Vs EVO: Ferrari 599 GTO vs Lexus LFA

[Mafalda]

That is seriously a ridiculous post, mafalda. Could you be a bit more biased?? So just because LFA beat the 599 GTB HGTE in acceleration tests by a tad bit on the same day and same elevation (South Wales), means there was something mechanically wrong the 599 GTB HGTE then??

If how you continue to bring in your QR magazine review as the holly grail for the transmission and disregard the actual real world dyno accelerometer measurements, what videos audibly tell anyone using common sense and all the other reviews then I ask you why is LFA one of the quickest cars around a challenging high-speed race track around Nurburgring clocking a 7:22 on a conservative run despite not being on Corsa or Cup tires?? What about the record quickest laps ever on Circuit De Nevers, France and Goodwood race track??

Not every car is built for numbers. If Lexus truly wanted the best numbers, they could have started by fitting it with custom-built Corsa or Cup or Super Sport tires, but instead they went with relatively modest setup of Potenza tires that worked well for road noise levels, far more resistant to hydroplaning and daily comfort since daily driving was a priority on the standard LFA.

Many of these test numbers clocking such as, mid-11s in the 1/4 mile were achieved without using the launch control and any Corsa or Pilot Cup tires or other high grip tires. Does that not give you enough hint of how quick the car is??

You have been through all of that before in the LFA thread. Are we really going to have all of that debate again??

View attachment 5838abb9842123dbec8bce4092429c52.jpg

View attachment ba595ac6628d9b23ad8910845034e899.jpg

"Not every car is built for numbers"

...why do you post numbers?

I've said 16 months ago: I don't know why , but the LFA, as like as the GTR, it cannot be criticized....
I changed my mind partially about the LFA, and I had the decency, and modesty, saying "I partly wrong."
BUT there are things that do not convince me, now as 16 months ago, until proven otherwise, I stay in my mind.
1. Price
2. gearbox
and that's why I do not accept that someone tries to convince systematically using "two weights and two measures"
You can build a mausoleum, and make sacrifices for the LFA, if you like. I do not. I am free to NOT do this, or do I have?
However AMuS has just compared LFAvs R8GT.
acceleration... the usual data (0-200 >12s*), the LFA has also won @ Ring: congratulations, because the LFA standard tyres, the R8 the Pzero Corsa.but for the rest, according AMuS, the LFA has lost the comparison under EVERY aspects.
but I bet, suddenly the numbers will count a little 'more and subjective judgments, sudden loss of important

(*) of course about the lfa's fastest accelerations datas, I've never heard about "Lexus media manipulations"...

 

[330CIZHP]

acceleration... the usual data (0-200 >12s*), the LFA has also won @ Ring: congratulations, because the LFA standard tyres, the R8 the Pzero Corsa.but for the rest, according AMuS, the LFA has lost the comparison under EVERY aspects.
but I bet, suddenly the numbers will count a little 'more and subjective judgments, sudden loss of important

(*) of course about the lfa's fastest accelerations datas, I've never heard about "Lexus media manipulations"...

LOL@ Lexus Media manipulation. Yes, I heard that about "other" brands, but never Lexus. There is no evidence whatsoever. Lexus cars have always been placed near the bottom in most comparo (understandibly so, since most of them are quite bland) and slammed by the media in nearly every comparison I read (other than the IS-F). So CarAndDriver never have awarded Lexus a win in the last 17 years placing the cars mostly midpack or near the bottom. Here comes the LFA and wins against a Ferrari awarding Lexus its first win in nearly two decades so now suddenly it has become media manipulation??? Nice way to taint their hardwork of 9 years.

The 0 - 60 mph numbers are poorer than expected since 0 - 60 mph (or 100 km/h) are all about traction and grip from tires. The first 60 feet are always about how much traction the car has off the line and LFA does not grip well off the line unless used with launch control on a good surface. The video below shows LFA smoking the tires all the way through first gear to 9500 rpm, if dropped from a modest 4500 rpm without launch control.

Regarding the AMS comparison of 200 km/h@12 secs, you completely ignored the distance covered to the finish point, which is truly matters. Their 400 meters are almost identical at 11.9 secs vs 11.8 secs (with the LFA being without Corsa tires). They also mentioned only launch control being used for the R8 V10, but no mentioning of how LFA got off the line. Both cars got from 100 - 200 km/h in 8 seconds flat so what is your point??

This is what DeDe said translation wise

"1st place - R8 GT: easy to drive with a lot of traction, comfortable and safe behaviour - on and out of the racetrack.
2nd place - LFA: top engine, handling and agility, but it struggles on public roads."

I completely respect their decision and which one they preferred. It is more than obvious, they selected the R8 GT as the winner on subjective criteria of AWD safe traction on and off the track, inspite of the Corsa tires find it more comfortable and most likely LFA's overly stiff chassis and suspension that causes issues on public roads, but then again no one will drive it every day anyway.

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

 

[Guibo]

BUT there are things that do not convince me, now as 16 months ago, until proven otherwise, I stay in my mind.
1. Price
2. gearbox
the LFA, if you like. I do not. I am free to NOT do this, or do I have?
However AMuS has just compared LFAvs R8GT.
acceleration... the usual data (0-200 >12s*), the LFA has also won @ Ring: congratulations, because the LFA standard tyres, the R8 the Pzero Corsa.but for the rest, according AMuS, the LFA has lost the comparison under EVERY aspects.
but I bet, suddenly the numbers will count a little 'more and subjective judgments, sudden loss of important

(*) of course about the lfa's fastest accelerations datas, I've never heard about "Lexus media manipulations"...

You can criticize the price, but why no consideration for exclusivity? I don't think anyone in their right mind expects a Reventon to be much better than a Murcielago, even though it costs 3-4x's more. Would you criticize the Aston One-77 on price without taking into account that only 77 will be built?

About the AMuS test, that is not strictly true. The LFA matched or beat the R8 GT in Power Production, Handling, Brake Feel, and Driving Dynamics. It curiously lost a point in 190-0 braking, even though it stopped shorter. And 0 points for Price? What would a Reventon or Huayra score? -15? It's not surprising to me that a Lexus would lose in a German test. This is not a knock on the R8 GT by any means. The standard R8 was already rated among the best for driving dynamics, better than even its cousin the Lambo, and the R8 GT takes that up a notch. That a first-ever legit supercar attempt by Lexus falls short in a German test means "it's the most useless supercar ever?" Let's not kid ourselves. The German tests have typically concentrated on objective numbers, with the winners invariably picked on a numbers-based system. That's fine, if you choose your cars based purely on numbers.

Tell me more about this "Lexus media manipulations."

 

[Mafalda]

For Guibo and 330
there is nothing to say: I don't believe there was any manipulations from Lexus (You have never heardabout "irony "...? ) .... I was just noticing that, as usual, ONLY for mnfr the best tests are stigmatizied as "media-manipulations", while the other mnfrs, or are evidences how "it could do better", or is justified with "good form and weather"
for Guibo: full according with you about the price: 15/15 vs 0/15 is a joke. a Reventon'd be ... -31!!!
even so, the R8 wins 15 times, the LFA just 4 times.
and now, " I break a lance in favor of the LFA", this result is a surprise for me too..

 

[Guibo]

mafalda, I'm very aware of your sarcasm and how you bring it into damn near every conversation even when not warranted. And in this case, it is again not warranted by your own admission as there seems to be absolutely zero evidence of Lexus manipulating the results. If you're here to bring up "media manipulations" for ONLY "the one" manufacturer (for which there is an overwhelming suggestion of such manipulation the likes of which even you cannot identify in another mfr), then that marks you out as something of a troll.

So, you admit the R8 GT wins in not all categories after all, thereby refuting your earlier claim, which is in line with your claim of "no good result" for the LFA in Auto. Even if the Audi did indeed win every single category, does that prove the Lexus is "the most useless supercar ever"?

 

[Mafalda]

mafalda, I'm very aware of your sarcasm and how you bring it into damn near every conversation even when not warranted. And in this case, it is again not warranted by your own admission as there seems to be absolutely zero evidence of Lexus manipulating the results. If you're here to bring up "media manipulations" for ONLY "the one" manufacturer (for which there is an overwhelming suggestion of such manipulation the likes of which even you cannot identify in another mfr), then that marks you out as something of a troll.

So, you admit the R8 GT wins in not all categories after all, thereby refuting your earlier claim, which is in line with your claim of "no good result" for the LFA in Auto. Even if the Audi did indeed win every single category, does that prove the Lexus is "the most useless supercar ever"?

R8 GT wins in every MAIN categories. according with AMuS, there's no match...
it, at best, proves how the LFA is not the supercar perfect supercar... ok, you never said "the LFA is perfect ".... you have just strenuously denied any kind of criticism about Lexus no deficiencies = perfection...

"no good results" is not an interpretation, is a fact.
- only 293 Kph because "acceleration is too slow @ high speed";
- 1 Km 21.34 with 560ps, slower than 997.1 TT 480ps, R8 V10 525ps and GT-R V-Spec 492ps;
- hoplap (tested in a nice day of srping) is slower, for ex., than GT-R MY09 (Bridgestone), Audi RS5 450ps, and just 0.9s faster than a 997.1 TT 480ps (tested in winter, partially wet and very cold!).
Auto clearly specifies how "the sensations are better than chrono", and this is surely is a good thing, but the results still disappointing

 

[330CIZHP]

R8 GT wins in every MAIN categories. according with AMuS, there's no match...
it, at best, proves how the LFA is not the supercar perfect supercar... ok, you never said "the LFA is perfect ".... you have just strenuously denied any kind of criticism about Lexus no deficiencies = perfection...

"no good results" is not an interpretation, is a fact.
- only 293 Kph because "acceleration is too slow @ high speed";
- 1 Km 21.34 with 560ps, slower than 997.1 TT 480ps, R8 V10 525ps and GT-R V-Spec 492ps;
- hoplap (tested in a nice day of srping) is slower, for ex., than GT-R MY09 (Bridgestone), Audi RS5 450ps, and just 0.9s faster than a 997.1 TT 480ps (tested in winter, partially wet and very cold!).
Auto clearly specifies how "the sensations are better than chrono", and this is surely is a good thing, but the results still disappointing

Can you stop talking already and stop ruining this thread??? That is painfully bad to read.

Again, your sole basis is some bad data on Lexus LFA. Give me a car name and I will find you some very bad data on that car. This test is one example where LFA did 4.2 seconds and 599 GTO did 3.8 seconds. You always completely take things out of context. That is what is called bench racing 101. You are sitting behind your keyboard and taking two different numbers from different times and different conditions and pitting them against each other and twisting it to suit your argument.

You previously accused Lexus of "manipulating the media" without a shred of single evidence to back up your claim when the reality points quite to the contrary since Lexus gets regularly thrashed by the media on most of their cars. What credibility is left there?

Like I said Mafalda before, how else other than "biased opinion" can calling LFA "a disappointment" be construed and also a figment of your imagination. MotorSports France got 1000 meters from the LFA in 21.2 seconds tested with a terminal speed of 260 km/h in 0 degree freezing temperatures and with a 4.4 seconds 0 - 100 km/h due to the freezing temperatures weak grip off the line. Why did you disregard this test then?? Still 260 km/h in 21.2 seconds by 1000 meters is telling of the quickness of the car. Again, these variables cannot be controlled.

Regarding LFA being "slower" than R8 V10, are you serious???? In Speed channel head-to-head battle including a 1 mile (1600 meters or 1.6 km) drag race in almost ideal conditions and also 0 - 100 mph (160 km/h), a picture is worth a thousand words. Again, key is the same condition, place and time. That alone contradicts your claims and blows your theory out of the water.

The fact you used "some" test where LFA somehow mysteriously is slower than a 450 PS RS5 around the track (when every other single test proves otherwise) shows your propensity to believe tests that despite defying common sense, provided they support your argument even if they make no sense whatsoever. How on earth is that possible??? It only proves there was something grossly wrong the test and it being shoddy at best and the test has ZERO credibility. That particular test you are talking about, in no shape or form speaks for the capacities of Lexus LFA, but the severe limitations of the testing methodology and inadequacies to control the variables from test to test itself.

By that token, am I supposed to draw the conclusion that in the LFA vs R8 V10 GT comparo, LFA at best is capable of 7:49 and the R8 V10 GT is only capable of 7:50.9 making them slower than say, M3 GTS' 7:50??? Does that make Audi a liar for claiming "better than 7:26 lap time" and Lexus for claiming "low 7:20s for standard LFA". Ofcourse not for exactly the same reason I stated above.

This thread has gone off-topic enough already. This is about Lexus LFA vs 599 GTO anyway. That is where it needs to be.

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

View attachment 1081c3540e321c43d24a2cafada94c18.png

 

[Guibo]

R8 GT wins in every MAIN categories. according with AMuS, there's no match...
it, at best, proves how the LFA is not the supercar perfect supercar... ok, you never said "the LFA is perfect ".... you have just strenuously denied any kind of criticism about Lexus no deficiencies = perfection...

"no good results" is not an interpretation, is a fact.
- only 293 Kph because "acceleration is too slow @ high speed";
- 1 Km 21.34 with 560ps, slower than 997.1 TT 480ps, R8 V10 525ps and GT-R V-Spec 492ps;
- hoplap (tested in a nice day of srping) is slower, for ex., than GT-R MY09 (Bridgestone), Audi RS5 450ps, and just 0.9s faster than a 997.1 TT 480ps (tested in winter, partially wet and very cold!).
Auto clearly specifies how "the sensations are better than chrono", and this is surely is a good thing, but the results still disappointing

MAIN categories are broken down for a reason. That is because, by themselves, they tell you almost nothing about what a car is like to drive. It's the same for cold, objective numbers. Are not power development, handling, brake feel, and driving dynamics important in experiencing a supercar? Where is the category for exclusivity or exquisite, bespoke componentry, which are also among the main draws of a supercar? Once again, you fail to answer a direct question. Therefore, I should perhaps conclude that you really do think any car that fails to match an R8 GT on points score is the "most useless supercar ever."

Wrong. I never said "perfection," nor did I mean it. I have already explicitly said before: I can understand how some will not like this car. I only ask: Can you understand why they make the compromises they did? I do. You are incapable, it seems.
You will also not see me call a car "most useless ever" simply because I refuse to understand what it is about. Do you see me slagging off the GTO? No. Do you see me claiming Ferrari are inferior, or don't know how to engineer a car? No. Unlike you, I can understand the compromises Ferrari have chosen for the GTO.

All those other cars...care to talk about AWD grip? The GT-R has DCT, much lower drag number (lower drag for the Porsche and Audi V10, both of which have better weight distributions for launching).

Compare the launch
0-100 kph
LFA: 4.18
GT-R: 3.88
Spec V: 3.79

And after
400-1000m
LFA: 9.38s
GT-R: 9.74
Spec V: 9.61 (Automobilismo)

You also initially ignored how well the LFA did in cornering and braking on the track, despite lack of R-compound tires. Nurburgring Edition of the LFA will be on the intermediate (not fastest, Dunlop) tire of the GT-R (RE070R). Think about that for a second. Also think of this: the regular ("slow") LFA is on Bridgestone S001, same model as one specified for the 458. Yet, where are the tests of the 458 on S001? Nearly all tests are on top-rated-in-class PS2 or new superior MPSS (which Ferrari themselves claim is as fast as a Cup tire in GTO press reviews). You are still so certain that Lexus were so intent on numbers with this car? LOL.

Auto clearly specifies how sensations are better than chrono...is that not what Lexus set out to produce? Was that not their aim? Or do you contend that they were intent to produce merely fast numbers, somehow buying a 458 to benchmark? I have asked you proof of what they benchmarked, as a reference for objective numbers. Where is it?
Auto clearly specifies that, yet you did not mention many of these sensations (engine/throttle response, sound, etc.) until I specifically questioned why you omitted these findings. Why would you not mention these things, if they were so clearly specified? To continue an agenda against the LFA? It's ok to twist your perception of a car's worth around your values, but don't pretend that those are the same as what the mfr intended. Just acknowledge that, this late in the game, you still cannot comprehend it, even though it has been painstakingly explained to you on too many occasions.
You are quite sure most supercar owners will test 10/10ths ability of their cars on public roads (where 99% will spend 99% of their time)? This goes to the core issue of what a supercar is actually used for by the vast majority of their customers.

 

[Mafalda]

MAIN categories are broken down for a reason. That is because, by themselves, they tell you almost nothing about what a car is like to drive. It's the same for cold, objective numbers. Are not power development, handling, brake feel, and driving dynamics important in experiencing a supercar? Where is the category for exclusivity or exquisite, bespoke componentry, which are also among the main draws of a supercar? Once again, you fail to answer a direct question. Therefore, I should perhaps conclude that you really do think any car that fails to match an R8 GT on points score is the "most useless supercar ever."

Wrong. I never said "perfection," nor did I mean it. I have already explicitly said before: I can understand how some will not like this car. I only ask: Can you understand why they make the compromises they did? I do. You are incapable, it seems.
You will also not see me call a car "most useless ever" simply because I refuse to understand what it is about. Do you see me slagging off the GTO? No. Do you see me claiming Ferrari are inferior, or don't know how to engineer a car? No. Unlike you, I can understand the compromises Ferrari have chosen for the GTO.

All those other cars...care to talk about AWD grip? The GT-R has DCT, much lower drag number (lower drag for the Porsche and Audi V10, both of which have better weight distributions for launching).

Compare the launch
0-100 kph
LFA: 4.18
GT-R: 3.88
Spec V: 3.79

And after
400-1000m
LFA: 9.38s
GT-R: 9.74
Spec V: 9.61 (Automobilismo)

You also initially ignored how well the LFA did in cornering and braking on the track, despite lack of R-compound tires. Nurburgring Edition of the LFA will be on the intermediate (not fastest, Dunlop) tire of the GT-R (RE070R). Think about that for a second. Also think of this: the regular ("slow") LFA is on Bridgestone S001, same model as one specified for the 458. Yet, where are the tests of the 458 on S001? Nearly all tests are on top-rated-in-class PS2 or new superior MPSS (which Ferrari themselves claim is as fast as a Cup tire in GTO press reviews). You are still so certain that Lexus were so intent on numbers with this car? LOL.

Auto clearly specifies how sensations are better than chrono...is that not what Lexus set out to produce? Was that not their aim? Or do you contend that they were intent to produce merely fast numbers, somehow buying a 458 to benchmark? I have asked you proof of what they benchmarked, as a reference for objective numbers. Where is it?
Auto clearly specifies that, yet you did not mention many of these sensations (engine/throttle response, sound, etc.) until I specifically questioned why you omitted these findings. Why would you not mention these things, if they were so clearly specified? To continue an agenda against the LFA? It's ok to twist your perception of a car's worth around your values, but don't pretend that those are the same as what the mfr intended. Just acknowledge that, this late in the game, you still cannot comprehend it, even though it has been painstakingly explained to you on too many occasions.
You are quite sure most supercar owners will test 10/10ths ability of their cars on public roads (where 99% will spend 99% of their time)? This goes to the core issue of what a supercar is actually used for by the vast majority of their customers.

"Auto clearly specifies how sensations are better than chrono...is that not what Lexus set out to produce?"
Why Lexus claims the "fabulous-chrono" 7.25 @ Ring?

"you did not mention many of these sensations (engine/throttle response, sound, etc.) until I specifically questioned why you omitted these findings"
I don't omitted, but just forgot, 'cause I've read the article very quickly. I've also said it and edited the post soon. ..Why you omitted what I've already answered?
...and at the beginning I've also "omitted" when Auto said "the LF-A has more than the 458 just the exclusivity" ... Who is the omitter here?

tyres are a choice: If the Lexus has decided to put the Bridgestones, is a choice of them.
RWD and AWD is a choice too, and don't forget the LFA is the only modern supercar without a real launch control: this is a explanation, but NOT a justification...
eve so
"400-1000m
LFA: 9.38s
GT-R: 9.74
"
mmhmhm, 0.36s faster than a GT-R, -71ps (tested @ 489ps) and much more heavier... applause!
compare now the LFA with a LP560 (similar engine, same power, similar weight, similar gearbox)
LFA 400-1000m 9.38s; from 200 Kph to 255
Lp560 (QR) 400 -1000 m 9.16s; from 203 to 262 Kph....

" You are incapable, it seems."
I'm incapable to understand why you're still using two weights and two measures every fu*** times....

 

[330CIZHP]

More bench racing of the worst kind. I think I am going to have to get a PM to step into this thread and bring this back on-topic.

Where exactly is that head to head LP560-4 comparison you are quoting there?? What about the Corsa R compound racing tires on the LP560-4?? Yes, I am fully aware you picked two numbers from different tests that suited your biased argument.

What about MotorSports France's 0 - 260 km/h in 21.2 seconds. 100 - 260 km/h in 16.8 seconds? Yet, again you picked the worst time where LFA hit 255 km/h by 1000 meters and deliberately chose to ignore the one where it hit 260 km/h by the 1000 meter mark despite me quoting it before. We saw the results of the 560 HP R8 GT vs LFA comparison in AMS. Should I post the 1000 meter results for the R8 GT from a different test then??

Regarding the 2009 Nissan GTR vs LFA, MotorTrend had clearly said once past 60 mph, Lexus LFA walked away:

"Subsequent testing proves the LFA to be dynamically superior to the GT-R in nearly every category. Any doubts that the Lexus is anything but a legitimate supercar are absolutely gutted on the test tarmac. Only supercars manage to brake from 60 in under 94 feet and pull 1.05 g on the skidpad. Sure, the GT-R retains bragging rights to 60 mph due to all wheel drive and shorter gearing, but to triple digits and beyond, it is all LFA. Then there is the way it handles our figure eight."

Further proof, one should never pick two numbers from different tests and compare them.

LFA was never built to be a straight line drag racing car and it could not be more clearer. All of their R&D went into building it to be the most capable track car they could build without compromising daily driving comfort.

Using your analogy, if acceleration numbers are everything then ZR-1 on cup tires should be better than just about any Lamborghini out today since it is much cheaper and it matches or outperforms all Lambos in almost every department. Wonder where is the criticism of 'chrono' versus numbers for that??

AWD is a driveline component integral to the internals of the car while tires are like shoes that can be swapped in a matter of 10 minutes. See the difference?? That is why tire brands offer alternative higher performing tire sets than OEM tires for sports cars. Completely night and day.

Also, LFA does have a launch control system (it is being used in the Speed channel R8 V10 and EVO GTO videos), but not a lot of testers were allowed to use it.

"Auto clearly specifies how sensations are better than chrono...is that not what Lexus set out to produce?"
Why Lexus claims the "fabulous-chrono" 7.25 @ Ring?

"you did not mention many of these sensations (engine/throttle response, sound, etc.) until I specifically questioned why you omitted these findings"
I don't omitted, but just forgot, 'cause I've read the article very quickly. I've also said it and edited the post soon. ..Why you omitted what I've already answered?
...and at the beginning I've also "omitted" when Auto said "the LF-A has more than the 458 just the exclusivity" ... Who is the omitter here?

tyres are a choice: If the Lexus has decided to put the Bridgestones, is a choice of them.
RWD and AWD is a choice too, and don't forget the LFA is the only modern supercar without a real launch control: this is a explanation, but NOT a justification...
eve so
"400-1000m
LFA: 9.38s
GT-R: 9.74
"
mmhmhm, 0.36s faster than a GT-R, -71ps (tested @ 489ps) and much more heavier... applause!
compare now the LFA with a LP560 (similar engine, same power, similar weight, similar gearbox)
LFA 400-1000m 9.38s; from 200 Kph to 255
Lp560 (QR) 400 -1000 m 9.16s; from 203 to 262 Kph....

 

[Guibo]

"Auto clearly specifies how sensations are better than chrono...is that not what Lexus set out to produce?"
Why Lexus claims the "fabulous-chrono" 7.25 @ Ring?

"you did not mention many of these sensations (engine/throttle response, sound, etc.) until I specifically questioned why you omitted these findings"
I don't omitted, but just forgot, 'cause I've read the article very quickly. I've also said it and edited the post soon. ..Why you omitted what I've already answered?
...and at the beginning I've also "omitted" when Auto said "the LF-A has more than the 458 just the exclusivity" ... Who is the omitter here?

tyres are a choice: If the Lexus has decided to put the Bridgestones, is a choice of them.
RWD and AWD is a choice too, and don't forget the LFA is the only modern supercar without a real launch control: this is a explanation, but NOT a justification...
eve so
"400-1000m
LFA: 9.38s
GT-R: 9.74
"
mmhmhm, 0.36s faster than a GT-R, -71ps (tested @ 489ps) and much more heavier... applause!
compare now the LFA with a LP560 (similar engine, same power, similar weight, similar gearbox)
LFA 400-1000m 9.38s; from 200 Kph to 255
Lp560 (QR) 400 -1000 m 9.16s; from 203 to 262 Kph....

" You are incapable, it seems."
I'm incapable to understand why you're still using two weights and two measures every fu*** times....

They only mention a 'Ring time when pressed, as a measure of what is acheived after everything else (no turbos, no DCT, no R-compounds, only RWD). You seriously still think they care about lap times like Nissan/GM/Porsche do?

I did not omit anything. You edited your post only after I mentioned it.

I'm not aware that launch control was ever a pre-requisite for supercardom. Did the Zonda F ever have launch control? How about the Huayra? It is a neat feature to have and takes much out of the hands of the driver, but IMO it's not essential to have on a supercar. An E46 M3 is no more a supercar because it has it, nor a CGT any less because it doesn't.

-71 PS, but how about +136Nm in favor of the Nissan? Nissan's engine suffers some measure of turbo lag off-boost, sounds more like a vacuum cleaner and doesn't rev anywhere near 9000 rpm. See? Choices.
At higher speed, the weight difference is less an issue than drag force: 0.78 CdA for the LFA vs 0.71 for the GT-R. Then the dual-clutch...Quit talking like the LFA has every advantage, because it doesn't.

LP560-4 has a slightly larger overall displacement, with emphasis on torque. As a result, 540Nm vs 480Nm. And the engine sounds nowhere near as deranged as the LFA's, and doesn't rev as high. Choices. Also, look at the drag: 0.67 vs 0.78 for the LFA. Is that so similar?
Where is the compromise? Well, look at some high-speed corners of the Nordschleife in the supertest: No R-compound on the LFA, yet it takes the very fast Klostertal 1 kink at +8 kph and +0.15g. LP570-4 is clearly faster than the LFA in a straight line, yet slower in same test by AutoBild on the 'Ring, even with Corsa tires...

Where are the weights and two measures? Do you see me criticizing a Ferrari for being slower than other cars, or concluding "is the most useless supercar" since Porsche/GM/Nissan can deliver similar track performances for less? Do you see me giving a crap that the SLS's DCT is worse than competitors' transmissions? It might be worse than others, but that doesn't make it a defining fault or "problem" IMO. By not answering those questions, and continuing to rehash the same old tired arguments even though they were addressed before, you're basically admitting to trolling behavior.

Try this easy question: Do you think most supercar owners really give a crap about all of these numbers? Yes/no?

 

[donkeykong]

Try this easy question: Do you think most supercar owners really give a crap about all of these numbers? Yes/no?

I'll answer that for you,no. I think the driving experience along with having something thats exclusive over shawdows it.

 

[Sunny]

Guys, you should let it go. If he is convinced LFA is the "most useless supercar ever" that is his prerogative. If he doesn't have the wherewithal to appreciate it, his loss and quite frankly reflects on him than the car.

 

[Guibo]

I'll answer that for you,no. I think the driving experience along with having something thats exclusive over shawdows it.

Agreed.
See, mafalda? It's not that hard.


Point taken, Sunny. But I've given him multiple opportunities to discuss this privately, precisely to avoid his same tired arguments being rehashed ad nauseum on the forums. And by rehashing, I'm talking about something we've discusses only just last month (LP560-4 vs LFA performance):
http://www.germancarforum.com/lexus...upercar-production-version-29.html#post525932
W...T...F?
He's entitled to his opinion that it's the "most useless supercar ever," but if he's going to make accusations of "two weights and two measures," he should be prepared to explain himself.

 

[Sunny]

Agreed.
See, mafalda? It's not that hard.


Point taken, Sunny. But I've given him multiple opportunities to discuss this privately, precisely to avoid his same tired arguments being rehashed ad nauseum on the forums. And by rehashing, I'm talking about something we've discusses only just last month (LP560-4 vs LFA performance):
http://www.germancarforum.com/lexus...upercar-production-version-29.html#post525932
W...T...F?
He's entitled to his opinion that it's the "most useless supercar ever," but if he's going to make accusations of "two weights and two measures," he should be prepared to explain himself.

But that is the awesomeness of the internet, you don't have to explain yourself, you just have to wait for the next thread...

 

[Merc1]

I don't get it either, this is THE Lexus of all time so far, the car is an epic stroke for a brand/company that produces snore boxes for the masses. The engine sound alone should speak to an enthusiast no matter what badge is on it.


M

 

[330CIZHP]

I don't get it either, this is THE Lexus of all time so far, the car is an epic stroke for a brand/company that produces snore boxes for the masses. The engine sound alone should speak to an enthusiast no matter what badge is on it.


M

Don't know if you saw this. This video was posted by Soup in the LFA thread of the currently on-going 'Best Driver's Car 2011' by Motor Trend competition.

It is quite possibly the best video of the LFA ever capturing the sound using multiple angle cameras and audio equipment.

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