Has anything been said about the weight on the SLS AMG GT?
There is absolutely no reason why this thing would be 300kg lighter than other versions of the SLS, and certainly it shouldn't be lighter than the AMG GT which is famously lighter than the SLS it replaced.
And while I'm on the topic of these two models, I don't think we need sources to be able to tell this picture is the wrong car and has been pointed out too many times to count. The picture is of the older SLS GT3 rather than the 2016 GT3 which is based on the GT.
S30 2013 Porsche 918 Spyder 0-60 2.5>2.2 TOP 211>214 HP 881>887 TQ 940>944(1280NM)
The 0-60 link: https://fastestlaps.com/models/porsche-918-spyder >Fastestlaps is strictly moderated and only edited once reviewed by a moderator, the test results are very reliable. The power/torque link (video from porsche): >It's from porsche themselves, you'd be better off believing them. Timestamp: 4m13s
S29 2015 McLaren 570s Coupe 0-60 2.9>2.7 GRIP 88>90
Note: the 570s beats the caterham seven 620r (2.8s 91handling) on hockenheim short, it should get a boost in handling.
S28 2003 Porsche Carrera GT TOP 205>208 HP 603>612 0-60 3.7>3.2 RQ 28> 29
0-60 link: https://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/porsche-0-60-mph-times/ >remember to look at the 2003 model Top speed/torque link: >note: top speed is 334 kph which is converted to 208 mph, the narrator says the top speed but it is not displayed on screen. Timestamps: 1m29s (power/torque) - 1m50s (topspeed)
S27 2010 Porsche Panamera Turbo 0-60 4.0>3.4 RQ 27>28 Also: The panamera turbo did the AutoZeitung test track in 1:38:70 (https://fastestlaps.com/models/porsche-panamera-turbo) This is faster than the 2016 bmw m4 (3.9s 85 handling), so it should at least have more handling (or equal) than the m4.
S30 2013 Porsche 918 Spyder 0-60 2.5>2.2 TOP 211>214 HP 881>887 TQ 940>944(1280NM)
The 0-60 link: https://fastestlaps.com/models/porsche-918-spyder >Fastestlaps is strictly moderated and only edited once reviewed by a moderator, the test results are very reliable. The power/torque link (video from porsche): >It's from porsche themselves, you'd be better off believing them. Timestamp: 4m13s
S29 2015 McLaren 570s Coupe 0-60 2.9>2.7 GRIP 88>90
Note: the 570s beats the caterham seven 620r (2.8s 91handling) on hockenheim short, it should get a boost in handling.
S28 2003 Porsche Carrera GT TOP 205>208 HP 603>612 0-60 3.7>3.2 RQ 28> 29
0-60 link: https://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/porsche-0-60-mph-times/ >remember to look at the 2003 model Top speed/torque link: >note: top speed is 334 kph which is converted to 208 mph, the narrator says the top speed but it is not displayed on screen. Timestamps: 1m29s (power/torque) - 1m50s (topspeed)
S27 2010 Porsche Panamera Turbo 0-60 4.0>3.4 RQ 27>28 Also: The panamera turbo did the AutoZeitung test track in 1:38:70 (https://fastestlaps.com/models/porsche-panamera-turbo) This is faster than the 2016 bmw m4 (3.9s 85 handling), so it should at least have more handling (or equal) than the m4.
Has anything been said about the weight on the SLS AMG GT?
There is absolutely no reason why this thing would be 300kg lighter than other versions of the SLS, and certainly it shouldn't be lighter than the AMG GT which is famously lighter than the SLS it replaced.
And while I'm on the topic of these two models, I don't think we need sources to be able to tell this picture is the wrong car and has been pointed out too many times to count. The picture is of the older SLS GT3 rather than the 2016 GT3 which is based on the GT.
I made a thread on this earlier, but I figured I should post it here.
The Mercedes SLR (and all its variants) should be classified as a Mercedes, not a McLaren. The car may have been the result of a partnership, but it's more Mercedes than McLaren:
-The car was inspired by the Mercedes 300SL
-The engine/drivetrain is Mercedes
-Though the car was meant to be a collaboration, it's clear that Mercedes' opinion won out over McLaren's during design. When I read about it back in the day, the article mentioned that McLaren kept trying to take stuff out to make it lighter, while Mercedes wanted to add features to make it more luxurious, and therefore, heavier. Given the 1743 kg curb weight, it seems that Mercedes had the final say (on this topic, why is it listed as 1628 kg in-game? Everywhere else I find either 1743 or 1768)
-On the same track as the comment above, the thing came with a freakin 5 speed automatic, in a time where that was not the way to go for performance cars. Looking at McLaren's cars before and after, and the fact that pretty much all Mercedes have used automatics for a long while, i think this is clearly a Mercedes call.
-its successor, the SLS, is under Mercedes
-There's a huge Mercedes badge on the front -the card lists "Mercedes-Benz" as the make
-every other game I've played classifies it as a Mercedes, not a McLaren
At the very least, I'd like to be able to use these in Mercedes events.
I made a thread on this earlier, but I figured I should post it here.
The Mercedes SLR (and all its variants) should be classified as a Mercedes, not a McLaren. The car may have been the result of a partnership, but it's more Mercedes than McLaren:
-The car was inspired by the Mercedes 300SL
-The engine/drivetrain is Mercedes
-Though the car was meant to be a collaboration, it's clear that Mercedes' opinion won out over McLaren's during design. When I read about it back in the day, the article mentioned that McLaren kept trying to take stuff out to make it lighter, while Mercedes wanted to add features to make it more luxurious, and therefore, heavier. Given the 1743 kg curb weight, it seems that Mercedes had the final say (on this topic, why is it listed as 1628 kg in-game? Everywhere else I find either 1743 or 1768)
-On the same track as the comment above, the thing came with a freakin 5 speed automatic, in a time where that was not the way to go for performance cars. Looking at McLaren's cars before and after, and the fact that pretty much all Mercedes have used automatics for a long while, i think this is clearly a Mercedes call.
-its successor, the SLS, is under Mercedes
-There's a huge Mercedes badge on the front -the card lists "Mercedes-Benz" as the make
-every other game I've played classifies it as a Mercedes, not a McLaren
At the very least, I'd like to be able to use these in Mercedes events.
While I agree that these cars should be classified as Mercs, I think that most likely the classification in the game is part of the licensing deal with the manufacturer.
It would be nice if Hutch could somehow make it so they are classified as both so they can be used in Merc events. Same goes for a few other manufacturers like Acura / Honda, Infiniti / Nissan, DS / Citroen, etc.
While I agree that these cars should be classified as Mercs, I think that most likely the classification in the game is part of the licensing deal with the manufacturer.
It would be nice if Hutch could somehow make it so they are classified as both so they can be used in Merc events. Same goes for a few other manufacturers like Acura / Honda, Infiniti / Nissan, DS / Citroen, etc.
Yeah, good point. I'd be happy with that solution.
RAM 1500 Rebel wird als 3-Sitzer in den technischen Daten geführt. Er hat aber eine Doppelkabine mit 4 Türen. Der müsste also mindestens. 4 bzw. eher 5 Sitzplätze haben.
RAM 1500 Rebel wird als 3-Sitzer in den technischen Daten geführt. Er hat aber eine Doppelkabine mit 4 Türen. Der müsste also mindestens. 4 bzw. eher 5 Sitzplätze haben.
since we don't have auto-translation in the web forum: @audimatthias is claiming the RAM 1500 Rebel is listed wrong with a seat count of 3. and I can confirm, it should either be 5 or maybe 6 depending on the cab.
Stat corrections (Method B ): Change year from 1962 to 1972; Power: 105hp -> 126hp; Torque: 108ft-lb -> 113ft-lb; Weight: 585kg -> 888kg; Top Speed: 115mph -> 121mph; 0-60 time: 8.7s -> 7.4s. The stats above are from the 1972 Elan +2s 130. Ref: https://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1972/1432775/lotus_elan_2s_130.html
No matter what method gets chosen, the Ground clearance have to be changed to Medium. The 1963 Elan have GC of 152mm, while the 1972 Elan have GC of 165mm.
Stat corrections (Method A): Change year from 2015 to 2012; Change name from Elise 1.6 to Elise S; Power: 134hp -> 217hp; Torque: 118ft-lb -> 184ft-lb; Weight: 876kg -> 924kg; Top Speed: 127mph -> 145mph; 0-60 time: 6.0s -> 4.2s. The stats above are from the 2012 Elise S. Ref: https://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/2012/1856705/lotus_elise_s.html
Stat corrections (Method B ): Change image to the proper 2015 model.
The car in the image should be a 2003 or a 2004 model, determined by its plate number of "AU53 KCF", with the "53" is sometime between Sep 1 2003 to Feb 29 2004. Ref: https://i.imgur.com/ymWUPTw.png
Stat corrections (Method B ): Year from 1993 to 1991; name from Esprit S4 to Esprit SE; Torque: 260ft-lb -> 261ft-lb; Weight: 1338kg -> 1320kg; Top Speed: 168mph -> 163mph; 0-60 time: 4.8s -> 4.7s. The stats above are from the 1991 Esprit SE. Ref: https://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1991/1434905/lotus_esprit_se.html
If Method B were chosen, the ground clearance have to be changed to medium, as it has the ground clearance of 147mm.
And the image is a Roadster version as well, and the Roadster version have really different stats when compared to the Coupé version, so Hutch, you should think carefully about this one.
I know we touched on this previously, but automobile-catalogue is not an accurate source for performance data. It’s all estimates and simulations through a computer program. Not actual real test data.
@mikes I am absolutely aware of that. But the last time I've ever used performance estimation figures from Automobile Catalog is back when I was doing Mitsubishi vehicles. I've never used any estimations from Automobile Catalog afterwards in this thread. And I've told you about it last time you've mentioned about this, but apparently you didn't get the memo...
@mikes I am absolutely aware of that. But the last time I've ever used performance estimation figures from Automobile Catalog is back when I was doing Mitsubishi vehicles. I've never used any estimations from Automobile Catalog afterwards in this thread. And I've told you about it last time you've mentioned about this, but apparently you didn't get the memo...
The figures above are from Accelerationtimes.com
Your post above with all the Lotus figures in it entirely references Automobile Catalog. Which makes it an entirely useless waste of your time.
And while we're at it, Accelerationtimes.com is not any better.
In fact, Acceleration Times' site looks kinda different from Automobile Catalog. Anyone who visited both sites should be able to tell the difference, just saying. Left one is Accelerationtimes; Right one is Automobile Catalog.
@mikes I am absolutely aware of that. But the last time I've ever used performance estimation figures from Automobile Catalog is back when I was doing Mitsubishi vehicles. I've never used any estimations from Automobile Catalog afterwards in this thread. And I've told you about it last time you've mentioned about this, but apparently you didn't get the memo...
The figures above are from Accelerationtimes.com
Strange. A ghost must have posted all those Lotus times from Automobile Catalog right before your McLaren post.
Stat corrections (Method B ): Change year from 1962 to 1972; Power: 105hp -> 126hp; Torque: 108ft-lb -> 113ft-lb; Weight: 585kg -> 888kg; Top Speed: 115mph -> 121mph; 0-60 time: 8.7s -> 7.4s. The stats above are from the 1972 Elan +2s 130. Ref: https://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1972/1432775/lotus_elan_2s_130.html
No matter what method gets chosen, the Ground clearance have to be changed to Medium. The 1963 Elan have GC of 152mm, while the 1972 Elan have GC of 165mm.
Stat corrections (Method A): Change year from 2015 to 2012; Change name from Elise 1.6 to Elise S; Power: 134hp -> 217hp; Torque: 118ft-lb -> 184ft-lb; Weight: 876kg -> 924kg; Top Speed: 127mph -> 145mph; 0-60 time: 6.0s -> 4.2s. The stats above are from the 2012 Elise S. Ref: https://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/2012/1856705/lotus_elise_s.html
Stat corrections (Method B ): Change image to the proper 2015 model.
The car in the image should be a 2003 or a 2004 model, determined by its plate number of "AU53 KCF", with the "53" is sometime between Sep 1 2003 to Feb 29 2004. Ref: https://i.imgur.com/ymWUPTw.png
Stat corrections (Method B ): Year from 1993 to 1991; name from Esprit S4 to Esprit SE; Torque: 260ft-lb -> 261ft-lb; Weight: 1338kg -> 1320kg; Top Speed: 168mph -> 163mph; 0-60 time: 4.8s -> 4.7s. The stats above are from the 1991 Esprit SE. Ref: https://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1991/1434905/lotus_esprit_se.html
If Method B were chosen, the ground clearance have to be changed to medium, as it has the ground clearance of 147mm.
And the image is a Roadster version as well, and the Roadster version have really different stats when compared to the Coupé version, so Hutch, you should think carefully about this one.
@O__VER The references with Automobile Catalog that I've been using with recent posts are ALL factory claims datas, just making this absolutely crystal clear.
@O__VER The references with Automobile Catalog that I've been using with recent posts are ALL factory claims datas, just making this absolutely crystal clear.
I don't think anyone cares where Automobile Catalog says they got the info from, it's more that nobody trusts Automobile Catalog to have got it right. It's not a reputable source.
Seriously... It's the claims from the Manufacturer, there's no reason for AC to make up datas about the data claimed by the manufacturers. If AC makes up datas, then why are there lots of datas that aren't filled yet? Lots of datas on certain cars are pretty much blank because they got no data of them, and if they make up the datas, ALL of the datas would be filled by now.
And if AC is not a trustworthy source, then what is? You guys really think all of us have these RX-7s, Lotus Esprits, and Mazda Furais at our disposal to test around the times with irl?
Comments
There is absolutely no reason why this thing would be 300kg lighter than other versions of the SLS, and certainly it shouldn't be lighter than the AMG GT which is famously lighter than the SLS it replaced.
And while I'm on the topic of these two models, I don't think we need sources to be able to tell this picture is the wrong car and has been pointed out too many times to count. The picture is of the older SLS GT3 rather than the 2016 GT3 which is based on the GT.
https://www.autoevolution.com/cars/ford-mustang-2014.html#aeng_ford-mustang-2014-23-ecoboost-6at-310-hp
0-60 2.5>2.2
TOP 211>214
HP 881>887
TQ 940>944(1280NM)
The 0-60 link: https://fastestlaps.com/models/porsche-918-spyder
>Fastestlaps is strictly moderated and only edited once reviewed by a moderator, the test results are very reliable.
The power/torque link (video from porsche):
>It's from porsche themselves, you'd be better off believing them. Timestamp: 4m13s
S29 2015 McLaren 570s Coupe
0-60 2.9>2.7
GRIP 88>90
Note:
the 570s beats the caterham seven 620r (2.8s 91handling) on hockenheim short, it should get a boost in handling.
Link:
https://fastestlaps.com/models/mclaren-570s
https://fastestlaps.com/tracks/hockenheim-short
S29 2016 Pagani Huayra
0-60 3.2>2.9 (3.0s 0-100)
GRIP 92>93
RQ 29>30
Note:
Handling should go up by 1 since it beats the veyron super sport (2.4s 90grip) in the top gear test track by 3 full seconds.
Links:
https://fastestlaps.com/tracks/top-gear-track
https://mobile.guideautoweb.com/en/specifications/pagani/huayra/2016/
S28 2015 Porsche GT3 RS
0-60 3.2>3.0
GRIP 93>95
Note:
The gt3 RS beats the 918 spyder in hockenheim short, which is way faster so the grip should be at least 95.
Links:
https://fastestlaps.com/tracks/hockenheim-short
https://fastestlaps.com/models/porsche-911-gt3-rs-991
S28 2003 Porsche Carrera GT
TOP 205>208
HP 603>612
0-60 3.7>3.2
RQ 28> 29
0-60 link: https://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/porsche-0-60-mph-times/
>remember to look at the 2003 model
Top speed/torque link:
>note: top speed is 334 kph which is converted to 208 mph, the narrator says the top speed but it is not displayed on screen.
Timestamps: 1m29s (power/torque) - 1m50s (topspeed)
S27 2010 Porsche Panamera Turbo
0-60 4.0>3.4
RQ 27>28
Also:
The panamera turbo did the AutoZeitung test track in 1:38:70 (https://fastestlaps.com/models/porsche-panamera-turbo)
This is faster than the 2016 bmw m4 (3.9s 85 handling), so it should at least have more handling (or equal) than the m4.
A26 2001 Porsche 911 GT2
0-60 3.9>3.5
TOP 196>198
Link: https://www.topspeed.com/cars/porsche/2001-porsche-911-gt2-996-ar1252.html
>I've seen that it says 3.8s on the list but the link shows a different year (2002) than the year (2001) ingame. Therefore 3.8s is incorrect and 3.5 is correct.
RQ4 2016 Smart Forfour:
https://www.autoevolution.com/cars/smart-forfour-2014.html#aeng_smart-fourfour-2014-09-5mt-90-hp
RQ4 2002 Smart Crossblade:
https://www.cars-data.com/en/smart-crossblade-specs/46061
https://www.autoevolution.com/cars/smart-crossblade-2002.html#aeng_smart-crossblade-2002-06
RQ5 2008 Smart Fortwo EV:
https://www.autoblog.com/buy/2008-smart-fortwo-passion__2dr_Coupe/specs/
RQ5 2016 Smart Fortwo Cabrio:
https://www.edmunds.com/smart/fortwo/2017/st-401700929/features-specs/
https://www.autoevolution.com/cars/smart-fortwo-cabrio-2016.html#aeng_smart-fortwo-cabrio-2016-09-turbo-5mt-90-hp
RQ5 2004 Smart Fortwo:
https://www.autoblog.com/buy/2008-smart-fortwo-pure__2dr_Coupe/specs/
RQ8 2016 Smart Fortwo Coupe T:
https://www.thecarconnection.com/specifications/smart_fortwo_2017_passion-coupe
https://www.autoevolution.com/cars/smart-fortwo-2014.html#aeng_smart-fourtwo-2014-09-5mt-90-hp
This time, the B19 Buick GNX.
Only one correction this time, actually.
0-60 time: 5.3 seconds > 4.6 seconds.
Tested by Motor Trend, reference: https://m.imgur.com/gallery/uzXOy
And it also states the 1/4 mile time of 12.7 seconds @ 113.1 mph.
At the current state, the GNX doesn't even go that fast when maxed in game.
You know you are terrible slow right?
-the card lists "Mercedes-Benz" as the make
It would be nice if Hutch could somehow make it so they are classified as both so they can be used in Merc events. Same goes for a few other manufacturers like Acura / Honda, Infiniti / Nissan, DS / Citroen, etc.
Er hat aber eine Doppelkabine mit 4 Türen.
Der müsste also mindestens. 4 bzw. eher 5 Sitzplätze haben.
and I can confirm, it should either be 5 or maybe 6 depending on the cab.
Edit:
Can't wait for the full video to see what happened
The figures above are from Accelerationtimes.com
And while we're at it, Accelerationtimes.com is not any better.
Left one is Accelerationtimes;
Right one is Automobile Catalog.
PlantedZebra said:
Hutch would be the one judging them in the end anyways.
@ just from visiting.
And if AC is not a trustworthy source, then what is? You guys really think all of us have these RX-7s, Lotus Esprits, and Mazda Furais at our disposal to test around the times with irl?