I found it ok, (I have both) as at first, they are limited by the traction, then when they have full traction, it is all MRA and torque.
586 vs 695
The Diesel weighs more and has a lot less HP. Torque is nice, but irrelevant when it comes to drag racing.
There is just no way that the diesel would win vs the v8 in real life. It is not how diesel engines work. Diesel torque makes cars quick off the line but the mid to high-end acceleration is atrocious compared to petrol engines.
Seems that the weight of the car is playing inside the game on Dirt.
I can tell that in drag race, on asphalt the V8 is wining all day long again the Diesel.
I try to explain how the game resolver is behaving, not if this is real life Plus it can be something as dumb as the gear you are in. Let say that you are at 60 in third (3000rpm) vs a car which is at 60 in second at (7000rpm) one will have more problem to accelerate further. Yeah i know it a little bit too deep...
But after if the MRA they are based in wrong, I guess we have to correct it
Sad that once the Bentayga Diesel/X5 M50d are nerfed they'll be useless.
That's the problem with corrections. Hutch buffed the Bentayga purely to balance it, I highly doubt they actually researched any of its MRA/0-60 data. Same with the Beamer. They insist on having us constantly search for real life data to correct these cars but a lot of times Hutch just nerfs/buffs things purely to balance cars/make hierarchy correct. Ground clearance is the same, Hutch keeps cars medium despite them being low irl and when they do end up enforcing real life data in terms of ground clearance, it almost always ends up with an angered playerbase and cars which were once useful now useless. It's ridiculous.
Hutch has to choose whether they buff/nerf/keep cars the same based purely for balancing purposes or real life, sometimes both can coincide with each other for cars, lot of times they do not. Especially true for ground clearance as a whole.
yeah so the car correction as a whole is kinda dumb if you think about it, when hutch first adds those cars they're all balanced and stuff
and then one of the cars gets stat corrected, whether it's 0-60 buff, mra nerf, or both, and that upsets the balance of the cars (notable example is the s8 plus compared to the rs6 avant and rs7 sportback, it used to be neck and neck-ish with rs7 and now it's nothing)
Nürburgring times are official and can be seen on other sites too.
Nurburgring cars are usually modified, especially if you are trying to say about manufacturer runs, like roll cages, different tires from the road car and aerodynamics
Nürburgring times are official and can be seen on other sites too.
Nurburgring cars are usually modified, especially if you are trying to say about manufacturer runs, like roll cages, different tires from the road car and aerodynamics
Fastest lap don’t do their own testing
If they are modded its for both McLaren and the GTR. Also you can see 1/8 to 1 mile drags for stock cars on there. Almost the same. Still it makes no sense to make the MRA that low, it's almost like it would stop accelerating after 60mph.
Hutch has already fixed this Bentayga based on Car And Driver testing, now it's perfect. I don't see the point of touching the acceleration of this car again, it's better to deal with the V8 and W12. Link to the C&D test: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15081564/2018-bentley-bentayga-diesel-first-drive-review/ P.S. The screenshots were taken a few weeks before the PL11.2 update, so the old RQ is still here.
Here is the test featuring the Ecoboost Mustang with a manual C/D TEST RESULTS: Zero to 60 mph: 5.5 sec Zero to 100 mph: 13.3 sec Zero to 140 mph: 31.4 sec Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.8 sec Standing ¼-mile: 13.9 sec @ 102 mph Top speed (governor limited): 148 mph Braking, 70-0 mph: 157 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.98 g
Nearly a whole second faster to 100 with the manual, it seems off.
Could be due to the difference in rpms the automatic shifts at. The test notes for the manual car it said this "In lower gears, hurried shifts at the 6600-rpm redline bog the engine and head-toss passengers. It runs quicker when shifting closer to 6000 rpm." Or it could be due to gearing... It does have a shorter rear axle ratio which is why it was slower to 60, according to the article.
2012 Volkswagen Golf R (A67) 0-60 mph time: 5.2 -> 5.9 sec Top Speed: 127 mph (I guess US spec have lower limited top speed than Europe so it wouldn't need to be touched) 0-100 mph time: 12.5 -> 14.6 sec 0-120 mph time: 19.83 -> 23.1 sec 1/4 mile time: 13.75 sec @ 104 mph -> 14.3 sec @ 99 mph When I first saw this I thought that there was some sort of mistake, no way the difference between the review and ingame is that big.
The Q70 is slower IRL. The 0-60 used by Hutch is close to the hybrid one, but they chosed the 330 hp 3.7L V6, wich gets the car to 60 mph in something like 6.2 sec
Comments
I can tell that in drag race, on asphalt the V8 is wining all day long again the Diesel.
I try to explain how the game resolver is behaving, not if this is real life
But after if the MRA they are based in wrong, I guess we have to correct it
That's the problem with corrections. Hutch buffed the Bentayga purely to balance it, I highly doubt they actually researched any of its MRA/0-60 data. Same with the Beamer. They insist on having us constantly search for real life data to correct these cars but a lot of times Hutch just nerfs/buffs things purely to balance cars/make hierarchy correct. Ground clearance is the same, Hutch keeps cars medium despite them being low irl and when they do end up enforcing real life data in terms of ground clearance, it almost always ends up with an angered playerbase and cars which were once useful now useless. It's ridiculous.
and then one of the cars gets stat corrected, whether it's 0-60 buff, mra nerf, or both, and that upsets the balance of the cars (notable example is the s8 plus compared to the rs6 avant and rs7 sportback, it used to be neck and neck-ish with rs7 and now it's nothing)
The 1/8 - 1 mile times are almost the same. So the MRA of the GTR should be a lot higher.
https://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/o5lf5rrojl4j
Nürburgring times are official and can be seen on other sites too.
Fastest lap don’t do their own testing
Still it makes no sense to make the MRA that low, it's almost like it would stop accelerating after 60mph.
Link to the C&D test: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15081564/2018-bentley-bentayga-diesel-first-drive-review/
But grip is another problem, as there is no definitive value
Car and Driver reviewed the automatic version: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15107868/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-automatic-test-review/
0-60 mph: 5.5 -> 5.2 sec
Top Speed: 145 -> 149 mph
0-100 mph: 14.1 -> 14.4 sec
0-130 mph: ~33.67 -> 31.0 sec
1/4 mile: 14.16 @ 100 mph -> 13.9 @ 98 mph
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.3 sec
Zero to 140 mph: 31.4 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.9 sec @ 102 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 148 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 157 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.98 g
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15106693/2015-ford-mustang-23l-ecoboost-manual-test-review/
Road and Track reviewed the car: https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/first-drives/reviews/a12130/2006-caterham-csr/
0-60 mph: 3.1 sec -> 3.4 sec (C&D got a test result of 3.6 seconds)
0-100 mph: 9.45 sec -> 9.1 sec
1/4 mile: 11.96 sec @ 108 mph -> 12.00 sec @ 114 mph (technically 113.7 but you get the idea)
The said car and driver review where they tested the CSR's 0-60 time can be found here: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a18201627/2006-caterham-csr260-specialty-file/
0-150mph: 29.28s->21.4s
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a18199687/2007-mercedes-benz-s65-amg-short-take-road-test/
PERFORMANCE (FACTORY DATA)
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a33260520/tested-1978-porsche-928/
0-60 mph time: 5.2 -> 5.9 sec
Top Speed: 127 mph (I guess US spec have lower limited top speed than Europe so it wouldn't need to be touched)
0-100 mph time: 12.5 -> 14.6 sec
0-120 mph time: 19.83 -> 23.1 sec
1/4 mile time: 13.75 sec @ 104 mph -> 14.3 sec @ 99 mph
When I first saw this I thought that there was some sort of mistake, no way the difference between the review and ingame is that big.
My source: https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/infiniti/q70/specs/37-v6-sport-tech-4dr-auto
@havvy 's source:
Too fast
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15716810/ford-gt-full-test-of-the-blue-oval-supercar-review/