Why does the Jaguar XJ220 have less BHP than IRL?
- Thread starter sejtur
- 58 comments
- 6,506 views
- 837
- United States
That could be the Dyno HP as some cars have less output on the Dyno tests than the "official" numbers.
This one only had reportedly 520HP after being Dyno tested:
https://www.hotcars.com/ultra-rare-...ing-out-in-fresno-pops-up-on-bring-a-trailer/
This one only had reportedly 520HP after being Dyno tested:
https://www.hotcars.com/ultra-rare-...ing-out-in-fresno-pops-up-on-bring-a-trailer/
- 677
- Austria
A little bit off topic...
But is there any car in the game that has less tire-wear than the XJ220 ?
I did some tune ups to get it close to 700PP and applied the usual racing modifications(spoilers, racing tires) and tried it out ant the WTC700 race in Le mans...and I thought there is a bug
Almost no tire wear with RH after three laps, and almost no tire wearr with RM after two laps...
But is there any car in the game that has less tire-wear than the XJ220 ?
I did some tune ups to get it close to 700PP and applied the usual racing modifications(spoilers, racing tires) and tried it out ant the WTC700 race in Le mans...and I thought there is a bug
Almost no tire wear with RH after three laps, and almost no tire wearr with RM after two laps...
- 3,978
- Netherlands
Interesting. I'm curious to see if the BHP will be restored to original when the engine is overhauled in GT Auto, has anyone done that?
Edit: tried it, did not raise BHP.
Last edited:
- 1,054
- Braga, Portugal
- pedrocor
Shouldn't be related to the concept car, if that was the case the engine should be a 6222cc V12 NA engine, not a 3498cc V6 turbocharged engine.
Still it's believed the car, in "regular" version reached 210 mph in more than one test.
The record breaking 217 mph run was made without the road going catalytic converters mounted, which pumped up the power output an extra 51hp.
Still it's believed the car, in "regular" version reached 210 mph in more than one test.
- 4,992
- Nowhere special
- SweetLilPoppet
- SweetLilPoppet
I managed 204/5 mph, never knew that about the catalytic converters! Makes sense now why it can never reach its claimed speed in like..... any game
- 1,148
- England
A little bit off topic...
But is there any car in the game that has less tire-wear than the XJ220 ?
I did some tune ups to get it close to 700PP and applied the usual racing modifications(spoilers, racing tires) and tried it out ant the WTC700 race in Le mans...and I thought there is a bug
Almost no tire wear with RH after three laps, and almost no tire wearr with RM after two laps...
That's pretty normal wear rate for an MR. A Lambo Diablo in 70-0pp spec for Lemans is pretty much the same. Tyre wear at lemans 700 just isn't an issue.
- 9,676
- Portland, OR
- Jump_Ace
- JUMPxACE
I used to LAN with a couple Volvo mechanics and they said the 240 in GT4 was off, not just HP, but dimensions weren't right. So I've always just taken the specs as 'GT Specs'.
Jerome
Jerome
Last edited:
- 824
- United States
Great, it looks like they got multiple specs wrong in GT7. Now I can never drive this car until they fix them all. 
- 3,201
- United Kingdom
For the speed runs wipers were removed, there was more duck tape than refinement of panel gaps.
If you google it or those who were around at that time will remember it was a 6r4 engine in what was probably the lowest ebb of UK engineering. The 220 is not the pinnacle of UK engineering more brute force.
Why it is iconic I will never know because it was just worse than everything of the era
If you google it or those who were around at that time will remember it was a 6r4 engine in what was probably the lowest ebb of UK engineering. The 220 is not the pinnacle of UK engineering more brute force.
Why it is iconic I will never know because it was just worse than everything of the era
- 3,978
- Netherlands
Eh, it’s still a great handling car nonetheless. I’m going to drive it anyway.Great, it looks like they got multiple specs wrong in GT7. Now I can never drive this car until they fix them all.
- 376
- United States
- 1,709
- United Kingdom
it's not like you can't fix it for yourself atm right?
Last edited:
- 29,984
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
I love a bit of duck tape.
- 1,929
- A field in England
A fully customisable ECU will put the power to exactly 542 as it should be if you'd like to have it a little more accurate. GT stats have always been a little iffy. Remember when the Ferrari F40 weighed 1350kg in the PS3 games when it should've been 1100?
It was way off, mainly because of weight though. I'm pretty sure the game quoted gross weight instead of kerb weight. In reality the 200 series weighed between 1250kg (2 door coupes) and 1450kg (v6 wagon automatics), so the 2.3 wagon featured in GT4 probably actually sat somewhere around the 1350 mark. What was it in the game again, like 1900kg?
Last edited:
- 677
- Austria
I don't own the Diablo, so I can't say...
But my other MR-supercars, the Lambos(Miura, both Countachs, Aventatdor) or the Testarossa for example, with the same/equal specs(PP700, full aerodynamics, all weight reductions) all have good/very good tire wear, and are definitly better in that department than the FR and AWD cars-but still none of them comes close to that Jaguar...
- 3,978
- Netherlands
The SH tires weren’t even a quarter worn in the tokyo 600 without pitting, so no trouble in that event.
Edit: Nevermind, thought you meant too much wear.
Last edited:
- 376
- United States
- 86,731
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
No, it isn't.
"BHP" is a vector quantity, measured at the crank in the scalar unit hp (1hp = 550lbft/s). You're confusing it with "metric" horsepower, which is an entirely different unit (1PS/Ch/cv = 75kgm/s) measuring the same thing.
515BHP is 515hp measured at the crank. That equals 522PS (or Ch, cv, etc).
I also remain perpetually irked at the conversions in Legends Cars being to one decimal place. Nobody in the history of things has ever said their car has 534.5hp; round up. Or down. Just round it.
Although it's worth noting that this figure is what you get to if you try to incorrectly convert 542hp from "metric" horsepower; the XJ220 should have 404kW, which - allowing for rounding - converts to 542hp and 550PS.
As for why it doesn't... 🤷♂️
Last edited:
I used https://www.unitsconverters.com/en/Hp-To-Bhp/Utu-3565-4669
Its says 1bhp is 0.9863hp.
seems like there are multiple hp options for conversion tools.
additional info.
the standard "515bhp" XJ220 in GT7 will do about 210mph if you force it to 7000rpm in 5th with gearbox tune.
so it might not all be down to the engine.
Its says 1bhp is 0.9863hp.
seems like there are multiple hp options for conversion tools.
additional info.
the standard "515bhp" XJ220 in GT7 will do about 210mph if you force it to 7000rpm in 5th with gearbox tune.
so it might not all be down to the engine.
Last edited:
- 86,731
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Yes, it's a common misunderstanding, but "bhp" is literally "brake horsepower" and it's not a unit; it's a vector, which is measured in units of horsepower (sometimes called "mechanical horsepower").
A lot of people, and places, think "bhp" is analogous to metric horsepower (usually measured in an abbreviation of a translation of "horsepower" - PS, Ch, cv, ck among others, depending on if you're German, French, Italian, and Swedish respectively) but it isn't. Unless you're measuring bhp in metric horsepower, but then it shouldn't be called "bhp"...
The site to which you've linked is among them; 1 metric horsepower is 0.986 horsepower (and 1.013 metric horsepower is 1 horsepower). They're simply using "bhp" as another word for metric horsepower and they really, really shouldn't.
Of course metric horsepower is also evil horsecrap
The metric unit of power is the watt!
- 1,840
- United States
And don’t forget Duckpower. Yes, there is such a thing.🙂
- 86,731
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
My two favourite units* are the Banana Equivalent Dose and - don't Google it - the penrig.
*I used to be a scientist; it's allowed.
