I have to say no to this idea. As already said, cars in LFS aren't based on modern cars, theyre from about mid-90's. And that's just good because I can't even find words to describe how much I hate modern cars, theyre space shuttles and they almost drive by themselves and they look like crap too. Opinion only, but I hope we'll never see modern cars on LFS. Best cars were made from 60's to 80's, 90's was ok to the mid of it. I even hate that new GTR Nissan, it's fast and I would love to try it on some day, but I would always select some old RWD Escort with 45's Dellortos over it.

Cars in LFS are very much fun with the amount of power they have now.

Quote from anasmak11 :

thank you tristancliffe for such great messages..
You are totaly correct in all your points.. but look at another side..

Nowadays, normal sedans (Lexus, Mercedes, BMWs...) are doing 0-100 km/h in around 5 to 6 seconds...
[...]

You're wrong. Those figures are feasible today with the same barebones design of the past, with modern powerplants. E.g. homemade american domestic musclecars, ratrods bootstraped from almost junk parts that run the salt flats speed competitions as fast as just about any modern plastic wonder.
You can build 700HP street legal hotrods today for about 10-15k$ US max.
etc.

Quote from anasmak11 :

Nowadays, normal sedans (Lexus, Mercedes, BMWs...) are doing 0-100 km/h in around 5 to 6 seconds...
Back in the time your talking about, that was Ferrari performance...

To meaning to nit-pick, but I think that is very exaggerated.

Most family sedans these days do 0-100kph between 8 to 11 seconds.

The popular Toyota Camry V6 does it in around 11.5 seconds. A Camry Sportivo (the "sports tuned" version) does it in around 8.5 seconds.

Hatchbacks are similar too. A standard Ford Focus will do 0-100kph in around 10 seconds. A Focus ST/XR5Turbo does it in around 6.8 seconds.

0-100kph times in 5 to 6 seconds still belongs to the realm of the BMW M3 and Subaru WRX class of cars.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Exactly!

In real life we are meant (note: meant) to be concerned with fuel efficiency, carbon footprints, recycling and long vehicle lives. Modern design/manufacturering techniques and styles mean we have heavy cars, requiring larger engines, bigger brakes, more complex electronics so that your average driver doesn't kill himself having twice the power he really needed. Then they stick on bigger, wider tyres that give more 'grip', but make the handling worse (often, but not always), driving the costs up needlessly, killing the driving pleasure. Because of the complexity, you can't do much work on them yourselves, especially when it comes to the electronics (which control everything these days), so you HAVE to get it serviced at a dealer (which generally means WORSE quality for a HIGHER price, at silly extended mileages), resulting in cars that are not economic to maintain/run after about 8 years (if that), rather than 20 or more years older cars can easily manage...

It's called progress, but what it really amounts to is car manufacturers desperately vying for your money by adding silly gimmicks, and charging you low list prices (but making up for it by high servicing costs, high parts costs, and the need to buy more new cars because the old ones don't last as long).

Do Lambo's, Porsches, F1 cars etc need bigger tyres? Yes, they have more power and more grip (high performance). Does your Clio (a hatchback designed for going to Tescos, regardless of which 'version' you have) need 265 tyres? Nope. You'd be just as 'quick', and more economical with 190s!!! It's a ploy that stupid people have fallen for hook, line and sinker; and as stupid people MASSIVELY outnumber sensible people, they dictate the market. Hence modern cars are designed for stupid people, with stupid gimmicks and so on and so forth.

I'll stop ranting now. I can't think of an interesting modern car without getting in to silly money or it being useless for daily transport.

this is one of the reasons I like my '94 mx-5
no unnecesary electronics and stuff, but plain and simple driving

Quote from anasmak11 :

XR GT Turbo = 245HP ==> 320 HP

320 bhp in a 2.0 turbcharged mid 80's coupe...RI----IGHT

Quote from anasmak11 :

XF GTI = 115HP ==> 160 HP

160 bhp in a early 90's hot hatch.... UH-HUH

Quote from anasmak11 :

RB4 GT = 241 HP ==> 310 HP

310 bhp in a mid 90's 2.0 turbocharged GT Four CELICA ...ehm...Yeah....right

Quote from anasmak11 :

thank you tristancliffe for such great messages..
You are totaly correct in all your points.. but look at another side..

Nowadays, normal sedans (Lexus, Mercedes, BMWs...) are doing 0-100 km/h in around 5 to 6 seconds...
Back in the time your talking about, that was Ferrari performance...

So, imagine a place with cars this powerful with No traction control and computers?? (Chaos). not everyone can drive like you and me,...

If you know how to drive, you have the koenigsegg, zonda, porsche GT... expensive, but there are cars for all markets...

so gimmicks and computers in cars are sometimes good

(not for LFS ofcourse)


take care

I own a 1991 nissan 2L turbo it puts 250hp 250lb/ft to the rear wheels and does 0-100km/h less than 6 seconds. My sister drives my car with no problems and it has no electronic aids.
I'm not saying your point is completely wrong or anything but, I drive many new cars in my job every day and have driven 1.4 fwd hatchbacks with traction control, I think this is laughable.

@ squidhead
I used own a '92 hatchback mitsubishi mirage 1.6, it had 172hp from the factory. Honda, toyota and nissan also had similar models back then.

Quote from eight6er :

@ squidhead
I used own a '92 hatchback mitsubishi mirage 1.6, it had 172hp from the factory.

no you didn't
1.5 L 92 hp I4
1.8 L 113 hp I4

plus I recently sold a 1.6 '95 V-tec Civic (stock) which had a D16Z6 Vtec with 125 bhp...
Honda went OVER 170 bhp starting with the 96 si-r

Quote from eight6er :

250lb/ft

Rubbish units! Please revise.

I can't believe this thread is still going. It's just someone complaining that the want "moar powr!11!" without any weight penalty. The LFS cars are the way they are, end of story. There's no way the XRG is going to get another 60 or 70hp added, it'd be too much.

The XFG and XRG are already near perfectly balanced. Why would you want to risk that by messing around with that?

TBH I don't even car what the numbers attached to the cars are. They go when I press the throttle, they stop when I press the brake. Some go faster than others. You're racing on tracks with people using EXACTLY THE SAME CARS so what difference does it make whether you all have 110hp or 150hp? You're all identical.

Bah, it's annoying me just talking about it.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Rubbish units! Please revise.

Yes, kW and Nm please

No! Whilst they are technically correct (lb/ft is nothing to do with torque), the old units are, generally, better numbers. And in those units power and torque, when sharing axis units, are more easily comparible.

Blindly following SI like you do isn't a good thing. Any competent mechanical person will be happy in both. And bear in mind that even European cars are still more frequently named after their hp output rather than their kW output.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Rubbish units! Please revise.

Quote from duke_toaster :

Yes, kW and Nm please

He means it should be lb-ft (pounds feet) not lb/ft (pounds per foot).

kW isn't strictly SI. "Hey look, my car makes 200,000W!" sound much more impressive anyway.

lb.ft (or just lbft, or even lbf.ft or lbfft) would be better still than lb minus ft (lb-ft).

It just annoys me that people try and have a discussion about power and torque, but don't even know the basic units. I've even seen engineering firms use lb/ft, which is, frankly, bollocks. Needless to say we don't ask those companies for advice.

kCal is another one that annoys me. When someone says their tictacs only have 2 Calories, they actually mean 2000 Calories.

Dajmin, have to agree with you there.
They think that with more hp (HP, PS, Hp or hP) or W (kW, MW, GW, TW, PW or EW) they are going to be faster and get smaller numerical values for their lap times.

Honestly I don't understand people who only stare at their lap times. I find racing with others much more interesting.
Maybe it's because I'm not that fast

Quote from squidhead :

no you didn't
1.5 L 92 hp I4
1.8 L 113 hp I4

plus I recently sold a 1.6 '95 V-tec Civic (stock) which had a D16Z6 Vtec with 125 bhp...
Honda went OVER 170 bhp starting with the 96 si-r

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIVEC

yes I did, look a little harder. Do you want me to find the toyota, honda versions for you too? You would think owning a honda your self you would know these things.

Also 250lb/ft was on the dyno read out so dont have a baby, I'm sure you're smart enough to work it out lads.

Quote from samjh :

To put simply: wider tyres have the effect of increasing the surface area, therefore reducing grip. Sounds odd, eh?

If this were a physics 101 class we would say that increasing surface area has no effect on traction. If we were talking about two pieces of steel, rather than rubber and another surface we'd be, more or less, correct. You cannot use static and kinetic friction alone to model tire traction. Along with a friction coefficient there are also adhesive forces, Momentary bonding, and mechanical keying to deal with. Also rubber's tendency to break away from the rest of the tire if too much force is applied automatically means you need specific amount of surface area to transmit a given force or rubber will be shed on the track.

Rest assured: on pavement wider tires really do mean more traction. You would see wider tires on passenger cars if it were not for Hydroplaning, Snow/Ice, and their cost prohibitive nature.

As far as horsepower goes - the XRT is obviosuly based on the Starion/Conquest. LFS is very optimistic as the Intercooled ESI-R was only rated at 155HP. Supposedly there is some year that was closer to 200 but I'm not familiar with it and I assume it may have been JDM.

Quote from eight6er :

Also 250lb/ft was on the dyno read out so dont have a baby, I'm sure you're smart enough to work it out lads.

What, that it probably had closer to 220lb.ft (not lb/ft you MORONS [not just you specifically, but it really gets my back up when people attempt to post facts about their cars, without having a clue what does what!]). Commercial dynos ALWAYS over-read!

Isn't that (partly) because people don't know to add on the drivetrain loss? So in that sense it is useful, if indeed an estimated lie.

Well he was the cheapest guy around at the time and I only wanted to make sure that the car was not pinging on 95 octane, as it is a japanese import meant to run on 100 octane. His gear did not look the newest to put it nicely, but the car is still going strong after a year and a half.
I'll be putting the car on a good dyno sometime in the near future and I will see how acurate it is.
I'm not really interested in the bhp or lb/ft rating myself any way, omly that the car does what I need it to do.

Quote from tristancliffe :

kCal is another one that annoys me. When someone says their tictacs only have 2 Calories, they actually mean 2000 Calories.

Dietary calorie = 1000 Calories.
If it's describing a food-stuff it's measured in dietary calories and it's correct to say a TicTac contains 2 Calories.

Edit: An inertial dynamometer does not measure force. Force is computed based on how quickly the drum is accelerated. They are very precise at measuring what is applied to the drum but one expects a lower measurement due to parasitic drag of the Dyno itself. Obviously numbers generated on a chassis-dyno will be considerably lower than BHP.

Quote from GobLox :

As far as horsepower goes - the XRT is obviosuly based on the Starion/Conquest. LFS is very optimistic as the Intercooled ESI-R was only rated at 155HP.

LFS isn't modeling any specific car. The XRT is an XRT.

Quote from GobLox :

Dietary calorie = 1000 Calories.
If it's describing a food-stuff it's measured in dietary calories and it's correct to say a TicTac contains 2 Calories.

Edit: An inertial dynamometer does not measure force. Force is computed based on how quickly the drum is accelerated. They are very precise at measuring what is applied to the drum but one expects a lower measurement due to parasitic drag of the Dyno itself. Obviously numbers generated on a chassis-dyno will be considerably lower than BHP.

Dynos measure the torque against a known (and variable) load. Thus they measure force. They don't measure time to accelerate (because when you do a dyno run you hold the engine against the brake, and so there is no acceleration). They don't measure power at all.

I don't think it's slip or transmission losses that make them over-read. I think they are calibrated that way, so that people who use them feel happier (more torque than they expect), and are more likely to return. I've yet to see a peak dyno reading within 10% of the real torque figure.

Having said that, the coast down method of measuring transmission losses is just daft. It's not accurate at all, and doesn't tell you anything useful. It's just guesswork.

Rolling Roads rely on their customers being completely naive about vehicle stuff (even if they know the codes of their turbo off by heart).

The cars in the game are old... If you buy a civic ('90) it wont change hp juse becouse the civic ('08) have 400bhp...

This was the stpidest thread ever made in my eyes!

Quote from eight6er :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIVEC

yes I did, look a little harder. Do you want me to find the toyota, honda versions for you too?

I stand PWNED and yes, I'd love to see a 170+ bph 1.6 civic