- 3,177
- St helens, merseyside, England.
- crazybuttocks198
- Crazybuttocks19
if there is a hill it can do 68 mph. Not going to send you back in time. But it makes is a litte faster.
Tsukuba lap times for 136 N-class cars - 1 remaining
- Thread starter MidFieldMaven
- 519 comments
- 80,884 views
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Tested:
1:09.798 - Subaru BRZ S
I wasn't expecting this car to be any different from the GT86. It's not even a tenth faster.
1:09.798 - Subaru BRZ S
I wasn't expecting this car to be any different from the GT86. It's not even a tenth faster.
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Tested:
1:02.546 - Mercedes-Benz Mercedes-AMG GT S
Faster than the DB11 by almost half a second.
1:02.546 - Mercedes-Benz Mercedes-AMG GT S
Faster than the DB11 by almost half a second.
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Tested:
1:00.859 - Lamborghini Aventador LP 700-4
One tenth slower than it's smaller brother, the Huracan. How is this possible, you might be asking? Well, the Aventador weighs 337 lbs (153 kg) more. So despite possessing 89 and 96 extra hp and ft-lbs of torque, the Aventador can't outrun the Huracan.
1:04.331 - Aston Martin V8 Vantage S
Half a second slower than the BMW M4 Coupe.
1:00.859 - Lamborghini Aventador LP 700-4
One tenth slower than it's smaller brother, the Huracan. How is this possible, you might be asking? Well, the Aventador weighs 337 lbs (153 kg) more. So despite possessing 89 and 96 extra hp and ft-lbs of torque, the Aventador can't outrun the Huracan.
1:04.331 - Aston Martin V8 Vantage S
Half a second slower than the BMW M4 Coupe.
Last edited:
- 21
- United Kingdom
Hey! Are these times done with the use of BoP or without BoP?
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Tested:
1:04.826 - Lexus RC F
1:09.107 - Renault Sport Clio R.S. 220 EDC Trophy '16
The Lexus is only a few tenths behind the Camaro SS, while the '16 Clio is a tenth slower than the '15.
Tested:
1:01.767 - Aston Martin One-77
1:08.814 - BMW i3
The Aston is 2 tenths slower than the McLaren 650S. I added the BMW i3 because it should be a N-class car since it's for sale to the public. It's a tenth faster than the M3, believe it or not!
1:04.826 - Lexus RC F
1:09.107 - Renault Sport Clio R.S. 220 EDC Trophy '16
The Lexus is only a few tenths behind the Camaro SS, while the '16 Clio is a tenth slower than the '15.
Tested:
1:01.767 - Aston Martin One-77
1:08.814 - BMW i3
The Aston is 2 tenths slower than the McLaren 650S. I added the BMW i3 because it should be a N-class car since it's for sale to the public. It's a tenth faster than the M3, believe it or not!
Last edited:
- 179
- Netherlands
- jargsnork
After taking a bit of a break I updated my spreadsheet. I found a couple of things I think are interesting.
- The BRZ is exactly average for lap time in the N200 class,
- The Fiat is just under 100 seconds for Tsukuba. A record only 5 seconds slower than the Sambabus.
- The Sambabus is with 30 hp/ton still the lowest on power, relatively speaking
- The difference between the two clio's is ca. 4 hp per ton (a metric ton)
@MidFieldMaven Do you have the intention of completing the Suzuka laptimes for the Nxxx class cars?
- The BRZ is exactly average for lap time in the N200 class,
- The Fiat is just under 100 seconds for Tsukuba. A record only 5 seconds slower than the Sambabus.
- The Sambabus is with 30 hp/ton still the lowest on power, relatively speaking
- The difference between the two clio's is ca. 4 hp per ton (a metric ton)
@MidFieldMaven Do you have the intention of completing the Suzuka laptimes for the Nxxx class cars?
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Nice findings! I'll test the last batch of new cars at Suzuka once I'm done with Tsukuba. There are two I might never do because they're expensive and I'm too lazy to grind. Ford GT40 and Aston Martin Vulcan (which I had tested at Suzuka but sold foolishly after for extra money...)
That's more than 2 seconds faster than me. I don't quite see how that's possible. Got a replay so I can compare to mine?
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Tested:
1:02.628 - Ford GT40 Mark I
1:04.856 - Lexus LC500
The LC500 ties the RC F somehow, despite being heavier. It's more stable and can put the power down better.
I sold about a dozen high-value cars to afford the GT40, and it was worth it. I can't remember the last time I used a Gr.1 or Gr.X car besides the BMW i3. The GT40 is a tenth slower than the Diablo GT and less than 6 tenths slower than the modern Ford GT.
1:02.628 - Ford GT40 Mark I
1:04.856 - Lexus LC500
The LC500 ties the RC F somehow, despite being heavier. It's more stable and can put the power down better.
I sold about a dozen high-value cars to afford the GT40, and it was worth it. I can't remember the last time I used a Gr.1 or Gr.X car besides the BMW i3. The GT40 is a tenth slower than the Diablo GT and less than 6 tenths slower than the modern Ford GT.
- 816
- London
- And-War
no La Ferrari?
- 816
- London
- And-War
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
I gave that car a chance a few weeks ago, and it's a pain. I don't know if I'll be able to really nail down a good time. It's not like the Veyron at all, which can be floored in a straight line. The Ferrari is way too sensitive about everything.
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Tested:
1:02.648 - Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG
At N600, this AMG is a tenth slower than the N500 AMG GT S.
1:02.648 - Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG
At N600, this AMG is a tenth slower than the N500 AMG GT S.
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Tested:
1:02.960 - GT Awards (SEMA) 1967 Chevy Nova
It took over 30 miles for me to finally wrestle this 700+ hp monster down into the 1:02 range. It is tied with the Shelby Cobra. That would make an interesting duel
1:02.960 - GT Awards (SEMA) 1967 Chevy Nova
It took over 30 miles for me to finally wrestle this 700+ hp monster down into the 1:02 range. It is tied with the Shelby Cobra. That would make an interesting duel
- 179
- Netherlands
- jargsnork
@MidFieldMaven I heard that the new tire model has a major impact on lap times. What will happen to this comparison thread and the Suzuka one?
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
I refuse to re-test all the cars. I'm upset that they did this to me. It really wasn't necessary. It could have waited for the next GT game. Did they switch up the physics mid-way through any previous GT's life-cycle? I'll either put an * next to each future car I test, or end the trials here and now. I may re-test a few to see if I can find a pattern and shift all the times down by that number. I'm not sure yet. All I know is I'll be testing the three Kei cars tonight/tomorrow.
- 3,384
- Las Vegas
- dawko-san
It definitely was necessary. Have you not noticed any weirdness with the tires that everyone is talking about??? I mean come on, you test all these cars at Tsukuba. Do you not know the real lap times of the cars? Have you not seen any of the Best Motoring videos? The old tire model was a freaking joke!
Thank god it was replaced and I hope I'll forget the old tire model one day.
Oh and yeah, I remember they tweaked a few things in GT6, the game had serious airdrag issues which they fixed soon after the release.
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Honestly I haven't tried the new update yet. I just got home from work and won't be playing for another couple of hours. Maybe I will end up re-testing everything 
- 3,384
- Las Vegas
- dawko-san
I really think you should 
because none of the road cars were able to match their real life counterparts' laptimes.
because none of the road cars were able to match their real life counterparts' laptimes.
- 179
- Netherlands
- jargsnork
I suggest retesting some cars to see what the differences are. I think that the best cars to compare are cars that are alike. The gr. Road cars come to mind because they are similar homologated. My choice would be a MR (rzc, 4c) a FR (Corvette, Mustang, atezna) and a 4wd (lancer and WRX). If the times are alike then I would suggest to take the attic asterisk approach, if not retesting is a must if you want these comparisons to be taken seriously.
I would give the retesting the priority, because it will determine how skewed new results are, if comparable at all.
I agree that this is a really painful development to all other comparisons and competitive racers, but lets hope it will be a change that betters the GTS experience.
I would give the retesting the priority, because it will determine how skewed new results are, if comparable at all.
I agree that this is a really painful development to all other comparisons and competitive racers, but lets hope it will be a change that betters the GTS experience.
- 1,233
- VS & 74 (France)
- GT-Alex74
The new tyre model feels nice, so it's not a bad thing. Also, they did change the physics in the middle of GT6, but we just started our tests after that update.
I understand though, I finished the pre 1.23 new cars on Alsace last week, refrained from posting my sheet though because it seemed pretty obvious we would get the new tyre model now. I definitely won't be restesting the cars on this track, might try on a new one after the FIA Final season though.
I understand though, I finished the pre 1.23 new cars on Alsace last week, refrained from posting my sheet though because it seemed pretty obvious we would get the new tyre model now. I definitely won't be restesting the cars on this track, might try on a new one after the FIA Final season though.
Similar threads
