Vs 911 GT2 RS vs Lexus LFA

[klier]

I choose the......gasp.....Lexus!!!!

 

[martinbo]

I choose the......gasp.....Lexus!!!!

Me too! Can you imagine, me choosing a Lexus over a Porsche??? Insane... A testament to how deeply special and covetable this LF-A truly is. A masterpiece and one of the more fitting send offs for the naturally aspirated engine.

 

[Merc1]

Painful vote, but other 911s are more appealing so I had to vote for the Lexus. Never thought I'd type that.


M

 

[Guibo]

vs 2012 GTR

Great improvement by the new GT-R vs the old one. In the Motor Trend test with the old GT-R, the Lexus caught it and passed it fairly easily. In this one, the GT-R holds off to the end (and looks like it actually pulls a bit too, probably due to the shifts). Still, would much rather have the LFA, and over the GT2 RS as well.

 

[330CIZHP]

It should have been done at a proper drag strip and atleast 4 - 5 runs back to back since it did not look like a full 1/4 mile. Still the difference at the finish line was 2 - 2.5 car lengths. Lexus not allowing them to use the launch control system is another thing that simply puzzles me since the time it takes to get the transmission from neutral to 1st gear delays getting off the line especially considering against a car that can hit 0-60 mph in 2.8 seconds. Makes no sense.

If you follow the brake lights, the GTR got a few split second head start as well (conversely, LFA driver had a delayed reaction).

Great improvement by the new GT-R vs the old one. In the Motor Trend test with the old GT-R, the Lexus caught it and passed it fairly easily. In this one, the GT-R holds off to the end (and looks like it actually pulls a bit too, probably due to the shifts). Still, would much rather have the LFA, and over the GT2 RS as well.

 

[lambornima]

It should have been done at a proper drag strip and atleast 4 - 5 runs back to back since it did not look like a full 1/4 mile. Still the difference at the finish line was 2 car length. Lexus not allowing them to use the launch control system is another thing that simply puzzles me since the time it takes to get the transmission from neutral to 1st gear delays getting off the line. Makes no sense.

If you follow the brake lights, the GTR got a few split second head start as well (conversely, LFA driver had a delayed reaction).

The LFA could have the best launch control and it would still not be able to take on a GTR to the 1/4. the GTR will 0-60 in 3.0 or less over and over again.

as the for the GT2 RS, again the only way the LFA would win would be if the driver leaves the line half a second or more after the LFA (which is exactly what you see in the video). Odd that you dont consider the massive jump the LFA gets in the first video and claim that there "was no mess up here" yet when it comes to the GTR video you pick out how the GTRs taillights went off a mere fraction of a second before the LFAs.

I dont know why they couldnt get a proper launch in the GT2RS. doesnt it have launch assist like the regular GT2. euro mags have gotten low 10s high 9s 0-124 mph but here they managed to get 0-127 mph in over 11.5 :s

The LFA does well, but you just cant argue for it when it comes to speed.

 

[330CIZHP]

Why are you arguing with me? Didn't I say in my post that the GT2 RS must be quicker in ideal conditions and could rip a mid-10 seconds while LFA would be in the low-11s in ideal conditions?

Key was, there were multiple races (6 in total). There is also one in which the GT2 RS got the jump (from inside the GT2 RS cabin). There are two solid races in the video where both LFA and GT2 RS left at the sametime.

I would not be making any observations like that if there were atleast 3 - 5 races between GTR and LFA.

The LFA could have the best launch control and it would still not be able to take on a GTR to the 1/4. the GTR will 0-60 in 3.0 or less over and over again.

as the for the GT2 RS, again the only way the LFA would win would be if the driver leaves the line half a second or more after the LFA (which is exactly what you see in the video). Odd that you dont consider the massive jump the LFA gets in the first video and claim that there "was no mess up here" yet when it comes to the GTR video you pick out how the GTRs taillights went off a mere fraction of a second before the LFAs.

I dont know why they couldnt get a proper launch in the GT2RS. doesnt it have launch assist like the regular GT2. euro mags have gotten low 10s high 9s 0-124 mph but here they managed to get 0-127 mph in over 11.5 :s

The LFA does well, but you just cant argue for it when it comes to speed.

 

[Guibo]

It should have been done at a proper drag strip and atleast 4 - 5 runs back to back since it did not look like a full 1/4 mile.

From the 2nd run, it looked like both cars were at WOT for 13-14 seconds, so that should be easily a 1/4 mile. On that very same surface (California Speedway's dragstrip), Inside Line's 2012 GT-R ran 11.1 @ 124.1. So the GT-R would still be ahead. The old one, run by Motor Trend on the very same surface, did 11.9 sec @ 120.1 mph, and was caught and thoroughly passed by the LFA at around the 1/8 mile mark. The somewhat surprising result in the desert run wasn't that the GT-R got the jump, but that it looked to pull away well past 5-9 seconds of running.

In a way, I think this surface is a better comparison. It's more comparable to European test surfaces, and more representative of what happens in real-world comparisons on city streets. Some dragstrips give more grip, if you're lucky to catch one right after a racing event where fresh traction compounds are put down. But some can be slippery, when those compounds have had time to accumulate dust, grit, and fluid that don't drift away.

This has got to be one of the more bizarre stops I've seen in a road trip article:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Looks more like a dream vacation, rather than work.

 

[330CIZHP]

Still, once on a roll, LFA should be reeling it back in. No questions. Much like what we said about the GT2 RS vs LFA.

We are talking a 450 - 500 lbs tested weight difference here (2012 GTR tips the scale at 3950 - 4000 lbs) and of all the updated GTR dynos, the best it puts down is 440 wheel HP (compared to 515 wheel HP for LFA).

From the 2nd run, it looked like both cars were at WOT for 13-14 seconds, so that should be easily a 1/4 mile. On that very same surface (California Speedway's dragstrip), Inside Line's 2012 GT-R ran 11.1 @ 124.1. So the GT-R would still be ahead. The old one, run by Motor Trend on the very same surface, did 11.9 sec @ 120.1 mph, and was caught and thoroughly passed by the LFA at around the 1/8 mile mark. The somewhat surprising result in the desert run wasn't that the GT-R got the jump, but that it looked to pull away well past 5-9 seconds of running.

In a way, I think this surface is a better comparison. It's more comparable to European test surfaces, and more representative of what happens in real-world comparisons on city streets. Some dragstrips give more grip, if you're lucky to catch one right after a racing event where fresh traction compounds are put down. But some can be slippery, when those compounds have had time to accumulate dust, grit, and fluid that don't drift away.

This has got to be one of the more bizarre stops I've seen in a road trip article:

Looks more like a dream vacation, rather than work.

 

[lambornima]

Still, once on a roll, LFA should be reeling it back in. No questions. Much like what we said about the GT2 RS vs LFA.

We are talking a 450 - 500 lbs weight difference here (2012 GTR tips the scale at 3950 - 4000 lbs) and of all the updated GTR dynos, the best it puts down is 440 wheel HP (compared to 515 wheel HP for LFA).

I think most tests ive seen have weighed the GTR at about 3850ish so there difference isnt quite as much. Regardless, you are forgetting that the GTR makes more torque and that the car's shift-times are 0.0 vs 0.2 for the LFA. Over 3 shifts, thats over half a second. To put that into perspective, if the LFA's 0-200 time was 11.3 seconds, it could theoretically be 10.7. Infact, a 0.6-0.7 second difference to 200 km/h is the difference between an LP640 and an LP670SV. Thus the GTR's advantage is still pretty significant in that department.

Moreover, one dyno is certainly not conclusive. Especially seeing how the car traps at 123 mph. at a theoretical drivetrain loss of 13%, the car is making 590 hp. the 123 mph trap is not indicative of this.

 

[Guibo]

Still, once on a roll, LFA should be reeling it back in. No questions. Much like what we said about the GT2 RS vs LFA.

We are talking a 450 - 500 lbs tested weight difference here (2012 GTR tips the scale at 3950 - 4000 lbs) and of all the updated GTR dynos, the best it puts down is 440 wheel HP (compared to 515 wheel HP for LFA).

At the risk of comparing different dynos...

A customer GT-R that has recorded similar acceleration numbers has dynoed at 474 whp:
Stock 2012 Nissan GT-R 1/4 mile trap speeds 0-60 - DragTimes.com

On drivetrain losses, 12% is what's accepted among Corvette and Viper guys. But my guess is that the LFA, with its smaller, lightweight clutch/flywheel and likely smaller bearing surfaces (it doesn't have so much torque load to deal with, remember) could be as low as 10%. I'd wager Lexus did far more to reduce friction overall as well. That means ~571 hp and well within a 5% tolerance. Of course, nothing beats pulling the engine in question and testing it on an engine dyno.

The effect of the DCT can't be overlooked. While the LFA is losing speed on each shift, the GT-R loses little (and if Evo's acceleration graphs are anything to go by, it could actually use the crankshaft's rotational inertia to speed up the car momentarily). This could be why, in the video, it appears the LFA might hold steady with the GT-R for a moment, then the GT-R seems to pull away even 9 seconds into the run.
Also, if this video was shot out in Vegas (which I'm guessing it was based on their road trip timeline), then we are looking at 2000' of elevation. F1 engineers estimate a normally aspirated engine loses ~1% for each 100m of elevation. 2000' is about 600m, so the LFA's whp could be as low as 483 whp and 325 wlb-ft at this altitude, while I'm betting the GT-R is making damn near close to the 474 whp and 420 wlb-ft it originally made. Factor in the speed of the DCT, and that's what we could be looking at in that video. (And probably what Walter Rohrl was experiencing when a GT-R reeled him in while driving the Scuderia on the Nordschleife, which is 600-900m above sea level).

All theoretical of course.

 

[Mafalda]

GT2 RS for me.
acceleration in this test is so bad...

 

[330CIZHP]

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests...y_gt500_2012_nissan_gtr_comparison/specs.html

You can see the weight for GTR is almost 3900 lbs.

Again, factor in the weight the differences of several hundred pounds and Lexus LFA has as a serious serious advantage once on a roll.

Your theory about density altitude makes the most sense since N/A engines lose more power at altitude than turbos. Case in point, E9X M3 has proven to be slower in South Africa (5000 ft) than the 335i. Vegas is 2000 feet above sea level so that must be impacting the wheel horsepower drastically.

I am not seeing the GTR pulling away at any point other than when Lexus LFA lets off earlier. My biggest concern is LFA should be reeling it back in (even if it means GTR is still quicker to the 1/4 mile).

I would look to see a detailed comparison between the two cars to read about the tranny.

From what I read on other boards about the people who drove exactly this production Lexus LFA around Infineon, in the fastest shift mode Lexus has revised the transmission over the last year so much that it shifts incredibly fast. In the real world, it is quite possibly the quickest shifting single-clutch automated transmission.

Not to forget, Lamborghini officially now is claiming Avantador will have a single-clutch that can shift 50% quicker than Audi's DSG transmission. They say it is the quickest automated transmission out today. So single-clutch transmissions now are making huge leaps forward.

Again, out of all things, the theory about LFA's drivetrain loss being higher in Vegas due to altitude and LFA engine being N/A makes the most perfect sense.

The effect of the DCT can't be overlooked. While the LFA is losing speed on each shift, the GT-R loses little (and if Evo's acceleration graphs are anything to go by, it could actually use the crankshaft's rotational inertia to speed up the car momentarily). This could be why, in the video, it appears the LFA might hold steady with the GT-R for a moment, then the GT-R seems to pull away even 9 seconds into the run.
Also, if this video was shot out in Vegas (which I'm guessing it was based on their road trip timeline), then we are looking at 2000' of elevation. F1 engineers estimate a normally aspirated engine loses ~1% for each 100m of elevation. 2000' is about 600m, so the LFA's whp could be as low as 483 whp and 325 wlb-ft at this altitude, while I'm betting the GT-R is making damn near close to the 474 whp and 420 wlb-ft it originally made. Factor in the speed of the DCT, and that's what we could be looking at in that video. (And probably what Walter Rohrl was experiencing when a GT-R reeled him in while driving the Scuderia on the Nordschleife, which is 600-900m above sea level).

All theoretical of course.

 

[Soup]

Toyota and Bridgestone tires.

Maybe they need to be taken back to court or get their act straight

 

[Guibo]

I am not seeing the GTR pulling away at any point other than when Lexus LFA lets off earlier.

From what I read on other boards about the people who drove exactly this production Lexus LFA around Infineon, in the fastest shift mode Lexus has revised the transmission over the last year so much that it shifts incredibly fast. In the real world, it is quite possibly the quickest shifting single-clutch automated transmission.

Not to forget, Lamborghini officially now is claiming Avantador will have a single-clutch that can shift 50% quicker than Audi's DSG transmission.

I'm definitely seeing the GT-R pull away even after the LFA gets the initial jump. It stabilizes for a bit around 0:45-0:48, but by the end of the shot, the GT-R has clearly grown smaller in the distance. I haven't followed the comments on the video, but it doesn't seem to me that the Lexus let off any earlier in that shot.
The Aventador may shift quicker, but during that fraction of a second, it's power/wt (like the LFA's) is effectively zero, while the dual clutch cars still have torque being applied through the wheels. Whatever the GT-R's power is, for sure much more of it is reaching the ground than the LFA's at this instance.
In gear, the LFA still has the power/wt advantage, but not torque/wt advantage. When near peak power (and assuming 6% loss for the LFA), that works out to about 300 lb/ft (for ratio of .084 lb-ft/lb) vs the GT-R at 370 lb/ft (.095 lb-ft/lb). It's also working against greater aero drag (CdA of 0.78 vs < 0.71 for the 2012 GT-R).

 

[330CIZHP]

We are seeing the same video very differently even when I went frame by frame on it. Anyway, we can agree to disagree. Tire differences is another thing where LFA's Potenza S001 are categorized as "Max Performance Tires" while the GTR's DSST 600 Dunlop OEM tires are categorized one level up on dry traction as "Extreme Performance Tires", but the Potenza S001 have better wet traction.

At the finish line, I took a snapshot of it and the difference looks no more than 2.5 - 3 car lengths. I would hope to look for a proper track comparison both on straight line numbers and handling in a place closer to sea level. I don't know if it will happen or not.

Regarding the transmission, I have a video that proves the differences of the trans-axle being disconnected in single versus double clutch are so dimunitive that it is negligible where the 458 Italia in a race with e-gear LP550-2 never gained 1 cm during the time the LP550-2 shifting. It was as un-interrupted for the LP550-2 as it was for the 458 Italia since it interval is so small in a fast shifting single-clutch automated box, the LP550-2 never fell back 1 inch. In my opinion, DCT's major advantages are in daily driving. I could imagine how good the Avantador transmission would be considering Gallardo LP e-gear transmission is now a few years old.

I'm definitely seeing the GT-R pull away even after the LFA gets the initial jump. It stabilizes for a bit around 0:45-0:48, but by the end of the shot, the GT-R has clearly grown smaller in the distance. I haven't followed the comments on the video, but it doesn't seem to me that the Lexus let off any earlier in that shot.
The Aventador may shift quicker, but during that fraction of a second, it's power/wt (like the LFA's) is effectively zero, while the dual clutch cars still have torque being applied through the wheels. Whatever the GT-R's power is, for sure much more of it is reaching the ground than the LFA's at this instance.
In gear, the LFA still has the power/wt advantage, but not torque/wt advantage. When near peak power (and assuming 6% loss for the LFA), that works out to about 300 lb/ft (for ratio of .084 lb-ft/lb) vs the GT-R at 370 lb/ft (.095 lb-ft/lb). It's also working against greater aero drag (CdA of 0.78 vs < 0.71 for the 2012 GT-R).

 

[Guibo]

At the finish line, I took a snapshot of it and the difference looks no more than 2.5 - 3 car lengths.

The GT-R starts with only about 1.5 carlengths (similar to the old GT-R vs LFA test done by Motor Trend). If it reached 3 carlengths by the end, that means the GT-R was certainly pulling away.

I've seen the same 458 vs LP550 video and didn't seem to me that the Ferrari was losing any speed during the shifts. Such videos aren't necessarily a great indicator of shift speeds (though they can be when differences are great enough), the camera may be jolted such that you can't really tell what's going on. A better way would be to compare VBox traces of velocity vs time (or velocity vs distance). Check the 458 vs LP570 acceleration chart from R&T here:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezf...lication/5121d33d79730085db1abeb3d5e4aad0.pdf

You'll see in the lower gears that while there is a slight delay in the 458's shifts, once it gets into the next gear, the acceleration curve increases for quite a bit. And the shifts at the higher gears definitely jolt the car into higher speeds; ie, no loss in velocity and a momentary increase in velocity. This could be setting-dependent (Sport vs Race), and depending on the vehicle. In the case of Evo's GT-R test against the GT3, we can see there is certainly no drop in speed between shifts; in fact, there is a momentary increase in speed:

 

[330CIZHP]

Feature Module Video Player

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Levi68]

The LF-A is IMO simply the best sounding sportscar today. A pity it is overpriced, but it worth the engine.

 

[330CIZHP]

InsideLine Lexus LFA vs Porsche GT2 RS dyno numbers:

Seems like they are 65 wheel HP apart on the same dyno, same day, same time. Porsche is also RR layout so it has less drivetrain loss than FR layout. LFA has much shorter gearing (due to the extra 40% rev band), it makes most of its torque through gearing multipliers.


Dyno-Tested: 2011 Porsche 911 GT2 RS

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Simply put, it was a powerful day. First we ran the 2012 Lexus LFA on the rollers of the Dynojet 248 chassis dyno, and immediately following it was the 2011 Porsche 911 GT2 RS. Yes, that RS, the limited-production powerhouse of power with power.
Each car is indeed the most horsepower-laden production vehicle ever turned out by their respective automaker. For Porsche, that's saying a lot. For Toyota, well, it says not quite as much.
You've seen the LFA's dyno result. So how did Porsche's latest turbopanzer fare? Hit the jump.


What's that? The humdrum, rear-drive, turbocharged Porsche 911 GT2 is weaksauce; a little too soft in the middle for you? Here's your solution, Clanky McBrassballs -- the GT2 RS subtracts weight and adds power (plus a hefty sum to the window sticker) to the tune of 620 horsepower and 516 lb-ft as measured at the flywheel.
Think of the GT2 RS as the swan song for not only the 997-based 911 but also the "Metzger" engine, the motorsports version of the Porsche flat-six. Today, the Metzger engine is found only in GT3/GT3 RS/GT2 and GT2 RS versions of the 911. And while Porsche cranks out special- and limited-edition versions of the 997 at an ever-increasing pace as the sun sets on this generation of 911, the GT2 RS will go down as the most powerful production Metzger of them all.


Honest, all the Porsche dorks swear up and down that there's an engine in the trunk.
The Metzger engine is an entirely different architecture than that of the Boxster/Cayman and garden-variety 911s (including the Turbo), and it displaces "only" 3.6 liters and employs conventional port fuel injection to the Turbo's 3.8 liters and direct injection. Yet when Porsche builds their hardest-core models, they consistently tap the Metzger engine for duty.
It's difficult to argue with this:


That's 580 horsepower and 518 lb-ft as measured at the wheels on California's "premium" 91 octane. Yeah, all the ponies are in the stable. And how. Torque hovers right around 500 lb-ft from 3500 to nearly 6000 rpm and barely tapers off as it runs into the fuel cut, resulting in a crushingly wide and flexible powerband.
However, since nitpicking is what I do, I expected the boost to rise faster than it did (see the ramp in torque up to 3500 rpm) as the GT2 RS has fancy variable-nozzle turbos. To be fair, the boost (and torque) will rise sooner in a taller gear, but 140 mph at the top of fourth puts plenty enough heat in the tires on a dyno, thank you.
The lack of rotating inertia is noticeable even on the dyno. This car forces you to really be on your game when you shift, else the revs rise or fall too much and you feel like a tool. Beyond that, this engine is a total pussycat -- you can easily creep away from a stoplight or plunk around at low revs without a hiccup in the power delivery, and the clutch is substantial but totally progressive.
Its engine note isn't much to write home about. There's a flat, pissed-off roar as the GT2 RS absolutely pulverizes the rollers, and that's it. It's not as dumpy-sounding as a Viper, but it definitely doesn't tingle the spine the way Porsche's normally aspirated flat-sixes do. Then again, normally aspirated engines can't produce the torque that a turbocharged engine can. Life is such a series of tradeoffs.


This car points up the importance of speed in making power. Namely, the dyno fan situated at the nose of the car is too directional to supply adequate air to the intercooler ducts atop the rear fenders -- on one run the car lost 70 horsepower as it tried to reconcile the high manifold temperatures with the ambient air temperature. Figuring a small child was inadvertedly jammed in each intercooler duct, it dialed back boost and throttle as a self-preservation mechanism.
Once I pointed little squirrel-cage fans into the intercooler ducts, all the power returned, and consistently so. Out in the wild it'll have Mother Nature supplying literally all the air in the world to the intercoolers. Just keep those damned rugrats from cramming themselves into the rear fenders and you'll be all set.
As for our mega-power day on the dyno, here's how the 911 GT2 RS stacks up to the Lexus LFA:



Although the LFA revs some 40% higher than the GT2 RS, in fourth gear both cars reach their respective rev limits at 140 mph. It turns out the LFA's gearing is much shorter than the Porsche's. How's that for two completely different means arriving at the same end, speed-wise?
--Jason Kavanagh, Engineering Editor