Suzuka Lap Times For 640+ Cars!
- Thread starter MidFieldMaven
- 233 comments
- 37,834 views
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Weird that the Honda HSC is an '03 while the Acura is an '04.
Before I throw down 750k credits, is there a difference? Both are 490 pp and I only want to buy one.
Before I throw down 750k credits, is there a difference? Both are 490 pp and I only want to buy one.
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
I hate when the specs in the dealership look like this: "---" but in the garage thank god I can see everything. Just wish I knew what the displacement was. I bought the Honda version just because 
Why does PD do that?!
Why does PD do that?!
- 2,948
- Austria
- GTP_SnowCrash
They are identical. I suppose that the Acura is listed as '04, because it was presented in the US as an Acura at the Detroit Motor Show in April '04 a little after its debut as a Honda at the Tokyo Motor Show in fall of '03.
By the way, what's not identical is the 2 Dualnotes.
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
I see a 3 PP difference between the Dualnote and DN-X. Wonder why...
- 2,948
- Austria
- GTP_SnowCrash
Maybe they had to tweak one of the two for stricter emission regulations. Or it's just a typo.
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
- 3,334
- NJ
- koszak27
Not really. I knew it would be close to the RUF RGT and GSX-R/4 as the three of them are all very fast for their PP rating.
GTP_Ingram
Premium
- 1,916
- London
- GTP_Ingram
- NowtDaft
Wow, that's seriously impressive, both the effort to record so many laps, and the times you've set!
If there's one thing I've proven I'm handy at, it's nailing a good lap after very little practice, so I tried a few to see how you stacked up. Your RGT lap time though, that's... Something special.
If there's one thing I've proven I'm handy at, it's nailing a good lap after very little practice, so I tried a few to see how you stacked up. Your RGT lap time though, that's... Something special.
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Last edited:
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
I re-tested the Honda Insight at the stated 69 hp rather than the 80 hp shown in the garage (it's 3 seconds slower now) and added the Toyota Voltz S.
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
- 3,334
- NJ
- koszak27
Oh ok that makes sense. I use oil changes so no need to re-run it.
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
- 2,621
- Upstate SC, USA
- GTP_crowhop
I can appreciate the desire to be as "real life" as possible, but it isn't necessary.
The best measure would be either all with oil change or all without. No reason to get too technical as it only throws off the in-game results. Same with tires. Best to measure them all using the exact same tire...as you've done.
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
I've been testing all without oil change, except for this Audi S3 and maybe 1 or 2 other cars. It's no big deal for me to re-test. Takes maybe 10 minutes to get a time I know I'm not capable of beating. Besides, it's nice to get back into a car I haven't driven in a while. The Audi S3 is a great car.
Got 2:32.096 in the Audi S3 without oil change, versus 2:30.2xx with oil change.
2:31 is for wheel users and extremely talented controller users. With another 10 minutes or so I might be able to do it, but for a tenth or two it's not worth it.
Last edited:
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Re-tested the MR2 Supercharged '86 just because.
Went from 2:37.480 to a 2:36.915
Just about 6 tenths of a second quicker! For such an underpowered car, it can be tricky to handle in the corners.
Then I was REALLY curious so I re-tested the non-supercharged MR2 and managed a 2:40.205 vs the old 2:40.817
It was a great lap all the way up to the Spoon Curve right before the back straightaway. I cut into the corner too early and was basically off the track but the lap still counted and I guess that's what matters.
Went from 2:37.480 to a 2:36.915
Just about 6 tenths of a second quicker! For such an underpowered car, it can be tricky to handle in the corners.
Then I was REALLY curious so I re-tested the non-supercharged MR2 and managed a 2:40.205 vs the old 2:40.817
It was a great lap all the way up to the Spoon Curve right before the back straightaway. I cut into the corner too early and was basically off the track but the lap still counted and I guess that's what matters.
Last edited:
- 3,334
- NJ
- koszak27
That car was great in GT5 and then the GT6 physics killed it "because MR." You may have run that first time a while ago because that car is more stable after the 1.09 update.
- 2,621
- Upstate SC, USA
- GTP_crowhop
Question is, what are your favorite cars to drive, @SuzukaStar?
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
That's a really hard question to answer
I like every drivetrain layout, FF, FR, MR, 4WD, you name it. I like underpowered cars and overpowered cars, small cars and big cars, long cars and short cars
If I had to pick a few favorites, I'd say any of the BMW M3's, the Lotus Elise Sport 190, and any Honda Type R, but really I like so many other cars too.
For drifting, it's a whole other story. BMW 120d, Oullim Spirra, Skyline 300GT, Cobra 427, RX-7 '85 just to name a few.
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
I would only be bored if I thought I couldn't improve myself.
For instance, I just re-tested the Lotus Elise 111R, went from 2:22.001 to 2:20.957
No way in hell anybody's getting 2:19 in that car. I'd eat my shoe.
Also re-tested the Lotus Elise Sport 190. Went from 2:19.787 to 2:19.513
Not as big of a change, but something is better than nothing.
For instance, I just re-tested the Lotus Elise 111R, went from 2:22.001 to 2:20.957
No way in hell anybody's getting 2:19 in that car. I'd eat my shoe.
Also re-tested the Lotus Elise Sport 190. Went from 2:19.787 to 2:19.513
Not as big of a change, but something is better than nothing.
Last edited:
- 5,161
- Massachusetts
Wow. I don't know how I missed this post this week (in fact, I just asked if you had ever made a reference list of times on Suzuka, in another thread! LOL)... Such impressive work. And I find it all the more impressive that you're doing this comparative work on a difficult track like Suzuka. This data is invaluable! Thank you, so much...
One question though...I notice you've recently re-tested a few cars (based on your own posts in this thread) and you've improved your times over .5 secs in most cases and well over a 1.0 sec improvement in another. Do you think this has anything to do with the updated physics? Or do you think you've improved in skill a bit? Just interested in hearing your thoughts on the fairly substantial improvements in some cases.
One question though...I notice you've recently re-tested a few cars (based on your own posts in this thread) and you've improved your times over .5 secs in most cases and well over a 1.0 sec improvement in another. Do you think this has anything to do with the updated physics? Or do you think you've improved in skill a bit? Just interested in hearing your thoughts on the fairly substantial improvements in some cases.
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
I think it's a little of both the updated physics and updated skills, but sometimes you just have bad days, or impatient days. Improvement is always possible, and it's always a good thing. When you watch the Stig go around the Top Gear track, do you ever wonder if that's truly the best time those cars are capable of? It might be the best time he got that day, but maybe if he tried again the next day and pushed a bit harder, or the next week or month, he'd do better.
The real NSX-R at Suzuka ran a 2:34.0 while GT6 version ran a 2:19.6 for a difference of 14.4 seconds.
At 284 hp and with CM tires, I was able to get a 2:28 which is still 5 seconds faster than reality, and on CH tires I could manage a 2:34 which almost exactly matches the real-life time.
However, the real NSX could probably knock off 2 or 3 seconds with more laps, as I can see a lot of room for improvement in a few of the corners, and there was a missed shift.
And here's an EK Civic Type R with a time of 2:49.1 compared to my 2:33.5 for a difference of 15.6 seconds! Again, under 2:45 is probable.
With the '98 Civic Type R, on CM tires, I could manage a 2:42 which is 7 seconds faster than reality.
It seems like something between CH and CM tires would be the most realistic, but that doesn't make logical sense.
The real NSX-R at Suzuka ran a 2:34.0 while GT6 version ran a 2:19.6 for a difference of 14.4 seconds.
At 284 hp and with CM tires, I was able to get a 2:28 which is still 5 seconds faster than reality, and on CH tires I could manage a 2:34 which almost exactly matches the real-life time.
However, the real NSX could probably knock off 2 or 3 seconds with more laps, as I can see a lot of room for improvement in a few of the corners, and there was a missed shift.
And here's an EK Civic Type R with a time of 2:49.1 compared to my 2:33.5 for a difference of 15.6 seconds! Again, under 2:45 is probable.
With the '98 Civic Type R, on CM tires, I could manage a 2:42 which is 7 seconds faster than reality.
It seems like something between CH and CM tires would be the most realistic, but that doesn't make logical sense.
Last edited:
- 216
Great work man, it's just too bad you ran them all with SH 
whereas most cars deserve a CM ir CH..
whereas most cars deserve a CM ir CH..
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Great work man, it's just too bad you ran them all with SH
I needed a tire I could use for every car in the game except for racing cars. Some of those cars are impossible to drive with CS tires, let alone CM or CH.
- 216
Some cars (like the csl, exige etc) are indeed very difficult to drive even with semi slicks!
Great job though - it is something Ive been meaning to do following the rules of my tyre philosophy but I just never find enough time - maybe this will be youd second project?
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
maybe this will be youd second project?
No doubt I'll test a couple of cars on CM tires, but 600+? That'll have to wait for GT7
Maybe I'll take some requests or take a poll once a week to see what car people want to see on CM.
