comfort combined with speed and awe.
 
Very nice write-up! 👍

Quite some time since there was a thread this good around here. Subscribing now.
 
Thanks Dan_. I think I do this better than most because I read WAY too many magazines. :D

Only problem is that it takes me time to do these. I'm on Spring Break, so I get to use PSN more, but I always use my wheel for a comparo. My router is downstairs; my wheel is upstairs. I can't take the wheel downstairs. (nowhere to mount it)

And since I can't be near a computer, I have to write everything in pen, then type it up. It's a more enjoyable process once I share it, but it's time-consuming. One good thing of it, is that my work is always changing. I'm always modifying words, changing the smallest of written details to make it better. Funny thing is that sentence right here was written after I posted. Always trying to make it better, see? 👍

It's getting rather late, so I can't take the PS3 upstairs to do any writing, but how does a Nissan Silvia spec R Aero (S15) RM vs. Acura NSX RM sound? :)
 

Latest Posts

Back