Strange Specifications

[Michael88]

Hello, a question that puzzles me since I got GT4, now I finally got over it to post it here.

I wondered why PD got the engine specifications of racecars completely wrong.

As Example the Mercedes Sauber C9.
I have several books of the great decade of Sportcars of the legendary Group C, the book ''Return of the Silver Arrows Sauber C9'' claims that the engine specification of the Sauber C9 89' engine number M119 with 1.6 bar turbo boost (race boost) the max. horsepower was 720hp at 7000 rpm rev. limit.

(The 1988 C9 had a maximum of 820 bhp at max. possible turbo boost with 671lb/ft [qualification only].)

PD Says it has ~967 bhp. What the heck? Thats a difference of 147bhp. (not to mention the oil bug)

There is also the issue that the C9 run with lead ballast of 15kg to get the minimum weight of 900kg, but in Gt4 the Sauber C9 has 893kg. Without the lead ballast the C9 weighed 885 kgs. (dry)

Looking at the other specifications of racecars everything is just ridiculuosly wrong like the Toyota 88C-V.

It seems that PD took the numbers of the C9 and other cars for Gt4 out of the air, maybe they expected us to be stupid car fanboys without knowledge about cars.

And there is also the issue with the F1 car compared to the group c cars.
PD specifications say that my F1 car has more downforce than any other car in the game. (100+ of downforce for the F1 car, 85 downforce GC car.)
Doesnt PD know that group C cars had the double amount of the downforce modern F1 cars produce thanks to the underwing they had?

Does anyone know whats wrong?

 

[Parnelli Bone]

I've noticed such discrephancies in other cars as well. The 4-door Chrysler PT "Curser" starts off over 300 pounds lighter than it should in GT3. In GT4, they didn't correct this. Also, off the top of my head I remember the BMW 528i in GT2 had just 138 horsepower, when it's quoted near 200 in real-life. There are other examples I'll add to this list as i think of them.

My theory is, it's a couple things that could be happening:

1. Polyphony Digital is at work designing a car and they need its specs so they call or email the car-manufacturer. The manufacturer sends erroneous info and PD is so busy with their deadlines (creating their masterpiece so the world doesn't have to wait forever) that their research team hasn't got time to follow up every tidbit of info they receive. This is what I believe happened with the PT Cruiser. You can visit several hundred websites that quote its true weight (over 3,000 pounds) yet PD never read any of these...and instead has the PT weighing near 2,800 pounds.

2. PD did the research without the help of a car-maker, by looking thru some obscure magazines or books and getting info this way. This could be how older cars like the Sauber get misquoted.

3. PD has the correct info, but some computer jock goofs when programming this data into cars. GT2 is full of goofs like this. In GT4, I recently drove a VW Golf from the new car lot...and it had 2 gears (I think 4th and 5th) that were almost exactly the same. A classic case of someone entering data and hitting the wrong button imo.

I recently read in that Car & Driver interview that (as I said) PD hasn't got time to get everything right. They haven't got time to sit around poring thru minute details. Instead, an enormous amount of time is needed to get each car drawn right (I think it's a week or more per car), so I think they sometimes literally get some info and run with it, just to meet a deadline. They have immediate access to real-life Japanese models & specs (being in Japan) but for cars that are more obscure, things don't always get done right.

 

[-Cheezman-]

It could have to do with real horsepower versus quoted horsepower. Also, there are different ways to measure horsepower, such as brake, or wheel horsepower, or even a mathematical calculation of total horsepower. Perhaps Polyphony digital mixed and matched?

 

[Parnelli Bone]

It could have to do with real horsepower versus quoted horsepower. Also, there are different ways to measure horsepower, such as brake, or wheel horsepower, or even a mathematical calculation of total horsepower. Perhaps Polyphony digital mixed and matched?

True...true. I've noticed that sometimes, a car's horsepower will be off from real-life, but what PD has quoted will be closer to PS or even KW.

 

[Pupik]

PD didn't do their homework when it came to the Group C and LMP prototypes. They gave the cars a little too much power. 500-700hp is more realistic than the 800-900 or so granted to many of these cars.

They did the same thing in GT2; the JGTC cars were listed as having 608-702hp, but in reality, the GT500s had about 450-500 horses, and the GT300s had around 300hp or so. This seemed to be fixed for GT3.

 

[Metar]

PD specifications say that my F1 car has more downforce than any other car in the game. (100+ of downforce for the F1 car, 85 downforce GC car.)
Doesnt PD know that group C cars had the double amount of the downforce modern F1 cars produce thanks to the underwing they had?

Show me when.

The Jaguar XJR-14 was a devastatingly fast and effective machine. It was among the fastest Group C cars ever made. Yet, it "rivaled" F1 cars of it's time. "Rivaled" means, on circuits with enough straight-line running, the times that car churned out were close to those of F1 cars. Of it's time. The time, as it happened, was just a few years after banning Turbo engines. Engine powers were at a low, yet the aerodynamics were just as effective. Even better, actually - Tyrrell just pioneered the raised nosecone idea, and Benetton followed - and with it, the rest of F1. Actually, a little math, from an FIA Press Release of 2004:

Date 	  		 Imola 		 Melbourne 	 Monaco
 1998 	 Practice 	 1.25.973 	 1.30.010 	 1.19.798
 1999 	 Practice 	 1.26.336 	 1.30.462 	 1.20.547
 2000 	 Practice 	 1.24.714 	 1.30.556 	 1.19.475
 2001 	 Practice 	 1.23.054 	 1.26.892 	 1.17.430
 2002 	 Practice 	 1.21.091 	 1.25.843 	 1.16.676
 2003 	 Practice 	 1.20.628 	 1.27.173 	 1.14.749
 2004 	 Practice 	 1.19.753 	 1.24.408 	 1.13.985

 1998 	 Race 	 1.29.345 	 1.31.649 	 1.22.948
 1999 	 Race 	 1.28.547 	 1.32.112 	 1.22.259
 2000 	 Race 	 1.26.523 	 1.31.481 	 1.21.571
 2001 	 Race 	 1.25.524 	 1.28.214 	 1.19.424
 2002 	 Race 	 1.24.170 	 1.28.541 	 1.18.023
 2003 	 Race 	 1.22.491 	 1.27.724 	 1.14.545
 2004 	 Race 	 1.20.411 	 1.24.125 	 1.14.439

As we can see, F1 cars sped up by around 6 seconds per lap over those years - race-laps . And those weren't even years with radical rule-changes. Now, consider the massive developement cars received over nearly 20 years, including massive leaps in aerodynamic capabilities as computer-programs took over, and factor that in with gradual increases in power (until 2004, that is - but '05+ V8 engines are still quite strong), and you get a car far, far more capable than the late-'80s F1 cars. Also, you have to consider the fact that, if I'm not mistaken, all the lap-records on current circuits were set around 2004 - when power was at a peak, and aerodynamics raged freely.


Actually, this made me wonder. Is there any circuit an F1 car raced on, where it doesn't hold the record? I'm excluding the Laguna Seca record by the Champcars, because a demonstration by Toyota doesn't count.

 

[Open Addict]

human error - there is nothing you can really do to stop this. you can have some-one sit there for months pouring over the data many times and there would probably still be errors. i just live with it and enjoy the game i have. 👍 to pd for making such great games, even if they have a few flaws. (nobody is perfect)

 

[Michael88]

As we can see, F1 cars sped up by around 6 seconds per lap over those years - race-laps . And those weren't even years with radical rule-changes. Now, consider the massive developement cars received over nearly 20 years, including massive leaps in aerodynamic capabilities as computer-programs took over, and factor that in with gradual increases in power (until 2004, that is - but '05+ V8 engines are still quite strong), and you get a car far, far more capable than the late-'80s F1 cars. Also, you have to consider the fact that, if I'm not mistaken, all the lap-records on current circuits were set around 2004 - when power was at a peak, and aerodynamics raged freely.

Actually, this made me wonder. Is there any circuit an F1 car raced on, where it doesn't hold the record? I'm excluding the Laguna Seca record by the Champcars, because a demonstration by Toyota doesn't count.

Some thirty years ago (1970-71) the Porsche 917 short tail lapped spa and the Österreichring 1 second faster than the F1 cars last years grand prix(69-70).
I am not sure, but as far as I know the jaguar XJR 14 lapped some curcuit fasterthan the F1 record back then. Dont ask me which one.

F1 is very different to group-C cars, you cannot compare F1 cars with cars that had to run 12 hours or 24 hours carrying 120 litres of fuel, running 1 minute every lap over 235+ mp/h, weighing 900kgs dry minimum with cars weighing around 580-600 kilograms running 200 mile events without ground effect. Two very different cars with very different porpouses and very different specs.

But about aerodynamics, F1 banned ground effect creating underwing, but its hard fact that as example the Nissan R92 CP created 6565 lbs of downforce at 200mp/h, 5318 lbs at 180mp/h and roughly 4000 lbs at 150 mp/h.
They very late Nissan Group-C cars (P35) created 8165 lbs @ 180 mp/h and over 10000lb/s at 200mp/h.

To compare it to a F1 car, I only have hard datas from the 2001 Honda-Reynard Penske, creating 4888 lbs @ 200 and 2750 @ 150. (Road Track config)

One Interesting thing is that the penske had more drag at 200 than the R92, I guess that came from the open wheels.

Long story short:
Nissan R92 CP:___ 6565 lbs @ 200, 5318 lbs @ 180, 4000 lbs @ 150
Honda Penske 01': 4888 lbs @ 200, 3961 lbs @ 180, 2750 lbs @ 150
Toyota Eagle Mk3: 9275 lbs @ 200 7513 lbs @ 180 5217 lbs @ 150

If you have an data about current F1 cars I would love to compare them to the Nissan P35. Lets see which splendid F1 car exceeds 5670 lbs @ 150 mph and 10080 lbs @ 200 mph of the latest Nissan Group-C.

 

[Metar]

Comparing late-'60s F1 cars to Group C cars is an odd point. The Porsche 917 had pretty good aerodynamics, at a time when F1 cars just started experimenting. '67 cars were just streamlined bodies, and basic wings only started in the early '70s. Ground Effects started in the mid-'70s.

And I believe that "Honda-Reynard Penske" is a Champcar, or IndyCar. There's no "Road Config" for F1 cars - they're all "Road-configured".

F1 cars produce enough downforce to move at 4gs. That's four times it's weight. Turn 8 at the Istanbul Park circuit is a triple-apex at high speeds, with a constant g-force of around 4.5gs. Which is an incredible amount.

However, we are arguing late-'80s cars against modern F1 - as stated in your first post.

Plus, it is not true that F1 cars produce no ground-effects. Yes, curved underbodies are forbidden, which reduces the amount - but diffusers and a lot of research still help producing wing-independent ground-effects.

 

[Michael88]

Metar you completely lost the point of the thread. I didnt make this thread for childish discussions like which racecars series is better or faster nor looking for the best racecars.

Comparing late-'60s F1 cars to Group C cars is an odd point. '67 cars were just streamlined bodies, and basic wings only started in the early '70s. Ground Effects started in the mid-'70s.

Did I ever say something about the Porsche 917 having ground effect? I just said that it lapped Spa faster than the F1s back then.

F1 cars produce enough downforce to move at 4gs

I never said anything about g's, I only said that the late group C cars had almost the double amount of downforce and PD is completely wrong having their data the other way around.

Remember: This threads topic is about the strange specifications that GT4 uses for the cars.

 

[Parnelli Bone]

I think the bottom line is PD isn't as knowledgeable about cars as we think they should be when they put out videogames. They've got a complex organization and to jam 700+ cars on a disc takes lots of coordination and effort, and they don't always get things right. Whether they know (after the fact or before it) that they've made mistakes is something I don't know.

 

[KiwiBoy]

Humans are lazy and have a tendency to slack off.👍

 

[Parnelli Bone]

Humans are lazy and have a tendency to slack off.👍

There you go. I don't think PD is lazy, tho...if anything, I think they've been overworked (as are many game designers about unleash a hot product) and therefore they miss some details.

 

[dimplz]

well who cares the game is brilliant and the handling is second to well...none so they did a top job

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Well... The physics ARE second to a couple games.

But said games only have 10-30 cars.

 

[GTveteran]

The power figures for the Group C cars need not be completely wrong. I've read many drivers stories and they frequently say that the group cs produced about 900bhp. The 700-odd figures released by the manufacturers were average power figures for all specs of the cars and also to try and keep the governing body off their backs because their cars were too fast.

I worked with a 1989 Aston Martin AMR1. That had a 6.3 Callaway tuned V8 that produced "about 740bhp." Now Callaway have made some of the fastest road cars in the world, somehow I doubt if they'd settle for "about 740bhp."

As for the downforce, that is wrong. A lot of the Group C cars produced enough downforce that would allow them to drive upside down over 140mph.

 

[AOS-]

maybe the manufacturers didn't want to reveal the true specs to the game.. probably they signed a contract to put this up and not that, i don't know, just throwing it out thereto think about

 

[Parnelli Bone]

maybe the manufacturers didn't want to reveal the true specs to the game.. probably they signed a contract to put this up and not that, i don't know, just throwing it out thereto think about

That seems entirely plausible. This goes for all the "concept" cars, too....I went to drive the Mazda MX-crossport the other day, for instance, only to find there's no specs for it. And then I went on the internet to research it (I'm weird like that) and still...no specs. Plenty of info but no specs. I'm like WTF. 👎

 

[MasterGT]

What is the caveat that PD put at the load point of the game?
Something about cars maybe not looking or feeling the same as the real thing.

You left out that PD could simply have changed specs of cars to handle better/worse in the game than in real life - to suit the game, a set of races, or favourite manufacturers, or even themselves. Take the tire life characteristics of the PlayStation Pescarolo C60/Judd Race Car as an example. I watched the replay of a GT4 race, the other day, and an AI car had extreme camber on the rear wheels (like a ski slope). Did those come from real life, too?

A variety of possible reasons could affect any one car, so why over-analyze? They have had the chance to fix known discrepancies and chosen not to, for some reason. Until someone at PD talks, we won't know why for sure, so any explanation is a bit of a guess on our part.

Cheers,

MasterGT

 

[Renisis Power]

I think that they are programing errors as a result of trying too get a game as large and realistic as GT4 done in 4 years.

There are some crazy errors in GT4 for sure especialy the Mazda RX8's in real life the MT 2003-4 Mazda RX8's had 232hp and 159lbft of torque but in GT4 they have 281hp and like 167+ torque. though their acceleration stats stay the same 0-60 in 5.8 seconds if shifted at the right times and lifted off at the appropriate RPMs. They got the RX7's down perfectly though.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

On the RX-8s:

Close, no cigar.

Japanese spec RX-8s are (To the best of my knowledge) 246hp, as is in the game. (Of course that comes up to the aforementioned 270-280, but...)

That, and at release, the RX-8 was rated at 250 hp.

 

[Parnelli Bone]

What is the caveat that PD put at the load point of the game?
Something about cars maybe not looking or feeling the same as the real thing.

You left out that PD could simply have changed specs of cars to handle better/worse in the game than in real life - to suit the game, a set of races, or favourite manufacturers, or even themselves. Take the tire life characteristics of the PlayStation Pescarolo C60/Judd Race Car as an example. I watched the replay of a GT4 race, the other day, and an AI car had extreme camber on the rear wheels (like a ski slope). Did those come from real life, too?

Agreed. Things definitely aren't 100%. That's what the disclaimer in the beginning (before the intro movie rolls) explains...

A variety of possible reasons could affect any one car, so why over-analyze?

Because it gives us gearheads something to talk about. We come here to discuss cars & the game so we don't wind up boring our girlfriends with tech-talk! and personally, I get bored with some of the threads in GT4...at least this one keeps my interest.

They have had the chance to fix known discrepancies and chosen not to, for some reason. Until someone at PD talks, we won't know why for sure, so any explanation is a bit of a guess on our part.

Cheers,

MasterGT

Yep. Cheers to you too.

I think that they are programing errors as a result of trying too get a game as large and realistic as GT4 done in 4 years.

There are some crazy errors in GT4 for sure especialy the Mazda RX8's in real life the MT 2003-4 Mazda RX8's had 232hp and 159lbft of torque but in GT4 they have 281hp and like 167+ torque. though their acceleration stats stay the same 0-60 in 5.8 seconds if shifted at the right times and lifted off at the appropriate RPMs. They got the RX7's down perfectly though.

Hey haven't seen you in awhile! Welcome back RP.

 

[GTchampion]

Ide still like to know why in arcade mode the cars HP never changes from your garage...

 

[Renisis Power]

Agreed. Things defintaly aren't 100%. That's what the disclaimer in the beginning (before the intro movie rolls) explains...



Because it gives us gearheads something to talk about. We come here to discuss cars & the game so we dont wind up boring our girlfriends with tech-talk! and personally, i get bored with some of the threads in GT4...at least this one keeps my interest.



Yep. Cheers to you too.



Hey haven't seen you in awhile! Welcome back RP.

Hey PB its nice too be back on the forums, nice too see ya

RJ is that so all sources I have seen the hp ratings are always 232-238 but rare I ever see 242 its usually 232 were did you see the 246-250 Your source of info was probably being optimistic about the HP ratings.

 

[greenlightning]

interesting topic. Just a thought for GT5 I wonder if they would be able to correct obviuos mistakes by download updates. I imagine that they would be able to. I agree that PD is overwelmed with amount of data for so many cars. I also agree that manufactures especially on concept cars control the data that PD can use and might even have to sign off on the final build of the in game cars.

 

[Tornado]

Volvo 240 does not weigh more than a 3000GT in real life, that is for sure.

 

[Greycap]

Very true, the real 240 only comes in at about 1350 kg. The weight PD put to it is somewhere near the "maximum overload, the rear axle cracking" point.

 

[Metar]

Kinda makes it more enjoyable, being among the worst cars in the game.

Plus, it's begging for a hybrid version. I made one. Supercharged V8 producing 499HP and more torque than the Titanic.



And consider even JGTC cars don't break the minute-barrier...

 

[Parnelli Bone]

interesting topic. Just a thought for GT5 I wonder if they would be able to correct obviuos mistakes by download updates.

I seriously doubt they'll allow this, but it would be cool if they did. Each GT game is like an artist's rendering...you're not supposed to change stuff around, know what I mean? That's just my opinion.

I imagine that they would be able to. I agree that PD is overwelmed with amount of data for so many cars. I also agree that manufactures especially on concept cars control the data that PD can use and might even have to sign off on the final build of the in game cars.

Emulators and gamesharks long ago opened the doors to after-purchase modifications outside of the disc, but it would be cool if there were some "official" mentoring going on. But again I doubt it will ever happen. PD is busy enough just creating their product, they certainly don't have time left over for their games once they're already on the market.

The famous correcting of GT2 glitches early in the year 2000 (with versions 1.1 and 1.2 of GT2) are a couple exceptions, but they were due to lots of angry gamers complaining about inferior product.

 

[Renisis Power]

Another Strange specification is the ridiculous amousts of power they give the F1 in GT4 F1s do not have those levels of power in real life usually 280-500hp I think correct me if im wrong not 800+ that makes it way to fast.