Master List of Cars With Incorrect Specifications

[eSZee]

They seem fine to me. I've seen similar numbers corroborated elsewhere, and they seem well in line when the specs of the SR are taken into account.

My point with listing the 3000GT models was more about highlighting how they had the incorrect drivetrain than anything else, though.

Yeah, you're right. Weights are off maybe 10-15lbs at most.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Hm, I'm not sure about the implementation into this thread, but back in the late 60's and early 70's it was common for American manufacturers to intentionally underrate the amount of power their cars were producing to get around Health and Safety concerns in insurance, and everyone knew that the car makers were doing it. The 1969 Boss 429 Mustang (8.0 liter engine) was rated at 350hp. The real car produced well over 500bhp. Is PD using the underrated numbers as their official performance numbers for the 60's/70's muscle cars in game? I noticed that the 1969 Camaro Z/28 only produced 300 horsepower...

No boss 429 made 500hp on a stock cam and exhaust manifolds. They ran 14 second quarter miles. Hell the Boss 351 would wax a 429 all day long stock for stock. THe 428SCJ and Boss 351 were the kings of the classic Mustangs. Also keep in mind that American car makers would use SAE gross HP figures, which were considerably higher than SAE net that everyone uses today. The 1969 Z/28 was advertised at 290hp. Would you rather PD put rumored figures instead of the most credible?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Sort of on topic, but i'm positive no American muscle car was 4th gear limited to 120mph back in the day (I think some of those actually had 3 speed autos as well). In fact, many of those cars came with 150mph speedometers. I think it's a load of crap you have to buy full transmissions for those things just to make them compete correctly. Takes all the fun out of wanting to drive them stock.

Well, it might not be a very appealing truth, but it is a truth nonetheless.

Lets take a 1968 Mustang GT, with a 390, for instance. (it isn't in GT5, but this is more or less a case study)

Lets option it up with a nice top loader 4 speed and a fairly aggressive 3.73 rear gear. With that 1.0:1 4th gear (very typical for a 4 speed of the time) you are looking at 115mph at 6,000RPM (end of the world for a 60's big block in stock trim) Like I said, this is just a typical case.

Motor trend did a top speed test of various muscle cars I believe in 1971. Not one of them topped 130mph.

 

[Zenith]

The 1969 Z/28 was advertised at 290hp. Would you rather PD put rumored figures instead of the most credible?

The 429 was designed as a NASCAR engine, not for drag racing, but that's beside the point.

Exactly wrong. The Z/28 was advertised at 290 INTENTIONALLY, this was to fool worried insurance companies. Everyone in those days knew they were lying. It was part of the culture. The advertised horsepower rating is not credible at all.

 

[eSZee]

I wouldn't say it isn't credible since they usually were real numbers from the engine dyno. They just took a number from a lower RPM and used that as opposed to peak power.

 

[GTWelsh]

I wouldn't say it isn't credible since they usually were real numbers from the engine dyno. They just took a number from a lower RPM and used that as opposed to peak power.

So they can use any number then, as long as it is under or matches peak power.
Any number of horses will appear in the dyno read out at some point. Obviously nothing over peak power.

Basically you contradicted yourself.

Any number of bhp under the peak power isn't credible, because whether they use a dyno or not, what's the difference? Unless you speak about torque at that exact bhp. Then a dyno is needed.

 

[Greycap]

Yeah, I don't know where the extra weight to the Volvo came from. It doesn't drive like a two ton car.

The maximum permitted gross weight for mine is 1930kg, sounds like somebody read the wrong part of a spec sheet.

 

[Clark]

I don't have time to check but almost all the LMP's have way too much power. Audi R10, 908 and Premo 787b are right strangely though.

Example: XJR-9 should have 700bhp, and the R8 should have 625-650bhp.

 

[eSZee]

So they can use any number then, as long as it is under or matches peak power.
Any number of horses will appear in the dyno read out at some point. Obviously nothing over peak power.

Basically you contradicted yourself.

Any number of bhp under the peak power isn't credible, because whether they use a dyno or not, what's the difference? Unless you speak about torque at that exact bhp. Then a dyno is needed.

How did I contradict myself? The cars were advertised as having xxxhp at xxxxrpm, if RPM was mentioned at all. Those numbers were true to what the motor made at that rpm, they weren't some made up numbers that fell below peak HP. So how can real numbers not be credible? They didn't advertise those numbers as peak numbers from what I've found and I never said they did.


edit
we've gone OT

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I don't have time to check but almost all the LMP's have way too much power. Audi R10, 908 and Premo 787b are right strangely though.

Example: XJR-9 should have 700bhp, and the R8 should have 625-650bhp.

From everything I've read, the 787B should be 700bhp. In GT5 it has 800bhp.

(evidently the engine could produce 900hp+ but was limited to reduce wear)

 

[Mr. Boy]

What about the F1 Ferraris? They're way too light (545kg, needs to be 600 for the F2007 and 620 for the F10) and don't have enough power (700hp, should be around 750hp).

 

[Clark]

From everything I've read, the 787B should be 700bhp. In GT5 it has 800bhp.

(evidently the engine could produce 900hp+ but was limited to reduce wear)

Oh I thought it had 700bhp in GT5 aswell.

 

[Tornado]

The 1969 Z/28 was advertised at 290hp. Would you rather PD put rumored figures instead of the most credible?

I dunno. I mean, I know the numbers in GT5 are usually wrong for the heavy hitters (the Hemis, the Z/28, etc.) to the side of being lower than real life. And I know PD didn't bother extending the same standard to the Japanese cars that were obviously underrated (like the Skylines), whose numbers (at least theoretically) are much closer to the actual real life numbers.
But on the other hand, I have no idea what the best way would be to actually find accurate numbers. I mean, ball-park figures for stuff like the Camaro Z/28 are relatively well known, but they aren't specific enough.

I don't have time to check but almost all the LMP's have way too much power. Audi R10, 908 and Premo 787b are right strangely though.

Example: XJR-9 should have 700bhp, and the R8 should have 625-650bhp.

Yeah, 95% of the LMPs are wrong and have been since GT3 (oddly enough, they were far closer to accurate back in GT2 ). That has been on my to-do list, but I've only been able to find specific stats for a couple of them.





2006 Alfa Romeo Brera Q4

GT5 Specifications
Weight: 1750kg
Power: 261 HP
Torque: 241 lb.ft.

Real Life Specifications
Weight: 1650kg
Power: 256 HP
Torque: 237 lb.ft.

Linky. (Direct Comparison)

Weighs more than real life. Probably just a typo.

 

[Tyger]

The Lamborghini discrepancies explain a lot, I always though the Miura and LP400 were way too fast in GT5 ever since I first raced them in that Rome event. In reality the Countach's maximum speed was often overstated and possibly never exceeded 180mph, though granted the LP400 was one of the fastest (I think the QV was fastest overall)

And only the late model Miura SV ever managed 180mph if I remember correctly, that's if it didn't take off first.

The Countach's "rival" the Ferrari 512BB was the quicker and better all-round car back in the day, though I must admit the Countach was my first "poster car" as a kiddo (later the Testarossa, F40 and 959)

Would be interested to get more clarification on the max speed of the muscle cars, I always thought they topped out a little early. Also didn't the 195x Vette only have 2 gears in GT4? Always found that a blast to drive if you could keep it in the right rev band.

I'd also be interested to figure out why the performance of the Shelby Cobra and AC 427 seems to differ, as they are essentially the same car. The 427, as in GT4, will go over 170mph whereas the Shelby tops out at about 159mph. The Shelby might have better accelleration though, and it definitely sounds and looks better

 

[HuskyGT]

More than specs, there is somethig wrong with how certain cars behave also... Its not possible that the Ferrari 512BB is faster and better handling than the F40!

 

[Tornado]

Also didn't the 195x Vette only have 2 gears in GT4? Always found that a blast to drive if you could keep it in the right rev band.

Yes. In real life the really early Corvette models came with a drivetrain basically ripped out of a Cheverolet Bel Air, including the two speed slushbox.

Which is quite a shame, because I really like how the C1 Corvette drives but I don't like the noise of the transmission whine.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Problems with the Bugatti Veyron 16.4 '09:

Game Specs

Max power/RPM: 981 bhp/6000 rpm
Max Torque/RPM: 925.81 ft-lb/ 2200-5500 rpm
[Editor's Note: I'm just being nit picky here, but...]
Drivetrain: 4WD

Real life Specs

Max Power/RPM: 1001bhp/6000 RPM
Max Torque/RPM: 923 ft-lb/2200-5500 RPM
[Editor's note: again being nit picky.]
Drivetrain: AWD

Other Errors

- Misclassified year. Bugatti Veyron 16.4 came out in '06, however the veyron in '09 was called the Grand Sport... ...And it was a convertable.

- The top Speed of the Veyron was always theroretical at over 250 mph, as is mentioned in the game, however, Top Gear's James May was able to confirm the Veyron's top speed at 250 mph at VW's test track near the old East Germany border.

http://www.rsportscars.com/bugatti/2006-bugatti-veyron-164/

 

[niky]

It's always difficult to say with any certainty what the "correct" specs for racecars are, as output can change from qualifying to race to endurance "modes" (mode/trim/spark advance as specified by a little knob/button/whatever).

For street cars, at least we have guidelines.

Out of curiosity... have they corrected the 05 Z06 and the RX8 specs yet? Or does one still make a little too little power and the other much too much?

 

[sideshowfrost]

What about transmission? Isn't the Caterham completely wrong (waaay undertorqued)?

 

[raymagnu]

Don't know if this is the right thread, but the Mines Skyline GT-R '06 has the wrong rev limit. It cuts at 8000 rpm, where it should limit at closer to 9000 rpm. This is a premeum so you can see the mark Mines put on there to show the new rev limit.

 

[alonsof1fan91]

What about the F1 Ferraris? They're way too light (545kg, needs to be 600 for the F2007 and 620 for the F10) and don't have enough power (700hp, should be around 750hp).

Well, one thing you should keep in mind, that race cars never weight as much as the rules allows. So teams have enough room to use ballast to optimize the setup. In 2009, this was the biggest disadvantage of KERS in F1, the teams which used it, had to heavy cars, so they couldn`t add as much ballast as they wanted to, which resulted in worse handling.

In 2007, a F1 car had to weight 604kg with the driver IIRC. So I think the 545kg number seems to be the weight without ballast, which is cool I think. I already hate it that all GT500 cars weight about 1100kg, which leaves no room for adding ballast to change the cars balance.

About the engine power... I doubt that Ferrari allows PD to get accurate performance figures for engines which are still in use

 

[Tornado]

Car: 2002 Ford Focus RS

GT5 Specifications
Weight: 1050kg
Power: 212 HP
Torque: 228 lb.ft.

Real Life Specifications
Weight: 1278kg
Power: 212 HP
Torque: 229 lb.ft.

Linky. (Direct Comparison)

I have no idea where they got that weight number for the car.

 

[Inferno251]

Jay Leno Tank Car

In game Model:
Name:Tank Car
Power:904 HP
Weight:3560kg
Price (probably irrelevant):3,997,280cr
Source:http://mygranturismo.net/car_sheet.php?id=373

Real-Life Model (prior to 2007)
Name:Blastolene Special
Power:810HP
Weight:4300kg
Price (probably irrelevant):Approximately $250,000 USD
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastolene_Special

However,in 2007 it was given two turbochargers, increasing power to 1600hp-more than the X2010!

Real-Life Model (from 2007 onwards)
Name:Blastolene Special
Power:1600HP
Weight:4300kg
Sources:http://www.bankspower.com/lenotankcar/



As it's specs are very inaccurate, Polyphony should convert it to premium

 

[Tornado]

Car: 1997 Lexus SC300

GT5 Specifications
Weight: 1560kg
Power: 276 HP
Torque: 278 lb.ft.

Real Life Specifications
Weight: 1598kg
Power: 225 HP
Torque: 214 lb.ft.

Linky. (Direct Comparison)

This one is even more ridiculous than the GS models (though it is basically the same problem), because this one doesn't even have to right engine size in the car specs.

 

[shirakawaa]

Honda N360 (Standard car)
Lacks the primary final gear reduction.
Symptoms: excessively long gears.

GT5 specifications:
Final gear: 3.739:1

Real Life specifications:
Final gear: 2.812 (primary) * 3.739 (secondary) = 10.541:1

Source: http://www.honda.co.jp/auto-archive/n360/1968/n360_sy.html

 

[Snakebitten]

Viper ACR

In RL it generates 1000-1200 lb ft of downforce depending on year. In game, however, they don't equip the ACR front downforce ability and it's rear downforce is not comparable to RL. at work so don't have chance to check the other specs on the ACR.

 

[Tornado]

Honda N360 (Standard car)
Lacks the primary final gear reduction.
Symptoms: excessively long gears.

GT5 specifications:
Final gear: 3.739:1

Real Life specifications:
Final gear: 2.812 (primary) * 3.739 (secondary) = 10.541:1

Source: http://www.honda.co.jp/auto-archive/n360/1968/n360_sy.html

Sounds like the same problem that the Caterham suffers from. Does the Z Act and early S cars (S500, S600, S800) suffer from the same problem? The Z Act appears to have the same engine as the N360, and I recall the S500/S600/S800 having problems with revving like the Caterham does.

Viper ACR

In RL it generates 1000-1200 lb ft of downforce depending on year. In game, however, they don't equip the ACR front downforce ability and it's rear downforce is not comparable to RL. at work so don't have chance to check the other specs on the ACR.

Hm. I noticed that, but I wasn't sure of numbers. I think it is kinda silly that it has the huge rear wing that is so obviously adjustable, but you can't adjust it.

 

[shirakawaa]

Would that be the same thing that causes so many problems for the Caterham?

Yes, that's the very same problem.
In addition, the Catheram has also excessive engine inertia (many Standard cars in the game with small displacement engines, including the Honda N360 to some extent, share the same issue).

 

[Inferno251]

Also, another inaccurate specification is in both GTbyCitroën cars.
In GT5, it identifies the GTbyCitroën Concept as made in 2008, while there's no date for the GTbyCitroën Road car. Now the difference between both is that the Concept is powered by 4 hydrogen fuel cells, while the Road Car is powered by a V8 petrol engine.
Although production was cancelled in early 2010, 6 have said to be built, evident through youtube clips of the car in London and The Goodwood festival of Speed in 2009 and 2010, and all 6 have V8 petrol engines. So in true fact, the GTbyCitroën Road car was built in 2008, while the GTbyCitroën Concept was placed in GT5 Prologue by Polyphony, and never existed.
Also, a few other points of info are missing and innnacurate, such as the fact that both are mid-engined and 4WD (There's no drivetrain format specified in GT5), and the Road Car has much less power in-game than in real life.
One final point is that the GTbyCitroën logo is painted on the car in real life, but in GT5 it's not present on the car:



Specs (Car: GTbyCitroën Concept '08):
Inaccurate:

• Drivetrain: ---
• Year make: 2008
  

Accurate:

• Year make: ---
• Drivetrain: 4WD

Specs (Car: GTbyCitroën Road Car):

Inaccurate:

• Power: 510HP
• Weight: 1450Kg
  
• Year make: ---
• Drivetrain: ---
• Gearbox: 7-speed
• Paintjob:
  
  
  

Accurate:

• Power: 646HP
• Weight: 1400Kg
  
• Year make: 2008
• Drivetrain: 4WD
  
• Gearbox: 6-speed sequential
  
• Paintjob:
  
  
  

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT_by_Citroën

A few youtube clips of the GTbyCitroën:

 

[shirakawaa]

[...]Does the Z Act and early S cars (S500, S600, S800) suffer from the same problem? The Z Act appears to have the same engine as the N360, and I recall the S500/S600/S800 having problems with revving like the Caterham does.

Just checked. I only have the Z Act, but it seems it's got the same problem.
I have found real life specifications, but they don't include the primary drive reduction. There has to be one, though, as stock gears are too tall (338 Km/h @ 9000 rpm!).

Gears should be approximately 2.8 times shorter than they are in the game, if the car's transmission in real life is the same as the N360's.

http://www.honda.co.jp/news/1970/4700902.html