I don’t understand how Honda civics and Alfa milanos and other cars in d class with power to weight ratios of 1:10 or worse can hang with the muscle cars with 1:7 ratios or better. I know they will win in corners but the small cars with small engines should NOT be able to accelerate as fast as a 450 hp L88 454 or a 426 Hemi each with well over 400 hp in cars that hover around 3100lbs with weight reduction upgrades. And to top it off those Honda civics and others have race aero upgrades on them which should be creating major drag especially on a FWD drivetrain. There are no magic transmission upgrades IRL that can make up for a 30-50% power deficit but in forza all you have to do is slap a race trans on it and tune the last three gears to have super narrow ratios and bam! Your Honda Civic can now run a 10 second quarter mile.
That’s Forza logic for ya.
Main thing is this a game that’s has too balance alot of different factors. Transmission allow for the civic to be in it 100% of the time vs the v8 running different parts of its power band. Coupled with its high counter speed.
The civic is also easier to drive.
The civic is more ridgid and dosent lose alot of power like the older cars. I have cars that have 1000hp 2600lb that don’t really power accelerate hard until 100 mph plus. Which is a wast on most track.
But even if I can put 100% of 200 hp down more often an old muscle car is going to be putting down 80% to 100% of 450 hp any time I touch the throttle as long as I don’t break traction. Which is easy to do of course but it never lasts long. And my issue was more with the fact that when both cars have grip the civics and alfas will hang tough with the muscle cars even though there is no way they could in real life. I know they will go through corners quicker and carry more speed through but even coming off the start line they accelerate too fast.
I usually toasted all of the civics off the line. I remember race my 85race fuel. He only drives the '97 civic in this game. I could beat him on road altanta short with a '74 celiac power tune. He could run a faster lap time but couldn’t make up enough time from the lead I got from the launch. May be also skill/assists/tune if your not killingthem off the line.
Car flex also seem to.have a big impact on older cars. It robs alot of power certain cars. Power to weight isn’t the only factor in acceleration.
I don’t believe this should be a real issue as the old muscle cars were built with the quarter mile in mind, especially the big blocks. Most of them were built body on frame style like pickup trucks as well so body flex is not as relevant when the frame takes grunt of the force. The 68 Hemi dart super stock could run sub ten second quarter miles with only swapping out the rear tires to a drag compound. Most muscle cars from the sixties and early seventies could hit ten second quarter mile times with very mild modifications. keeping this in mind I would imagine that once the tires have grip these older cars should be absolutely munching four banger Honda civics with 230 HP and 2100 pounds of weight or more.
I really don’t know how much flex these cars have in real life drag. I do know these simple don’t accelerate, turn, stop well unreinforced in this game. I have heard opposite complaint that there race tired civic is beat by stock tire muscle car. I’ve heard some people said sport version toyota caroll will bet alot of old muscle cars on the strip
I don’t use assists, my 65 mustang is the fastest mustang on the Laguna seca D class leaderboard (224th overall) and I normally add at least street chassis stiffening to the cars I use. My average muscle car is running a 4.0 handling stat with a 7.7 acceleration stat. They always have a phenomenal power to weight ratio, especially the big block Chevys. Most tracks in D class do not allow cars to go fast enough for long enough that aerodynamics come into play so when I hit a straight stretch after a corner the cars I drive usually smoke the cars around me and then lose ground in the corners. But there are the civics, milanos, and even celicas that can put a much worse power to weight ratio and acceleration stat out the window and easily keep me at bay. I’m fine with them out cornering me and carrying speed through corners that I can’t, that is how it should be but a 181 HP Alfa Milano weighing in at 2400 pounds cannot and should not match pace with a 460 HP 3100 pound el Camino on the straights.
the Camino/ Chevelle do have funny limitations. Even at 1000hp they only can like 185 mph when a 490hp javalin will do 195mph. So there something wrong with that.
The '65 Mustang accelerate like a monster and kills the civic. What I usally see from this match up is civic just car so much speed through the corner, it just takes the muscle cars a wait to make up the gap with there power.
Who’s to say stage 1 chassis makes the car stiff enough to handle the power. It’s just what notices.
Also it’s a game. The '65 Mustang is monster and already dominates alot of tracks. It could be a way of balancingredients the game.
Man I’m so happy the Milano is getting hate.
I tried hard to get the word out about the 4 door beast. I feel like I’ve contributed to the community. Man this is awesome.
But back on topic. Chill out dude. I love muscle and drive them a lot except for the 65 Mustang because I feel it’s cheap. It’s fast without any effort so I avoid it, the civic and others.
The problem isn’t power to weight. Try building an alfa gtv-6. It has great stats and drives really good but it’s just ok lap time wise. It can hit a top 100 but it’s really not that fast.
The thing that makes the 97 civic and Milano so good is the stock motor. Both cars are very efficient on the top end. They both pull very hard at the top end. Muscle cars dont. That’s why a 97 civic and Milano can catch a muscle car on a long straight. Muscle cars are beast on low end acceleration but by in large aren’t that good top end wise. They flat out don’t accelerate as quickly on top end.
Also when you add a supercharger this helps with low end power issues for milano and civic. They won’t beat a muscle car but also won’t lose much ground.
The power curves for all cars mentioned are not equal. This is why you can get away with some cars if their motor favors top end. This is why looking at power to weight exclusively isn’t wise. You have to consider other factors including motor, mechanical grip, and track.
Additional examples are: 04 celica, Acura Integra, that alfa and merc that always do good on the alps, Mazda rx-7 and pretty much any rotary motor powered car. The unicorn Aston Martin also has insane top end abilities.
Power curves is why the Alfa gtv-6 is just ok. It grips well but doesn’t have good low end acceleration and doesn’t have good top end acceleration. It just kind of falls in the middle so for tracks like Silverstone it does pretty well since it can use its grip to keep speed up. On other tracks it gets beat.
I race atv motocross. I enter the radar runs for a local event.
I had as YFZ setup mx that dyno at 55hp, the quad weights 375lb and I’m 6’4" at 240lb…
My friend owns a 770 raptor the dyno at 60 hp that 410lb and he’s about 175lb
Another friend had grass drag polais 440 2 stroke that made 95hp that weigh 500lb and he weight 135lbs. It was 4wd and automatic.
I beat both these guys by about 1mph and won my class. Points is I had the lowest power to weight of us 3, but won’t the event. Weight distribution, skill, traction, powerband, gearing, rotating weight. Lot of different factors come into play. I think power-to- weight is on of the biggest one but it’s not everthing. My engine revs to 12000rpm almost twice as fast as the raptor 770. This is something you don’t see on a dyno.
My quad is live a civic. It’s high strung where as my friend raptor is lazy and like the mustang.
I made a mistake earlier when I said I was 224th overall, it was just 224th in the Americas on Laguna seca D Class. XXXX Joe Cool has a faster 65 mustang than mine by about a second or so I just wanted to make sure I corrected my post above. And it’s true that muscle cars will lose some hp and torque near the top end but not a lot, and considering the generous portioning of power to begin with they still have plenty of oomph. I’m pretty positive that the aerodynamics are what let them down after 100 mph more than a torque curve. IRL most muscle cars generate front end lift at high speeds because of the “forward look” design style of the sixties which actually had the front end stick out farthest at the hood and recede back as it headed down towards the bottom of the car. That coupled with an average 7 to 9 inches of factory ground clearance meant that muscle cars would lose most of their grip on the front end when pushing north of 120mph. Most manufacturers avoided this by installing close ratio four speeds and 3.90 or higher rear gears which kept them between 120 to 140 (except Chevrolet who liked 3.30 rear gears). In forza the ride height and front end lift can be fixed with springs and front downforce and the top end can be increased with a five speed trans or a sport trans with tunable final drive. But muscle cars should always leave lower power cars behind until aerodynamics comes into play and for most cars they do, except the Milano, civic, celica, and a few others which have some serious magic happening at low speeds. At the end of the day this is just a game and I’d speculate that if it wasn’t this issue there would be another. To be honest I don’t mind losing online I do that often enough it was just that the Milano can really get away with more than it should be able to on straights. I love driving old muscle cars and will continue to do so even if that means I will lose on technical tracks.
Milano has boxy front end just like muscle cars and same for unicorn aston. It’s not aerodynamics.
The Milano won’t beat a muscle car from a standing start. However there aren’t many tracks where there’s a lot of starting and stopping. For instance almost all of my muscle cars stomp on my Milano at Sebring. However at indy, road atlanta, and watkins glenn it’s a toss up because there are more flowing corners. On most tracks the Milano is able to stay in the right power band and if you can get it into high gear quickly it’s able to tap into its top end abilities.
However the power of the el Camino should trump the Milano fairly easily on the faster tracks. Flat out, idk how a Milano out dragged you because it can’t. The El Camino has far superior top end and acceleration with sketchy handling.
There’s a reason I dont have a Daytona tune for the milano…it sucks there and in general at high top speed tracks.
There’s no funny business going on. I’ve spent a lot of time with the Milano and for most layouts it has a great combo of speed, grip and acceleration. It’s not elite in any one category but it’s good in all 3 which is a nice advantage on many layouts.
Bascily sweeping and short straight favors milano/civic.
Tight slow cornering and long straights favor muscle cars.
If you getting beat.of the line by the grip cars your doing it wrong…
Laguna has always been a grip track. Your builds is slow in the sweeping corners and can’t hook up time to take advantage of the power.
I used a stock engine build with more grip and it out accelerate the normal power 5.7 build mustang in most of the corners.
Not to mention this car will run the same lap times as any Milano or civic on Laguna.
The Milano I’m referring to is a power oriented version. It’s very fast at indy and watkins glenn where the straights are just long enough to use what top end it has and corners are technical enough to where power based muscle car builds (over 400hp in D for most models) doesn’t stand a chance against it.
This Milano build sucks at laguna but is great at most muscle car friendly tracks. It has too much power and won’t hook up similar to what you described about the mustang.
Grip based Milano’s are just good cars. They really aren’t that fast and many grip oriented cars can keep right up with it.
I assume it was like Alfa sz that’s I know another was another one of your pet projects. These don’t suit my style and haven’t messed with it.
My 65 mustang runs the 289 with sport chassis stiffening, race weight reduction, slightly widened rear tires, no aero, factory four speed and race sway bars, brakes, and suspension. It accelerates great right up to about a hundred miles per hour, which is about right because the aerodynamics really start to become prevalent there. The Milano is much more aerodynamic than you’d think it’s very similar in shape to the original Maserati ghibli, which would do 185 (ha ha). But recently I’ve got my hands on a Volvo 123gt with a 350 swap and it accelerates insanely fast. Its not technically a muscle car but it fits the bill, V8, RWD, 2 doors, 4 seats. So it’s close enough to not wreck my sensibilities.
And I know that Laguna is not a great track for muscle cars but it has every kind of corner, uphill and downhill, 180 degree bend, chicane, and two decent length straights that help me lay out quick lap times and get a good feel for the car I’m building. If I can get a clean lap time in a muscle car between 1:44 and 1:45 on Laguna it will do very well on tracks like Sebring, road America, Indy, and Daytona if the top end is high enough.
Have you tried 5.7/centfugal in the mustang. Its much better build if you looking to 3.9-4.0 handling. I actully got my best time going with 3.9 handle and could possible take no1 in its divison. Still not fast but would be faster than any civic or milano. Its just hard to get the power down.
Try the corolla with v8 or rotary swap and hold onto your hat. Bahaha. I think it still holds my PB at brands hatch full crazily enough.
That’s a slow build for Daytona though unless it hits a 2:06 easily (I think thats the benchmark I use). That’s what I run in my Daytona cars (about 10-15 cars so far).
If it helps, here’s a video of me in a ~170bhp Lotus Cortina dicing with a guy in an ~800bhp NASCAR Olds at Lime Rock. It can happen in real life, so why not Forza?
