(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

For those at GTP talking about a 21g spike is impossible



Try 43g for a couple seconds sooooo many years ago, not like this shit is new info

Core data that will answer a few questions and clarify a few theories. This can greatly help with replicas. I have data like the actual strength of the ARB's the amount of sprung and un-sprung weight, the actual leverage factor for the front and rear suspension. Pretty much every single piece of data that makes up the cars. I even have the strength of the damper like what does the 1 to 10 adjustments do to the dampers, ARB etc. Ive also found other cars using 2 final drive gears like the Focus ST, check out the stock gearing of the X-Box R, sure to raise an eyebrow, 5th is shorter than 4th lol but not really with the second FD lol

I have fully broken down the suspension and I know why the stock spring rates & wheel angles are different to the real life cars, and how to replicate any set up for any car in real world to GT6 world.

Damper data. It shows 4 suspensions for each car that has all types available, Stock, Racing Soft, Racing Hard, Rally & Adjustable. Each set of dampers is different for each type of suspension except adjustable have a range (min and max) while the rest are fixed. They even split into fast bump and slow bump but we only get one adjustment.

I can also confirm to you with 100% certainty that PD in GT6 uses the toe angle independent at each wheel and does not use the total toe. The setting for each wheel is separated. Applying lets say a 0.25 front toe angle has 2 settings applied to the car FrontToeR 0.25 and FrontToeL 0.25 its acually like this for any front or rear setting that applies to the 2 sides left and right. Damper Settings have DampExtL & DampExtR for example, the only wheel angle setting I cannot split is the castor angle, its uses one value for the 2 front wheels & The castor angle varies from car to car, but it looks like they only vary between a few different figures, 7-10 are to of the most popular.

Weight and Weight Balance. PD uses a dry weight for each car, then applies the GT6 driver weight and GT6 ful tank of gas to the gas tank position and then displays the curb weight and weight split in GT6.

IRL curb weights are calculated with a varying amount of fuel and with a varying amount of driver weight from car to car. A brand might do its curb weight with half a tank and a skinny a$s driver or tiny Japaneses drier compared to someone like myself at 6 foot 4.

So GT6 weight and splits will be off to IRL as the curb weight is calculated for how it is in GT6 with the GT6 driver & GT6 fuel levels.

The reason the spring rates are different to stock is the GT6 suspension uses generic camber gain on all cars, and fixed tolerances. The suspension stays true at all times & the real cars handling is simulated through the springs & leverage factors to achieve a tested spring frequency. GT6 does NOT use the real cars suspension geometry & the leverage factors in GT6 are different to the real world, the End result being the prime factor frequency. The spring rates in GT6 are a product of the leverage factor, & frequency relationship to the spring rate. In the real world there are linkages and physical dampers and springs on angles and such that all contribute to the suspension geometry (how much camber gain on compression and extension & leverage applied) and resulting spring frequency BUT since the GT6 uses a special suspension on all cars with an equal amount of camber gain the DEFAULT settings are in relation to the difference between the GT6 suspension with fixed suspension geometry on all cars and the real world as the wheel angles in GT6 are all tuned to the same suspension geometry on all cars.

So How to apply this to a replica?

Since the spring rates are a product of the leverage factor and spring rate combined for a frequency to get an aftermarket spring exactly as is in the real world but in GT6 the percentage of increase can be applied in GT6 to the same effect. A set of springs 20% stiffer than stock will be the same as a spring 20% stiffer than the in game stock spring rates, now all aftermarket spring rates can be applied to the same effect.

When it comes to wheel angles, any adjustments IRL done for tolerances (the rear to pull in or out on acceleration for example) is none existent in GT6 the same with adjusting the setting from stock when lowered to compensate for being further along the camber gain arch, lowering the car in GT6 does not impact the suspension geometry at all until a min or max limit is reached (bottoming out). Camber and toe tuning in GT6 is set up for after the tolerances are all tuned out, for example IRL if you needed 0.15 toe in to account for the tolerances in GT6 0.00 already accounts for the tolerances, so you adjust from the 0.0 point based on handling alone.

Its my theory PD has built the suspension like this to eliminate tuning for tolerances specific to each car that the user would have to outsource data for to effectively tune making the cars tuning all pure handling based and not tolerance/geometry based before handling. Its Simplifying an extremely complicated process, especially when dealing with 1200 cars. For user tuning but also data acquisition.

The problem with this is folks who have experience tuning a specific car accounting for the suspension geometry and tolerances in the real world try to apply their real world knowledge of the car to GT6 and get thrown a monkey wrench trying to use the tuning in the real world accounting for tolerances and real world suspension geometry.

For adding real world wheel angles to GT6 take the tuned angle and subtract the cars stock setting in the real world, and apply the difference to the stock values in GT6 so you basically keep the same increase from stock.

Roll Bars are a bit different as they have a specific range, for example 225 to 350 / 7 x setting. If you know the strength of the stock bar or tuned bar IRL, I can see what setting will give the bar closest to the real bar used.


I have to say as you can read back through my testing I pretty much had all my theories confirmed, the only aspect I have uncovered that I had not fully figured out on my own is that the weight and balance in Gt6 uses a dry weight with a GT6 driver weight and gas tank weight added to give a GT6 specific curb weight.

The Gran Turismo Suspension

I am basing this write up on much testing of the GT6 suspension and looking at the core coding for the cars in GT6. I can tell you what I’ve learned going over it, It may be very different to many theories posted on the subject & while I am open to questions I am closed to apposing theories that have not been made with core data. Quite simply everything I’m about to post is confirmed in the core data of the game.

There is a difference between the Gran Turismo Suspension and the Suspension on real world cars. Knowing and understanding the differences can make tuning in GT6 much more enjoyable and make much more sense overall. There are contrast between the setup we see on stock cars in GT6 and the settings we find for these cars real life sock counterparts. This has led some to believe PD either got the programing wrong, got the specs wrong, or made some sort of mistake. I have discovered that this is not the case, the differences are in how PD simulates suspensions in GT6.

PD has done many things to simplify tuning in GT6 so the average person can tune the cars in GT6 without having to have experience with the cars outside GT6.

First thing to address is the weight and weight balance. If you’re looking at specs of cars IRL and notice that cars in GT6 have a slightly different weight balance and weight it’s not a mistake. The because of the way PD calculates the figures. What PD does is start with the dry weight and weight split of the car then PD adds the weight of the GT6 driver in the driver position and a full GT6 tank of gas to the gas tank position, the in game displayed weight and weight split is the result. IRL the weight of the driver and amount of gas in the tank will vary, but in GT6 the driver weight is the same, and the amount of gas in the gas tank is the same and so the curb weight is GT6 curb weight with GT6 Driver and Gas.

The Suspension Geometry is the biggest difference from real life to GT6, and a source of much confusion in the contrast from virtual to real. This information may upset some folks as PD is not mirroring the real life cars suspension geometry at all. Some of the biggest contrast in real life performance to GT6 performance lies right here. However before you scream OMG PD Built a broken Game its important to understand the reasoning. Primarily all cars have a fully independent suspension & the suspension geometry on all cars is the same at its core, with a handful of exceptions in all 1200 cars. Think of it like PD uses a base platform for all cars, and then applies all its car specific values to that base and the result is a car that feels like the real life counterpart. MOST of the suspension settings are based on the suspension geometry and so when the suspension geometry in GT6 is different to real life the required wheel angles to achieve the same effect will be different.

For example Cars IRL have more or less camber gain than others and while 1 car may have very little camber gain requiring more static angle to keep the tires flat another car may have a lot of camber gain requiring little to no static camber angle to keep the tires flat. However in GT6 the 2 cars both have the same amount of camber gain and so they can use the same wheel angle. The amount of camber gain the GT6 suspension has turns the default GT6 settings into the default real world settings. PD adjust the default settings to achieve the real world cars characteristics on the GT6 suspension.

Looking at the suspension settings its important to know what impacts they have in the game compared to IRL.
The Ride Height adjustment is very different in GT6 compared to IRL where in GT6 its been greatly simplified IRL adjusting something seemingly simple like ride height can be very complicated with all the various ways changing ride height impacts the suspension geometry. In GT6 the ride height adjustments have zero impact on the suspension geometry what so ever. For example IRL raising or lowering the ride height will change the amount of stroke in either direction, comp and ext, and change the roll center of the side being raised as well as the overall height changing the center of gravity. In GT6 the ride height only affects the COG and min and max room for stroke in either direction. So lowering the car doesn’t reduce the amount of comp stroke until the body is lowered enough to restrict the stroke by reducing the room for the stroke. Example if you need 20mm for comp stroke and lower the car so that the damper only has 15mm before bottoming out, there is 5mm travel restricted by the body, but if you have 25mm room for stroke the stroke will still stop at 20mm.

The real cars handling is simulated through the springs & leverage factors to achieve a tested spring frequency. GT6 does NOT use the real cars suspension geometry & the leverage factors in GT6 is also different to the real world, the End result being the prime factor frequency. The spring rates in GT6 are a product of the in game leverage factor, & frequency relationship to the spring rate. In the real world there are linkages and physical dampers and springs on angles and such that all contribute to the suspension geometry (how much camber gain on compression and extension & leverage applied) and resulting spring frequency BUT since the GT6 uses a special suspension on all cars with an equal amount of camber gain the DEFAULT settings are in relation to the difference between the GT6 suspension with fixed suspension geometry on all cars and the real world counterpart.

It makes it pretty easy to convert an Aftermarket spring rate for the car into a GT6 spring rate, simply calculate the percentage of difference of the real world spring above stock then apply the same percentage of difference to the stock spring rate in the game.

Damper data shows each set of dampers is different for each type of suspension except adjustable have a range (min and max) while the rest are fixed. They even split into fast bump and slow bump but we only get one adjustment. The Dampers adjustment range is reflective of the adjustment range of the spring rates, so the user can use any spring rate and have the ability to adjust the damper to the spring rate, be it a soft of stiff set up. This is easily done by simply keeping the dampers slider equally filled with the spring rate slider. When it comes to tuning after the balance, raising ext higher than the spring rate level is no problem but its always wise to keep the compression slightly below the spring rate level so that the dampers on comp do not restrict the spring rates from doing their job.
Roll Bars are very well done but this is also some much hidden data. While only the Adjustable suspension has an adjustment range, and the rest all use the same 2 bars (different front to rear), the adjustable set up gets 2 different bars with a different range of stiffness. Bar stiffness is relative to weight split. The heavier side gets a thicker bar than the lighter side in the full range of adjustments. Its important to note that an equal setting front to rear does not give us 2 equally stiff roll bars.

Wheel Angles. Going back to the GT6 Suspension keeping in mind it is different to suspensions in the real world, the wheel angles are a product of the suspension Geometry & with the GT6 suspension geometry being the same on all cars the default settings on all similar cars will be rather identical. Tuning for handling performance becomes the only element to consider since we have tossed tolerances and varying suspension geometries out of the equation. When it comes to wheel angles, any adjustments IRL done for tolerances (the rear to pull in or out on acceleration for example) is none existent in GT6 the same with adjusting the setting from stock when lowered to compensate for being further along the camber gain arch, lowering the car in GT6 does not impact the suspension geometry at all until a min or max limit is reached (bottoming out). Camber and toe tuning in GT6 is set up for after the tolerances are all tuned out, for example IRL if you needed 0.15 toe in to account for the tolerances in GT6 0.00 already accounts for the tolerances, so you adjust from the 0.0 point based on handling alone.

Its my theory PD has built the suspension like this to eliminate tuning for tolerances specific to each car that the user would have to outsource data for to effectively tune making the cars tuning all pure in game handling based and not tolerance/geometry based before handling. Its Simplifying an extremely complicated process, especially when dealing with 1200 cars. For user tuning but also data acquisition. The problem with this is folks who have experience tuning a specific car accounting for the suspension geometry and tolerances in the real world try to apply their real world knowledge of the car to GT6 and get thrown a monkey wrench trying to use the tuning in the real world accounting for tolerances and real world suspension geometry that is much different to the suspension geometry in GT6.

The differences make quite a bit of sense from a PD perspective. In the end this is how PD does it, like it or lump it. I have not broken down any other racing game as much as I have with GT6, looking over the code there are more real world figures built into the cars than even I was expecting, I do not know if other games go to the lengths equal of PD for car data acquisition but the amount PD does do is massive. For me to consider another game getting the formula “right” using full real world suspension geometry I’d have to see that they really are using real world suspension geometry.

Boom found the aerodynamics data. The data suggest they use the formula I used for calculating top speed. All the required data is there for the formula. Frontal area, COD even the track details have altitude temp and such to complete the algorithm. Tomorrow I plan to grab a random car on my list then plug in the numbers and see if the results match up. The only estimation so far is drive train loss but I'm looking to fix that

Wow the GTP Idea for a VGT is powered by a V4 TT with KERS and electric motors to make 4WD

A V4? Like a Corvair or Russian version of a Bug.... These puny little engines made didly squat for power, even when you turbo it up its a joke. Now there are V4 engines in motorcycles. Because packaging is a serious issue, and a V4 is well small and compact. They are basing it off a racing engine for Bikes ATV's and Snow Mobiles the AAEN V-4 Two Stroke Racing Engine. 1000cc of 200hp of circuit racing power lol. They are talking about turbo charging it but cant figure out how to theoretically stop the boost pressure bleeding out the exhaust as it is a 2 stroke with transfer ports and the piston opens the exhaust port. Obviously Ditch the 2 stroke idea and go for a 4 stroke, but that going to drop high rpms but make up for it with boost and DOHC. The problem is we are still looking at modest figures from a small engine, its not going to be all that great in low rpm the issue then arises from increasing displacement as we will also have to reduce engine speed. Lets say we get it up to 1.8L and keep her spinning around 10k rpm. There wont be very high output in the end result ver low torque and shes not going to be the smoothest engine being a 4 cylinder in a V config bigger than a liter & on boost. The theory is adding in a KERS System to power the non engine driven wheels will make up for serious lack of low end grunt but if you put this next to the 2020 VGT with a TT V6 making 600ps before the ERS system a 1L to 1.8L TTV4 with KERS seems like a Joke. Its going to need every bit of the electric system to get that thing up to a FQ400 power level and thats pushing its limits. Beyond that its a time bomb. I guess if you want to use a but load of fancy named experimental style tech to go slower than regular stuff we already have thats fine, one slow ass VGT thats going to break down a lot lol. Id rather chase down the 918Spider with a true VisionGT idea.

They stopped putting V4's in cars when they realized the I4 Bangers were just so much better. The only reason they use them in bikes ATV's and Snow Machines is because they are small and not turbo charged lol you can turbo charge the 2 strokes BTW, but its a serious waste as you can only pressurize the crankcase and piss out the exhaust port anyways hoping to catch some extra fuel in the chamber but Ive never seen it prove to increase power aside from causing a lean condition, but 2 sides flame over this quite a bit. It becomes a tuning nightmare from rich to lean the low speed needle fighting the high speed and never any proven power off the boost because of the leaning conditions.

How about a Quad Turbo W8 with Continuously Variable Valve Timing and Variable Compression Ratio Full ERS System with MGU-H units on the 4 turbos and MGU-K on the wheels with a integrated AWD system using torque vectoring yaw control like the VISIV but more rear biased. Active downforce, active flaps and all that Jazz, Dynamic ride height with active dampers & F1 Style DRS. Fully Drive by wire with 3 electronically controlled diffs and variable steering rate.

918Spider, P1 where u at?

I've never took interest into the Russian bug to know anything about it so I can't comment. The Corvair, however, used a horizontally opposed 6 cylinder engine. The horizontally opposed, aka-boxer, aka-pancake cylinder layout has proven to be quite a successful engine configuration. Volkswagen, Porsche, Chevy Corvair, Subaru, and almost all modern piston-powered aircraft engines utilize the design to great success. The story of the Corvair is riddled with controversy thanks to the fame-whore Ralph Nader, but they weren't all that bad of a car honestly. The power output wasn't bad for the time and is characteristic of most air-cooled engines. The "flaws" that Ralph Nader condemned the Corvair for are characteristic of all rear engine rear drive layouts, and were no more pronounced. Don Yenko made his name in the early-to-mid '60's both racing and selling tuned Corvairs. His success with the Corvair is where he earned his reputation and wealth that enabled him to build the iconic machines that he is known for today.

Cylinder layout isn't necessarily always directly relative to power output and is mainly a product of packaging requirements. A good example of which is the cylinder bank angle in engines with a V configuration. Most typical V8 engines all have a 90 degree bank angle and other variations are relatively rare often being utilized for a specific purpose. However, when it comes to V6 engines, both 90 degree and 60 degree banks are utilized often. There are 2 reasons for utilizing different bank angles with V6 engines. First, many early V6 designs were based on existing V8 engines and two cylinders were just removed. Since these are all 4-stroke designs, the 90 degree V8 utilizing a common crank journal for opposing cylinders has an even spacing between each cylinder firing event. This leads to a smooth feel when the engine is running. When you maintain the same layout while removing 2 cylinders you wind up with odd spacing between cylinder pulses that leads to a feel of a rough running engine. The rough feel doesn't affect power output at all, but it is undesirable to consumers. Several methods have been used to mitigate this issue such as offsetting the rod journals on opposing cylinders (commonly called a split-pin crank), installing balance shafts, and even using softer motor mounts to dampen the vibrations. The other solution is to simply place the bank angles at 60 degrees. Not only does this help the engine feel smoother it also makes the engine more compact. For this reason, these two positive attributes have lead to most modern V6 designs utilizing a 60 degree bank angle. In terms of sheer power output capability, though, there is no clear advantage of one layout over the other. Engines that utilize the W cylinder configuration, which is just a variation on the V layout, are primarily a result of attempting to produce a more compact overall package. Although they are a bit wider than a traditional V layout they are shorter in overall length. Again, there isn't any advantage in terms of potential power output. There is actually an inherent drawback in the W design in that the cylinder heads are large and heavy as well as the valvetrain being much more complex. V-twin engines come in a variety of varying bank angles and the main reason is again smoothness. The best example of this is a Harley engine which is famous for it's distinctive exhaust sound and the way they shake at idle. Both of which are a product of the specific bank angle and the use of a shared journal for the connecting rods. The combination of varying bank angles and/or rod journal configuration affects them in the same way that it does in a V6.

There are a few successful 4-stroke V4 motorcycle engines and they do produce good power, but an inline-4 is actually more simple and cheaper to produce. With an inline-4 you only need one timing chain, one cylinder head, one cylinder block, and 2 cams. When you go to a V4 you need twice as many of those parts and the cost for casting and machining them rises significantly. The V4 design works well and offers an excellent compromise between space requirements and power output, but the simplicity and cost-effectiveness are what make the inline-4 more popular. As far as power goes, there are just too few V4 designs out there to really make a comparison. But, the success of the existing V4 designs suggests that they are equally capable.

I have yet to see an example of a forced induction 2-stroke gasoline engine. There are centrifugal superchargers available for nitro-powered RC engines, but they are really more like a diesel than a gas engine. The 2-stroke diesel has been around since the early 20th century although it is only commonly seen in heavy equipment. When it comes to the 2-stroke diesel many actually cannot aspirate naturally and require forced induction. This is how the roots-style blower originally found itself on an engine to begin with. The roots-style blower actually dates back to the 1800's with it's origins as a literal blower used in factories. The roots-style blower is perfect for a 2-stroke diesel because it has a positive displacement so it can force air into the engine during cranking and idling. A turbocharger or a centrifugal supercharger are not capable of doing this so they cannot be used as the sole form of aspiration. Early 2-stroke diesels of this design only had the supercharger and it was solely used for aspiration and thus wasn't actually a power-adder. Some later models added a turbocharger turning them into a dual-boost setup and added a significant increase in power. The manner in which these engines operated didn't really create any issues of forcing intake gasses out of the exhaust. Of course, since the fuel is only injected just prior to TDC, if any intake gasses were forced out of the exhaust it wouldn't be of any significance. Oddly enough, I just recently read a news article stating that Renault was working on a new 2-stroke diesel for use in automobiles that they feel is promising for future applications. Now, since the 2-stroke diesels that I am familiar with and speaking of differ mechanically from 2-stroke gas engines, the effect that forced induction would have on them would also differ.

Regarding your suggestion for a concept, I'll give you something to consider. Sometimes simpler is actually better. Consider the Gen III and Gen IV Chevy V8 for example. If you compare power figures as well as fuel economy figures with comparable vehicles on the market they are quite impressive. When comparing a late model Mustang and Camaro you have relatively comparable horsepower and fuel economy numbers despite the fact that the engine in the Camaro is a whopping 1.2 liters larger in displacement. Obviously that means that the hp per liter ratio is higher for the Ford, but there aren't any advantages in fuel economy, weight, or external dimensions. In that respect, the far simpler Chevy begins to have many advantages. The cost to produce a complex DOHC 32-valve V8 will always be higher than a traditional pushrod V8 not to mention that there are far more moving parts that can fail. Mechanical repairs are also significantly easier with a pushrod V8. Now, I realize that for a concept-car that fuel economy and production costs aren't really a big concern, but my point is that you don't have to overcomplicate things to achieve stellar performance. The new Z06 is a perfect example of what I'm getting at. I've spent way too long on this post so I'm sorry but I've got to cut it short there. I'll share my idea for a future concept once I've got the kid put to bed.

I meant Ford Corsair V4 lil air cooled cute engine.

The Russian V4 is the Russian version of a bug, cheap car for the people. its quite similar, rear mounted air cooled, but they went with a V4 design over the boxer 4 so it would be easier to work on as more things can be done without dropping the engine like bugs. Nothing special its got funny ears for engine air vents lol



I see it capable next to another 4 banger, but thats just not enough to cut it up against the likes of a TT V6 already making 600ps. I see it as too much for no reason, a VGT is not bound by any packaging issues its not a VGT Motorcycle, a TT V4 VGT Bike Im all for that actually gets me excited.

VGT Sport Bike with a TT V4 (4 stroke) and ERS that gets the blood flowing. I like it a lot.



That why the concept should be ditched for a 4 stroke if they plan on using boost. Ive never seen a boosted 2 stroke with a piston port making power off boost. The intake and exhaust scavenging is happening at the same time. Theoretically you can pressurize the crank case but that wont pressurize the cylinder. Talking it doesn't work even in theory to provide boost, not aspiration.

Maybe you missed I was poking fun at the idea of boosting a 2 stroke piston port



I like W8's and feel it packages better than a W16 I also am very fond of VCR and feel the combination with the W16's quad turbo and continuously variable valve timing providing massive power from low rpms flat will pair up well for even more performance out of the same displacement. Add in quad MGU-H units to replace the waste gates and insta spool the turbos I see a whole lot of potential the rest is just tu put it all down and get around a track. I also am going to steal the GTR split tranny with DCT but put it up front because my W8 VCR QT ERS is mid ship

I forgot to mention that the idea of a TT V4 in a car sounds dumb to me too. I simply was comparing different configurations of the same cylinder count. I hadn't heard of the Ford corsair V4 before probably because it sucked lol. I knew the Russians had their version of the bug but never knew anything about it. Even though the 2-stroke is mechanically simpler and has higher RPM potential I don't see it being worth fooling with either. There isn't anything about their idea that has any sense or reason behind it. A worthy idea of a VGT car would have at least something cutting-edge about it which theirs does not. Variable compression ratio is a technology that I'm not familiar with, but sounds intriguing. I would opt for the more conventional pushrod V8 layout and twin turbos. Direct injection and flex fuel capability would be a must as long as VVT. I would go with a MR layout utilizing an 8-speed automatic like the one GM has just debuted. In many aspects it is actually less complex than a DCT and has faster shift times. A KERS setup would of course be utilized and electric motors would be used to drive the front wheels. I would leave out any mechanical AWD components to save weight and only use electric power for the front wheels. Variable ratio electric power steering and electronically controlled rear steering would be equipped along with the finally-emerging tweel. I had a few other ideas, but you get the general idea of what I like.

In a bike tho it sounds alright lol Super Bike VGT TT V4 Im game




Yeah to me the Vision GT should use concept tech like VCR




cute and looks like the Corvair kinda (Yeah Corvair this time lol)





100% agree with you on all of that They are going back to old stuff that didn't work out aside from the small applications that have packaging issues. Up the displacement and the rpm benefits are lost and there is just an overall tq shortage. The future GTP not the past lol



Its pretty sweet.



Same power from less displacement but the seriously huge impact is the power curve, tq is generated down low in massive numbers. Im thinking a Quad Turbo 4.2 to 4.5L W8 might be good for around 800hp with close to 1250 to 1500ft-lb from as early as 1500rpm flat to around 5000rpm, and that's before the electric motors.


My Thought is the W16 already powers the fastest car in Production (Im not going to nit pic any new guys that beat it, yah know what I mean) but its HUGE and the Veyron is a HEAVY boy. Cut down on engine side but use the VCR tech to keep in the same power area but get a big jump in TQ. Now we got a more maneuverable platform.

Just my VGT Spin



The new Chevy Small Block is quite impressive stuff, you would never of thought that kinda old school stuff would work out so well. Even the reverse leaf spring suspension is mind blowing stuff, seriously cool IMO





Good idea and makes good sense. I would keep some generators on the turbos too tho, go full ERS.




Yeah Bro