Makeshift Shuffle Club - Time Trials & Testing for club car lists - all welcomeOpen

[Patrick8308]

Schwarzwald testing. As usual, Suzuka 2014 online, SM tyres. I have also included some cars that are already on other lists, just because they fit the profile and they need not necessarily be exclusive.

2:27,950 208 291 BMW Z4 '03
2:27,819 207 288 BMW 330i '05
2:27,351 210 287 Volkswagen Golf VI R '10
2:27,100 208 273 Mercedes-Benz 190 E 2.5-16 Evolution II '91
2:26,340 212 280L Audi S4 '98
2:26,169 212 298 Audi TT Coupe 3.2 quattro '07
2:25,627 201 262 Opel Speedster '00
2:25,607 221 283L BMW M Coupe '98
2:24,473 218 311 Mercedes-Benz SL 500 (R230) '02
2:24,208 228 322 Mercedes-Benz CLK 55 AMG '00
2:24,193 218 286L Audi TTS Coupe '09
2:23,652 212 262L Opel Speedster Turbo '00
2:23,621 218 294 Volkswagen Scirocco R '10
2:22,937 222 295L Audi S4 '03
2:22,578 238 333L Audi RS 6 '02
2:22,026 231 314L Audi RS 4 '01
2:21,089 223 306 BMW 135i Coupe '07
2:20,991 223 306 BMW Concept 1 series tii '07
2:20,815 240 349 Mercedes-Benz E 55 AMG '02
2:20,466 245 345 Mercedes-Benz SL 600 (R230) '04
2:19,191 246 363L Mercedes-Benz SL 55 AMG (R230) '02
2:18,865 230 332 BMW M3 '04
2:18,682 231 332 BMW Z4 M Coupe '08
2:18,259 240 341 Mercedes-Benz C 63 AMG '08
2:18,071 245 359 Audi RS 6 Avant '08
2:17,936 235 339 BMW Z8 '01
2:17,312 237 341 BMW M3 Coupé '07
2:17,087 233 302L RUF 3400S '00
2:15,949 260 364 Mercedes-Benz SL 65 AMG (R230) '04
2:14,752 237 333 BMW M3 CSL '03
2:14,517 238 320 BMW M3 GTR '03
2:13,728 243 326L RUF RGT '00
2:13,612 250 362 BMW M5 '08
2:13,093 248 344 BMW M4 Coupé
2:12,834 263 380 RUF CTR2 '96
2:12,601 243 321L Audi R8 4.2 FSI R tronic '07
2:12,158 253 366 BMW M5 '05

Marked in bold are most cars @Patrick8308 has identified as being essential. These actually work out rather nicely. In italic are my suggestions to complete the field (where there were some "1 of the 2"-decisions). In detail, these are…

- There's a gap between the BMW 1 series tii and the Z4 M. Basically, any one of the 2 Mercedes R230 will do.
- Between the Z4 M and the RUF 3400S, the Audi RS6 fits quite nicely.
- I've marked the M5 '05, simply because it fits better (and it's the better car compared to the M5 '08). I know it's a standard model, but it's a sensational drive.

In terms of times spread between first and last, I would say the cars slower than the CLK are already too slow compared with the M5 '05 or the R8 4.2 (and at least one of those should be on the list). I would also have liked to include the 190E Evo, but I think we would have to cut the list on the fast end then, and I don't think that's worth it.

I've marked 14 cars bold or italic, and if I had to add more, I'd probably include the Z8.

None of the cars have limiter problems.

Now it's @Patrick8308 's turn to pick.

Thanks @snowgt for all the testing.
Sadly I wasn't able to finish my tests on Laguna Seca yet. And I don't have time this week either. So the picking has to wait a little. But I guess that's no problem as we would need further data from other testers anyways.
I would definately like to have the Z8 in the list.👍
And if there's interest a slower "Schwarzwald League B" would be possible too.

 

[snowgt]

Thanks @snowgt for all the testing.
Sadly I wasn't able to finish my tests on Laguna Seca yet. And I don't have time this week either. So the picking has to wait a little. But I guess that's no problem as we would need further data from other testers anyways.
I would definately like to have the Z8 in the list.👍
And if there's interest a slower "Schwarzwald League B" would be possible too.

Yup, take your time - we have many lists cooking.

Was a lot of fun testing these cars. There's some that are really not that easy to drive fast, but have loads of power, and in contrast some real driving machines that you could just drive for hours without getting tired of them. The M3 CSL is possibly my favourite, with others close behind (M5, R8, RGT & 3400S, Opel Speedster). And more or less luck deciding which one you get - shuffle fun!

We'll have a lot of fun driving these! 👍

 

[watermelon punch]

@snowgt

@Patrick8308
I too have been having pesky real life interfere with my testing.

So let me get the run-down as of now...
(correct me if I'm off here)

Schwarzwald is simmering on the back burner for getting final choices.

Performance Coupes is nearing final ingredients?

Historic... I still need some additional testing of some of the cars. But probably only 2 might be cut, and I'm not planning on adding any more.

Classics... is waiting on me to determine a final list & do my test times?

@amarynceos
@tarnheld

 

[tarnheld]

I too have been having pesky real life interfere with my testing.

Me too. And with @snowgt testing like there is no tomorrow 👍, i made a round up post of all the lists and ideas earlier. I'm currently testing the corner cases of the Historic list.

EDIT:

Performance Coupes is nearing final ingredients?

From the testing data alone it looks pretty finished.

Classics... is waiting on me to determine a final list & do my test times?

You proposed to bring the list down to 10 cars as there is a gap between slower and faster cars, and the Miura shouldn't be out of reach list-wise.

 

[snowgt]

Classics... is waiting on me to determine a final list & do my test times?

The last one you posted looked really good to me. I think that would work.

Me too. And with @snowgt testing like there is no tomorrow 👍, i made a round up post of all the lists and ideas earlier. I'm currently testing the corner cases of the Historic list.

Historic... I still need some additional testing of some of the cars. But probably only 2 might be cut, and I'm not planning on adding any more.

I had already tested about half of the proposed cars on request before and will add the rest later this week. If anything, they might not be spread enough, but we'll see how that turns out.

 

[tarnheld]

The last one you posted looked really good to me. I think that would work.

The gaps between the slower cars could be problematic (Lotus is missing here, but is in the list as slowest car):

You see there is an average gap of >3 secs between the Corvette and the 512BB, all gaps lie between 2-5 seconds.
What about including the Ford RS200 and the 4200R instead of the Lotus and the Vette? Then it looks like this (Ford RS200 missing, is slowest car in ordering):

Still pretty big gaps, but minimum gaps indicate that it should be workable.

 

[snowgt]

You see there is an average gap of >3 secs between the Corvette and the 512BB, all gaps lie between 2-5 seconds.
What about including the Ford RS200 and the 4200R instead of the Lotus and the Vette? Then it looks like this (Ford RS200 missing, is slowest car in ordering):

Still pretty big gaps, but minimum gaps indicate that it should be workable.

I would actually keep the Lotus and Corvette, but stick in the Isuzu at #3. It's pretty much in the middle between Corvette and 512BB and it fits very well in terms of gaps on all tracks. The RS200 has very specific strengths that don't align as well with the rest of the field.

That's just my preference though.

 

[watermelon punch]

@snowgt @amarynceos @tarnheld

RE: Performance Coupes
Yes, the data looks like it's shaped up quite nicely.
But it concerns me that some of the cars have only 4 test times.
I'd like to get some test times on a different track than has been tested.
For example, I was thinking maybe testing on a city track might be a good precaution.

Though the gap spread in the Perf Coupes is definitely larger than some other lists.

RE: Historic
I actually made the Historic List first!
Taking the cars that were rather too high performer or too the same as some in the Vintage List... to make room for others (like the Europa).
(Historic is a slightly faster car list than the Vintage or Retro.)
Then, from that initially large Historic list, I then pulled out the oddballs... newer, slower, less important historically, or just not as nice looking - and put them in the retro list.

Then I started looking at the Retro list and realized it LOOKED (visually) very "retro".
So then I thought of other cars I knew of that had that same "feel" to them, and stuck them in the Retro.

RE: Luxury
If it's not broke, don't fix it.
Any alterations to the Luxury list should be in the refrigerator at this point.

BTW: The Z8 can be on 5 lists for all I care. That's such a great car, and everybody loves it, right?

RE: Schwarzwald B
That's a great idea for the future. But again, I have to leave it in the crisper for now because I've got too many pots boiling, and not enough arms.

Anyhow, as far as gap spreads goes, I'd order the spreads like this...
In order of having the tightest performance to the more wider gaps...

Retro
Hot Hatches
Historic
90s Sports
Traffic
Schwarzwald
Legends
Low Power
Vintage
Luxury
Performance Coupes
Classics

And I think that works out okay.
I knew right away the performance gaps were pretty tight in the Retro... But hot hatches have turned out pretty well, and they're not only pretty tight in performance - they're very similar in handling (compared to the differences between the cars on other lists).

Append:
I think the larger gaps tend to be more important in lowest power lists with a variety of handling, and then the fastest lists with variety of handling OR being performance cars.
This is because in both the lowest power and the highest performance, talent plays a bigger part getting the most out of each car especially when switching race to race... As opposed to cars that are similar and it's a tad "easier" to switch cars from race to race.

Just me for example, being on the mediocre side of average... I find it easier to switch race to race & get into a groove with the hot hatches, more than the Vintage or Legends.
It's not that I like one better than the other... it's just that I struggle a little more to adjust for the next car when a list is more "varied" in handling, and obviously a more skilled individual is adjusting faster to the varieties of what to expect.

 

[snowgt]

@snowgt @amarynceos @tarnheld

RE: Performance Coupes
Yes, the data looks like it's shaped up quite nicely.
But it concerns me that some of the cars have only 4 test times.
I'd like to get some test times on a different track than has been tested.
For example, I was thinking maybe testing on a city track might be a good precaution.

Though the gap spread in the Perf Coupes is definitely larger than some other lists.

As there is a close-to-final list now for the Premium Sports Coupés, maybe the people who haven't tested all of these can fill in the gaps...? (Can't be me )

Out of curiosity, which were the tracks we have times for? I know it's Suzuka, and, if I'm not mistaken Fuji, Nürburgring GP/F and the rest I don't know.

I'm not a big fan of city tracks for any kind of performance testing, to be honest, as I find there's quite a lot of white noise in terms of driver performance (and in this case it doesn't have anything to do with a driver's skill level). Also, there's just 3 real city tracks in the whole game (Monaco, London, Madrid) - the others are very circuit-like with pretty long straights, so there's not much new to learn about a car's speed that you don't already know, if you have tested on other tracks. As a twisty track, Laguna Seca or Autumn Ring might give an extreme result in the other direction, but I think it might blur the picture more than make it clearer.

 

[tarnheld]

Here is a link to the Performance Coupes sheet. Any questions, just ask! (read: i am too lazy to explain the intricacies )

Tracks tested were Nurb GP/F, Fuji F, Suzuka, TrialMountain, GVER, Laguna Seca. Test times included from @snowgt, @amarynceos, @SuzukaStar, @GT_Alex74, @Patrick8308. Thanks to all who have tested so far! 👍

The finishing touches should be done by someone else. Hopefully i can do some cars, @watermelon punch maybe too?

EDIT: here is the list so far, bolded cars have less than 6 comparisons to their consecutive list partners, and should be tested for completeness.

0.45 Maserati Gran Turismo S '08
0.75 Cadillac CTS-V Coupe '11
1.80 Jaguar XKR Coupe '10
3.00 Chevrolet Camaro SS '10
4.17 Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione '08
4.83 TVR Tuscan Speed 6 '00
6.40 Aston Martin V12 Vantage '10
7.13 Ferrari California '08
7.47 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray (C7) '14
9.62 Nissan GT-R '07
9.75 Ferrari 599 '06
11.23 Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG '10
11.40 SRT Viper GTS '13
13.00 Aston Martin One-77 '11

 

[GT_Alex74]

You can add the Cadillac in 01:40,002 on Trial Mountain, fresh from yesterday !

If you need me to test specific cars that are not already included in my board, don't hesitate to tell me

 

[watermelon punch]

Thanks @GT_Alex74 !

Also for anyone interested in research:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/survey-i-need-your-help-with.324913/#post-10507941
I'm going to do it because it's an easy & fun way to contribute to research and someone's educational pursuits. 👍

 

[watermelon punch]

I've come to suspect there has been a physics change of some type with the update.

I'm not really concerned it's anything we need to seriously worry about with the testing. But I'd like to know if anyone else has noticed anything... peculiar lately.
??

 

[tarnheld]

I've come to suspect there has been a physics change of some type with the update.

If there is any physics change, it is so subtle that it doesn't affect lap times, at least no so much as the 1.09 update. There is some discussion cooking in the GT6 forum, but so far it has been inconclusive. Personally i haven't noticed anything special.

 

[watermelon punch]

If there is any physics change, it is so subtle that it doesn't affect lap times, at least no so much as the 1.09 update. There is some discussion cooking in the GT6 forum, but so far it has been inconclusive. Personally i haven't noticed anything special.

No, I don't think it would effect say, a time trial at all. And I don't think it effects car performance itself.

But...

I almost never touch the BB unless I have ABS off... and I never use ABS off in the shuffle races because it's too risky for me.
But twice in 2 sessions now, I've actually felt compelled to up the BB on 2 different cars.

And let's just say, in observing some other drivers... I've noticed some differences in the race dynamics the past couple of sessions.
Just some more excitement when door-to-door bumper-to-bumper and people are having to make some more abrupt maneuvers.
And some unexpected bumping in the corners by people who ordinarily don't bump at all. Including myself - I've bumped at the corners several times lately... and that's not something I've generally had a problem with.

 

[tarnheld]

But twice in 2 sessions now, I've actually felt compelled to up the BB on 2 different cars.

Could this be on Midfield? This track might have some strange tarmac qualities ... on 100% rain and CS there is still lot's of grip ... and you are right that braking on ABS is 'unusual' on this track.

 

[watermelon punch]

Could this be on Midfield? This track might have some strange tarmac qualities ... on 100% rain and CS there is still lot's of grip ... and you are right that braking on ABS is 'unusual' on this track.

No it's not just Mid-Field.
Though that's an exciting track in general, and obviously we can't go by anything there because the track is so new that people are unfamiliar with it.

My BB adjustments were at Madrid in the GTO and Fuji in the NSX.

I also wouldn't judge the Retro cars in the rain at Mid-Field.
In my testing of some of the Retro cars in the rain... all of them seemed surprisingly grippy. Though I couldn't tell you now which ones I'd tried for sure. Obviously I drove the Piazza in the rain at Mid-Field. But I test drove several of them at Eiger in the rain. At least 3 or 4 of them. Definitely the Ballade & City Turbo, and I think the Silvia Qs.
In fact, it's part of the reason why I did the rain race in the Retro... because I remembered from a few weeks ago thinking "Retro will be good for rain racing because it's not so bad that people will get frustrated."

 

[amarynceos]

Historics -- I have part of this list tested, I'll gather up the rest this weekend.

Performance Coupés -- Obviously I can't test any more, having supplied two complete sets already. If I were to run again, which I won't, I'd do Spa or Silverstone. Given that we obtained a very similar order at both Nurburgring GP/F and Suzuka, and that I made the final selection choices to avoid most potential conflicts, I don't expect any surprises to pop up. Comparative testing at those two circuits generally creates results that hold up across a wide selection of tracks.

 

[watermelon punch]

What about a tight track?

I mean not like GT Arena A or anything. But like could there be some difference with like Madrid?

 

[snowgt]

I've come to suspect there has been a physics change of some type with the update.

I'm not really concerned it's anything we need to seriously worry about with the testing. But I'd like to know if anyone else has noticed anything... peculiar lately.
??

There is a brilliant thread about it in the main forum with one spectacular post (link points to it). Someone actually extracted data logs and analyzed them in the Motec-software. From what I understood, the current consensus (that can change rather quickly though) seems to be that the physics are probably unchanged, but there was some change to force feedback, which means that as a result you can feel the car better and therefore also correct slides, etc. a little bit better. Nobody seems to have noticed any changes in lap times though as far as I saw.

Saying that, it subconsciously might affect some people's driving by giving them more confidence in what they do. I must say I haven't really noticed anything, but the recorded log-data in that post seems to suggest there's some change in controller/wheel input/output.

What about a tight track?

I mean not like GT Arena A or anything. But like could there be some difference with like Madrid?

Of course there could be a slightly different order on a track like Madrid (but not many positions up or down - more like 1 up, 1 down, I'd say). But the question is, would that warrant a change in the general order? I think not, for 2 reasons:

1) I think the tracks we test on are pretty representative overall. E.g. Suzuka has a pretty twisty first sector, not only long straights, GP/F is also not as fast as many people think, with also the 1st sector being tight and the rest not all that fast (if you race in series with customizable transmission you know that the gear setting is surprisingly short there). That means that both elements (cornering & power) are represented in those results. By putting too much emphasis on a tight track, the cars' power might be underrepresented in the order. And if you look at the list of tracks, there's really not that many that don't have fast sections in it where power plays a big role.

2) From a mathematical point of view, a new set of times (a 5th one), would influence the car's "score" as perceived by @tarnheld 's great algorithm, only by about 0.2. Most cars are not that close, so no sorting change would happen. (unless you use more tight tracks).

 

[tarnheld]

Yes, the data looks like it's shaped up quite nicely.
But it concerns me that some of the cars have only 4 test times.
I'd like to get some test times on a different track than has been tested.
For example, I was thinking maybe testing on a city track might be a good precaution.

I made the final selection choices to avoid most potential conflicts

@amarynceos, you did a real good job with the final selection. 👍 And the TT times really don't contain much controversies, even when run on such different tracks and by such varied drivers.

But more testing is always good, and if each car is tested at least 6 times we can have more confidence in the list. If somebody other than the testers so far has the time to do a complete run of all the cars on a different track, go ahead. But like @snowgt said, it's very unlikely to change the order in a significant way with this testing.

But there are some close call candidates in the list, so if anybody has not that much time, just to a TT with any of these pairs:

Maserati Gran Turismo S '08
Cadillac CTS-V Coupe '11

Ferrari California '08
Chevrolet Corvette Stingray (C7) '14

Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG '10
SRT Viper GTS '13

Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione '08
TVR Tuscan Speed 6 '00

I actually made the Historic List first!

I have to admit that i misjudged the list and after driving some of the cars i think it will work out great! 👍

But like could there be some difference with like Madrid?

I don't know, that's a really good question. I think it matters what you are trying to test here. When you want to check for cornering handicaps of some cars relative to others, i think we would have seen them already in the data, as most tracks are really about cornering. But if you want to check how easy a car is relative to the others for the average driver, then we need tests from as many different drivers as possible and the track wouldn't matter much except it shouldn't be too easy like an oval course.

 

[watermelon punch]

I'm probably just fretting like a den mother.

 

[watermelon punch]

Historic List
final tests:

These cars need testing on like a track with long straights... Maybe spa or something?
So we can get a straight up power read on them & settle it?
(the ones grouped together are being compared - so if you can only test 2 - pick a pair)
They're in order of priority:

--------------------------------------
Mazda MX-5 (NA) '89
BMW 2002 Turbo '73
--------------------------------------
Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA 1600 '65
Toyota MR2 1600 G '86
Toyota Celica XX 2800GT '81
--------------------------------------
Honda Prelude Si VTEC '91
Mazda Savanna RX-7 GT-Limited (FC) '85
--------------------------------------
Mitsubishi Galant 2.0 DOHC Turbo VR-4 '89
Chevrolet Corvette Coupe (C2) '63
--------------------------------------


The whole list is:

1. Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA 1600 '65
2. Toyota MR2 1600 G '86
3. Toyota Celica XX 2800GT '81
4. Nissan Skyline 2000GT-R (KPGC110) '73
5. Honda CR-X del Sol SiR '92
6. Toyota 2000GT '67
7. Nissan Fairlady 240ZG (HS30) '71
8. Mazda MX-5 (NA) '89
9. BMW 2002 Turbo '73
10. Audi quattro '82
11. Honda Prelude Si VTEC '91
12. Mazda Savanna RX-7 GT-Limited (FC) '85
13. Mitsubishi Galant 2.0 DOHC Turbo VR-4 '89
14. Chevrolet Corvette Coupe (C2) '63
15. Nissan Silvia K's (S13) '88
16. Buick GNX '87
17. Toyota Supra 3.0GT Turbo A '88

The ones crossed out are the most likely to be cut.
The bold ones will definitely NOT be cut.

I'd like to keep the Supra as the highest car on pure spite really. Because this car is so terribly unfairly rated in the PP system. (IE: for its PP it stinks!)

 

[watermelon punch]

HISTORIC LIST

LAST CHANCE TO VOICE UP ABOUT CUTS

1. Toyota MR2 1600 G '86
2. Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA 1600 '65
3. Toyota Celica XX 2800GT '81
4. Nissan Skyline 2000GT-R (KPGC110) '73
5. Honda CR-X del Sol SiR '92
6. Toyota 2000GT '67
7. Nissan Fairlady 240ZG (HS30) '71
8. Mazda MX-5 (NA) '89
9. BMW 2002 Turbo '73
10. Audi quattro '82
11. Mazda Savanna RX-7 GT-Limited (FC) '85
12. Honda Prelude Si VTEC '91
13. Mitsubishi Galant 2.0 DOHC Turbo VR-4 '89
14. Chevrolet Corvette Coupe (C2) '63
15. Nissan Silvia K's (S13) '88
16. Buick GNX '87
17. Toyota Supra 3.0GT Turbo A '88

Obviously at least one of these needs to be cut.
The Bold ones will NOT be cut.
I'm thinking of cutting 1 to 3 of these cars.

Please let me know what you think. 👍


Append:
I've also been thinking of making a "1-Make List" of cars.
For all the interesting oddballs that don't fit into lists for one reason or another, but that we'd like to race.

For example
R8 Gordini
Biposto Bertone
Ford RS200
the premium vintage Fiat 500
Maybe the honda life step van

 

[WhiterunGuard]

I know I haven't raced here yet so my opinion probably doesn't mean much but I can tell you, having a lot of experience with the MR2, that it is way too much fun to be cut. As for the rest of them...I really have no opinion, it looks like a pretty good lineup to me.

 

[snowgt]

HISTORIC LIST

LAST CHANCE TO VOICE UP ABOUT CUTS

1. Toyota MR2 1600 G '86
2. Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA 1600 '65
3. Toyota Celica XX 2800GT '81
4. Nissan Skyline 2000GT-R (KPGC110) '73
5. Honda CR-X del Sol SiR '92
6. Toyota 2000GT '67
7. Nissan Fairlady 240ZG (HS30) '71
8. Mazda MX-5 (NA) '89
9. BMW 2002 Turbo '73
10. Audi quattro '82
11. Mazda Savanna RX-7 GT-Limited (FC) '85
12. Honda Prelude Si VTEC '91
13. Mitsubishi Galant 2.0 DOHC Turbo VR-4 '89
14. Chevrolet Corvette Coupe (C2) '63
15. Nissan Silvia K's (S13) '88
16. Buick GNX '87
17. Toyota Supra 3.0GT Turbo A '88

Obviously at least one of these needs to be cut.
The Bold ones will NOT be cut.
I'm thinking of cutting 1 to 3 of these cars.

Please let me know what you think. 👍

Testing concluded on Motegi East.

Lap time / Speed at start-finish / Speed at end of straight / SSRX top speed / car

1:49,737 121 168 243L Toyota MR2 1600 G '86
1:49,596 120 165 238 Mazda MX-5 (NA) '89
1:49,513 120 165 212L Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA 1600 '65
1:49,044 126 175 259 Toyota Celica XX 2800GT '81
1:48,436 126 174 241L Nissan Skyline 2000GT-R (KPGC110) '73
1:47,064 129 180 247L Honda CR-X del Sol SiR '92
1:46,726 126 178 241L Toyota 2000GT '67
1:46,496 128 177 250 Nissan Fairlady 240ZG (HS30) '71
1:45,598 128 176 223L BMW 2002 Turbo '73
1:45,428 132 180 260 Audi quattro '82
1:45,208 132 180 250 Mitsubishi Galant 2.0 DOHC Turbo VR-4 '89
1:45,172 136 186 263L Honda Prelude Si VTEC '91
1:45,003 131 179 266 Mazda Savanna RX-7 GT-Limited (FC) '85
1:44,676 131 180 247L Nissan Silvia K's (S13) '88
1:43,945 140 194 260 Chevrolet Corvette Coupe (C2) '63
1:43,017 137 188 270 Buick GNX '87
1:42,985 138 193 286L Toyota Supra 3.0GT Turbo A '88

None of the cars have limiter problems.

I would cut the Mitsubishi Galant, because it's the only 4-door saloon on the list, so it doesn't really fit with the others.

 

[amarynceos]

I'll have my testing at Tsukuba done later tonight, just six more cars to run.

I'd definitely say don't cut the RX-7, Corvette and MR2.

The question is, which '86 MR2 is it you want on the list? In Post #2, you have the 1600 G-Limited Super Charger; on this page, you have the 1600 G. There's nearly a two second difference between them at Tsukuba.

I wouldn't miss the Galant, and I don't care much for the Silvia K's. I'm indifferent regarding the Prelude, CR-X and GNX.

 

[watermelon punch]

Oh I want the slower one.
Because I decided that if we're going to have an MR2 on the list, it should fit as #1.
Then everybody's happy.

And yeah, I have the Galant on the chopping block since the get-go actually. It's not very enjoyable beside not fitting in.

 

[amarynceos]

The usual run at Tsukuba:

1:12.717 -- Toyota Celica XX 2800GT '81
1:12.498 -- Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA 1600 '65
1:12.475 -- Mazda MX-5 (NA) '89
1:12.370 -- Toyota MR2 1600 G '86
1:12.236 -- Nissan Skyline 2000GT-R (KPGC110) '73
1:11.398 -- Nissan Fairlady 240ZG (HS30) '71
1:11.392 -- Toyota 2000GT '67
1:10.950 -- Honda CR-X del Sol SiR '92
1:10.764 -- Audi quattro '82
1:10.289 -- Mazda Savanna RX-7 GT-Limited (FC) '85
1:10.286 -- BMW 2002 Turbo '73
1:10.089 -- Nissan Silvia K's (S13) '88
1:10.066 -- Chevrolet Corvette Coupe (C2) '63
1:10.008 -- Mitsubishi Galant 2.0 DOHC Turbo VR-4 '89
1:09.971 -- Honda Prelude Si VTEC '91
1:09.289 -- Buick GNX '87
1:08.959 -- Toyota Supra 3.0GT Turbo A '88

 

[watermelon punch]

Thanks!

So ...
Definitely cutting the Galant.

And I guess the Silvia K's.

And yeah I don't want to cut anything else.