I agree this is better than a random drag race video, but it is still fabricated results using a computer simulation. The best source remains actual instrument tested results that some of us keep posting.
Thanks to @mikes and @HeissRod for holding the line on reliability. To give a rough idea of the hierarchy from least to most useful:
Level 1: Giving no link gives us nothing. We'll only consider looking at these if it's somehow obviously wrong. Level 2: Wikipedia links are only fractionally better than this, because anyone can edit it. If the article in wikipedia cite a source, just cite that directly instead! Level 3: Random youtube videos are quite good because they show real-world performance, but as noted it's very hard for us to be sure if anything has been changed. Level 4: Manufacturer claims generally aren't as useful as you might think. Evo will already have checked those when putting data in for the cars, so if you see a difference that usually means they had reason to believe real-world performance was different. Of course, if you see all the stats are very different, it's a good clue that they are for the wrong car, in which case manufacturer claims are definitely worth considering. If any one claim differs very significantly from in-game, that could also be good enough. Level 5: Instrument-tested results. Look to @mikes for examples!
As noted in the first post, corrections can only be implemented with an update, and the next update is a big one and so will take a little while to come out, unfortunately. Attention in December did go more towards hill climb physics than corrections, so this thread hasn't got the attention it should. We do now have 160 corrections with some sort of link to back them up that are in the process of being checked, so the next bottleneck is getting through those and then getting an update out.
Just my personal opinion, but going for the manufacturer claims' datas first would be a better idea, then only if there's no manufacturer claims, going for real world testing would be fine.
For example, the Porsche 959 in game have 0-60 time of 3.6 seconds; while Motor Trend tested it with 4.3 seconds. Ref: https://m.imgur.com/gallery/uzXOy
And quite some FM card creators would agree with me on the preference with manufacturer claims over the irl testing datas.
But at the same time, there are certain times where you cannot find manufacturer vlaims nor the irl testing datas. This kind of situation mostly happens with Japanese cars that were sold for the Japanese Domestic Market. Motor Trend, Car and Driver, Auto Express... None of the magazines were located there, so none of them have the drag testing datas of these cars.
But still, having all Mazda RX-7 FD's with the exact same model year and the same 0-60 time just seems bizzare. One of them have 236hp and the rest of them have 276, having that 40hp gap but with the same 0-60 just seem strange enough.
And remember when Clarkson or Hammond reviews cars on the old TG, the cars stats they were referring was of course, the manufacturer claims, it's not like they have runway long enough to go flat out in a Pagani Zonda.
And remember when Clarkson or Hammond reviews cars on the old TG, the cars stats they were referring was of course, the manufacturer claims, it's not like they have runway long enough to go flat out in a Pagani Zonda.
Please remember Top Gear was not a car review show and just scripted TV entertainment. Also, next to no one uses runways for proper vehicle evaluation.
Im not trying to sound like an **** here, just trying to provide some insight in how this industry works. I like your enthusiasm so let’s get back to posting actual corrections.
I think the 650s just needs slight adjusting. During the race the 650s and the 12c were right next to each other, even on the launch. I know accelerationtimes is not a reliable source but I think it's good enough to show there is a big difference between the 650s and the 12c. I'm quite sure I should've won that race. I was heading out the door when I posted this, but here's the race. 
I think the 650s just needs slight adjusting. During the race the 650s and the 12c were right next to each other, even on the launch. I know accelerationtimes is not a reliable source but I think it's good enough to show there is a big difference between the 650s and the 12c. I'm quite sure I should've won that race. I was heading out the door when I posted this, but here's the race. 
Just a few more examples of the 650s underperforming. If you watch the video they're at the same speed the entire time. Just randomly pause it and I guarantee they'll be at the same speed or only off by 1 mph. Doesn't need a huge boost, just some slight adjusting. Heres a video I found, 650s vs 12c. As you can see the 650s is faster by quite a bit.
Based on what I can see in many pictures of the A29 SQ5 TDI and the A26 RSQ3 they share a very similar, if not identical tire tread (as you can see). It would only make sense for them to both have the same tire type in game. Either nerf the SQ5 to performance (so many people would be angry) or buff the RSQ3 to All-Surface, make it A30 and one of the best off-roaders in the game. Based on its big brother, it seems as if it doesn’t deserve performance tires in game, more like all surface. I hope the image can articulate my point.
Comments
I would say this is a more trustworthy source than those videos you guys posted.
Level 1: Giving no link gives us nothing. We'll only consider looking at these if it's somehow obviously wrong.
Level 2: Wikipedia links are only fractionally better than this, because anyone can edit it. If the article in wikipedia cite a source, just cite that directly instead!
Level 3: Random youtube videos are quite good because they show real-world performance, but as noted it's very hard for us to be sure if anything has been changed.
Level 4: Manufacturer claims generally aren't as useful as you might think. Evo will already have checked those when putting data in for the cars, so if you see a difference that usually means they had reason to believe real-world performance was different. Of course, if you see all the stats are very different, it's a good clue that they are for the wrong car, in which case manufacturer claims are definitely worth considering. If any one claim differs very significantly from in-game, that could also be good enough.
Level 5: Instrument-tested results. Look to @mikes for examples!
As noted in the first post, corrections can only be implemented with an update, and the next update is a big one and so will take a little while to come out, unfortunately. Attention in December did go more towards hill climb physics than corrections, so this thread hasn't got the attention it should. We do now have 160 corrections with some sort of link to back them up that are in the process of being checked, so the next bottleneck is getting through those and then getting an update out.
160 caterham standard tyres
For example, the Porsche 959 in game have 0-60 time of 3.6 seconds; while Motor Trend tested it with 4.3 seconds. Ref: https://m.imgur.com/gallery/uzXOy
And quite some FM card creators would agree with me on the preference with manufacturer claims over the irl testing datas.
Again, just my personal opinion.
But still, having all Mazda RX-7 FD's with the exact same model year and the same 0-60 time just seems bizzare.
One of them have 236hp and the rest of them have 276, having that 40hp gap but with the same 0-60 just seem strange enough.
Im not trying to sound like an **** here, just trying to provide some insight in how this industry works. I like your enthusiasm so let’s get back to posting actual corrections.
could you stop wasting your time on this please
I know accelerationtimes is not a reliable source but I think it's good enough to show there is a big difference between the 650s and the 12c. I'm quite sure I should've won that race.
I was heading out the door when I posted this, but here's the race. 
Besides, I haven't even seen you do any contributions here
He's young enough for @Huskic69 to be his mother is my guess lol
https://www.autoevolution.com/cars/bmw-m3-gts-e92-2010.html#aeng_bmw-m3-gts-e92-2010-44-v8
A26 BMW M4: Ground clearance is 119mm, should be low instead of medium
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=509179
A25 BMW M3 CRT: Built on the same platform as the BMW M3 GTS, should be low instead of medium
A25 BMW M6: Ground clearance is 106mm, should be low instead of medium
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=491326
A25 BMW M6 Gran Coupe: Ground clearance is 110mm, should be low instead of medium
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=493185
A24 BMW 1-series M Coupe: Ground clearance is 132mm, should be low instead of medium
https://www.autoevolution.com/cars/bmw-1-series-m-coupe-e82-2010.html#aeng_bmw-1-series-m-coupe-e82-2010-30
A24 BMW M3: Built on the same platform as the BMW M3 GTS, should be low instead of medium
A24 BMW M5 2016: Ground clearance is 111mm, should be low instead of medium
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=491370
A23 BMW M135i: Ground clearance is 130mm, should be low instead of medium
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=398596
A23 BMW M3 CSL: Ground clerance is 104mm, should be low instead of medium
https://www.autoevolution.com/cars/bmw-m3-csl-e46-2003.html#aeng_bmw-m3-csl-2003-32
Which also means that he can't be my mother.
to drive this?