LFA [Official] Lexus LF-A Supercar (Production Version)

[330CIZHP]

Obviously, their argument is only based on what their subjective impressions are. Because LFA's shifts are much more "violent" than the other single clutch transmission and double clutch transmissions, they did not like the jerking of the transmission at all. Not factual data. The fact that the factual graph data and videos where there is no gap/lag during the shifts does not support their argument is more than enough proof that it is just their subjective impression just like the "winding road" impression I posted of Tsuchiya San who called it his "favorite gearbox" and there is no truth whatsoever to "3 times".

The best way I can explain it is that they did not understand the shift logic that LFA's transmission varies the shift speed even in the fastest shift mode based on the throttle positioning.

Once there is an actual head to head acceleration comparison of LP560-4 and LFA then we can talk. Many factors can influence the outcome. Not the least of which is tires (Pirelli P Zero Corsa on LP560-4).

I cannot understand why if a magazine writes "LFA has the best engine sound"... ie reliable, but if writes "LFA ihas the worst gearbox in its class"... it's not reliable...
a lots of magazine don't like it, that's all

 

[Mafalda]

pzero corsa can just cut 0.1 - 0.2s and start....

 

[330CIZHP]

pzero corsa can just cut 0.1 - 0.2s and start....

Super-slicks result in a 4% improvement in dry asphalt as an edge over non slick tires. That is what Michelin officially puts for the comparable Cup tires. In US tests, their 0 - 60 mph, 1/4 mile numbers have been only 0.2 - 0.4 secs apart.

 

[emve]

You calling me a liar is quite pathetic. I should really be reporting you for getting personal like that.

I would recommend you see the SportAuto test 0 - 300 - 0 KM/H of the ZR-1 and it did 0 - 100 km/h in 4.2 seconds.

Regarding the AutoCar data I posted, go read up the November 2010 edition of Autocar 0 - 1000 meter test. You owe me an apology after that. Don't call me a liar when you don't know the facts.

I find it quite amusing when LFA achieves a milestone, people go silent and not much to say about it. When some sporadic test comes out that is less than flattering, there are people coming out of the woodworks to bash it.

Are you for real ?

As to the ZR1, you said European mags were never able to do better than 4,2s. Completely wrong.

As to Autocar test, I posted the results(scan) of that 0-1000m test in my previous post, for gods sake. LFA did 0-60mph in 4,2s. The results you posted before were totally wrong, not sure where you got them.

 

[330CIZHP]

Well, the hard copy of the magazine I have then is lying and it was by AutoCar. The front page of which you have seen already in my previous post. I scanned the page now. That is ridiculous.

ZR-1 Sport Auto supertest and Sport Auto 0 - 300 - 0 KM/H test and look at those 0 - 100 km/h times.

Are you for real ?

As to the ZR1, you said European mags were never able to do better than 4,2s. Completely wrong.

As to Autocar test, I posted the results of that 0-1000m test in my previous post, for gods sake. LFA did 0-60mph in 4,2s. The results you posted before were totally wrong, not sure where you got them.

 

[H50]

I drove the LFA on a circuit its was part of a presentation for owners.. Its drive pretty nice, handle well, and just the engine noise bouncing of the track barrier's give you a lovely sensation. If you going to compare each car with the other you wont raech a conclusion. My verdict on the LFA is its a nice car to drive, something different it actually reminded me of the carrera GT rev loving engine.

 

[Guibo]

I cannot understand why if a magazine writes "LFA has the best engine sound"... ie reliable, but if writes "LFA ihas the worst gearbox in its class"... it's not reliable...
a lots of magazine don't like it, that's all

What is is in the LFA's class, mafalda?
The difference is that many respected mags have voiced near unanimous praise for the LFA's engine while few (if any) have said it's 3x's slower than a Lambo's. Of those mags that have criticized the LFA for its less-than-benchmark transmission, many have gone on to say that it actually matches the character (and intent) of the LFA.

"there’s a brutality to every upshift that suits this car’s no-compromise feel."
Lexus LFA | Car Group Tests | Car Reviews | Auto Express

"They've settled for just a single-plate clutch so the gearchange does take good old fashioned tenths of seconds rather than the milliseconds of the Ferrari, but engineers wanted that. They wanted a bit more feel, a more driver feel into the car. And I quite like the idea."
--Tiff Needell, 5th Gear

"Though its sequential, paddle-shft auto is miles away from the latest dual-clutch systems, when it comes to shift speeds or smoothness, the LFA's 'box has a muscular, mechanical quality that suits the car's basic character."
--Jason Barlow, TopGear

And what was one of Tiff's complaint about the DCT-equipped MP4? That it didn't change down when he wanted it to.

Are you quite sure the LP560-4 has the same power? According to lambornima, it's a 600-hp car. You also forget several other important factors: AWD, sticky Corsas, more rearward weight bias, less drag force (0.67 CdA for the Lambo, 0.79 for the LFA), more torque (540Nm vs 480Nm). Your attempt to distill differences in performances down to shift speed differences is laughable. Just look at the chart I posted. Does it look like shifts take 3x's longer in the LFA? With the LFA's greater drag, we should expect it to already be slower at the gearshift points. Does it sound to you like there is any delay worth talking about as Justing Bell is upshifting or downshifting?

"ok exclusivity, but you can buy a McLaren MP4 and the rest give the advance for an Aventador!
"the LFA is the perfect vehicle for collectors" (*)
(*) that's what I said ... sixteen month ago, and I was criticized for it

No, you were criticized for refusing to see that someone would want to buy the LFA. You were criticized for not realizing that the LFA was not benchmarked against cars like the 458/MP4 in bang/buck. You were criticized for saying LFA has strange lease program (only in USA), yet Ferrari did the same thing with the F50.
Is this the same Aventador that is sold out for 18 months? You assume all in the market (only asking for 500 customers) want something as relatively sterile as the MP4, or want something as shouty and visually loud as the Lambo. If that were true, Aston Martin would never sell any cars.

 

[330CIZHP]

The power can't be 600 HP since both cars make similar power to the wheels as the dynos of LP560-4 were on dynojet range from 483 - 496 wheel HP and 355 wtq and for LFA they were 515 wheel HP with 346 wtq on the same dynojet setup. Granted LP560-4 is AWD with higher drivetrain loss, it should be about the same as LFA in terms of power at the crank.

However, LFA engine works completely different as it is geared for 9500 rpm while LP560-4 is geared for 8400 rpm. Big difference here. LFA overall gearing is much shorter with a 4.3:1 axle ratio than LP560-4, which makes it get more torque multiplication from gears.

Anyway, the downforce/drag, RWD and lack of super sticky slick tires especially in the case of such high powered RWD car, which LP560-4 and LP570-4 come with skew the results against the LFA and diminish its true capabilities. The Nurburgring edition comes with more appropriate semi-slick tires.

The R8 V10 makes similar torque of 391 ft-lbs, but with 525 HP less HP than LP560-4 on the same engine and it was a non-match for the LFA in the Speed channel battle. However, in this video Lexus in this run did allow Foust to use the launch control system on 3 runs, which happens very rarely as they did not allow Insideline to use it.

The focus on LFA development was primarily on track performance and not straight line 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

Are you quite sure the LP560-4 has the same power? According to lambornima, it's a 600-hp car. You also forget several other important factors: AWD, sticky Corsas, more rearward weight bias, less drag force (0.67 CdA for the Lambo, 0.79 for the LFA), more torque (540Nm vs 480Nm). Your attempt to distill differences in performances down to shift speed differences is laughable. Just look at the chart I posted. Does it look like shifts take 3x's longer in the LFA? With the LFA's greater drag, we should expect it to already be slower at the gearshift points. Does it sound to you like there is any delay worth talking about as Justing Bell is upshifting or downshifting?

 

[donkeykong]

Wonder how the R8GT would fair in a dragrace with LF-A?

 

[330CIZHP]

Wonder how the R8GT would fair in a dragrace with LF-A?

Their best acceleration times look very similar down to the trap speed. I believe the engine tune in R8 GT is basically identical to that of the LP560-4. According to the MotorTrend test (0 - 60 mph in 3.5 secs w/ roll out and 11.5 seconds 1/4 mile). However, R8 GT was wearing Pirelli P Zero Corsa super-slick tires.

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

 

[DeDe]

No offense, but you are posting utter lies. I can´t remember an european test where ZR1 would do 0-100km/h in 4,2s or more. Autozeitung did 3,7s and 3,8s with two different examples. Autobild did incredible 3,2s!

emve is right. I never saw times over 4,0 seconds for the ZR1 in european magazines as well...



On the other hand - except AutoZeitung's test - I've never seen times under 4,0 seconds for the LFA (in both german and italian magazines)...

 

[Guibo]

The power can't be 600 HP since both cars make similar power to the wheels as the dynos of LP560-4 were on dynojet range from 483 - 496 wheel HP and 355 wtq and for LFA they were 515 wheel HP with 346 wtq on the same dynojet setup. Granted LP560-4 is AWD with higher drivetrain loss, it should be about the same as LFA in terms of power at the crank.

However, LFA engine works completely different as it is geared for 9500 rpm while LP560-4 is geared for 8400 rpm. Big difference here. LFA overall gearing is much shorter with a 4.3:1 axle ratio than LP560-4, which makes it get more torque multiplication from gears.

Link for these Lambo dynos? You'd have to know what correction factors were applied (if any) to make a conclusive decision about that. Even the same type of dyno can read differently depending on who's doing the calibrations. Hatch down with no fan vs hood up with fans?

LFA has a bit shorter gearing through the transmission, but its wheel diameter is likely greater. The LP560-4's wheel diameter is listed on Tire Rack at 26.1". There's none listed for the LFA's S001, but the P Zero Nero in the LFA size has a diameter of 27.2".
Also, check the in-gear acceleration times from Sport Auto. In 4th, the LFA is generally only 0.1-0.2s faster in 10 kph increments, but in 5th and 6th, the LP560 is faster by larger margins. I don't see how the LP560 isn't putting more torque to the wheels even with the LFA's shorter gearing. Even at low speeds where drag isn't such an issue, the Lambo is faster.

For mafalda, looking closer at those R&T data traces and the times from the actual PDFs, here's the breakdown in increments, in-gear and with shifts (noted):

LP560-4 vs LFA
0-40: 1.8 vs 2.2 (delta - 0.4)
40-50: 0.7 vs 0.9 (shift)
50-70: 1.4 vs 1.5
70-80: 1.1 vs 1.1 (shift)
80-100: 1.9 vs 2.1
100-110: 1.5 vs 1.6 (shift)
110-120: 1.3 vs 1.6

It would appear the LP560-4 is faster, but it has little to do with shift speeds. If anything, the LFA's delta in time increments where a shift occurs actually seem smaller than in increments where there is no shift. The Lambo is faster probably because it has lower drag and likely more net torque to the wheels, made possible in part by the bore x stroke arrangement below:
LP560-4 - 84.5 x 92.8
LFA - 88.0 x 79.0

 

[330CIZHP]

Well, I am not going to argue about this. I concurr it to be true that using in-gear numbers will definitely favor LP560-4 over the LFA due to higher crank torque. Ofcourse, I was never talking about in-gear acceleration since it is completely pointless.

When measuring flexibility using higher than ideal gears at lower speeds is going to favor car with higher crank torque. That is exactly why downshifting to ideal gear is done in order to achieve maximum torque multiplication through gears. In the case of LFA, there is absolutely no plausible reason for me to be driving the LFA and use 4th gear for acceleration from 100 KM/H even less so in a paddle shift car. It never made any sense to me since I don't drive my E46 like that and am happy to rev match and downshift to appropriate gear and I don't really see the point.

That is exactly why I posted the Audi R8 V10 vs LFA video to show with proper gear acceleration, LFA is a no match for the R8 V10 despite the higher crank torque.

Anyway, I dug up up all the dynojet from the Gallardo pages and they post them on dragtimes. The highest I found was 496 wheel HP on dynojet was with SAE correction factors just like the 515 wheel HP for the LFA with the correction factor.

Lamborghini Gallardo Horsepower Torque Dyno Sheets - DragTimes.com

Ofcourse, in my opinion comparing their acceleration numbers does not yield a result without considering the levels of grip the Pirelli Corsa tires offer on the LP560-4.

Lexus clearly demonstrated using Akira Iida on Nurburgring in a warm up lap where the Nurburgring edition LFA with much higher downforce thant standard LFA and CD on the home-stretch uphill climb can hit 292 KM/H on what looks like atleast a 30 degree climb, which is why I find it puzzling how they could not achieve the top speed at all on a flat surface.

Their speed range versus overall gearing reduction clearly show heavily shorter gearing of the LFA in every gear due to the 9500 rpm rev limit:

LFA:

1st: 52 mph (9300 rpm) [13.92]
2nd: 77 mph (9300 rpm) [9.44]
3rd: 104 mph (9300 rpm) [6.94]
4th: 137 mph (9300 rpm) [5.30]
5th: 173 mph (9300 rpm) [4.18]
6th: 202 mph (8900 rpm) [3.45]

LP560-4

1st: 50 mph (8300 rpm) [13.45]
2nd: 81 mph (8300 rpm) [8.34]
3rd: 104 mph (8300 rpm)[5.92]
4th: 145 mph (8300 rpm)[4.62]
5th: 176 mph (8300 rpm)[3.81]
6th: 202 mph (7900 rpm)[3.18]

Link for these Lambo dynos? You'd have to know what correction factors were applied (if any) to make a conclusive decision about that. Even the same type of dyno can read differently depending on who's doing the calibrations. Hatch down with no fan vs hood up with fans?

LFA has a bit shorter gearing through the transmission, but its wheel diameter is likely greater. The LP560-4's wheel diameter is listed on Tire Rack at 26.1". There's none listed for the LFA's S001, but the P Zero Nero in the LFA size has a diameter of 27.2".
Also, check the in-gear acceleration times from Sport Auto. In 4th, the LFA is generally only 0.1-0.2s faster in 10 kph increments, but in 5th and 6th, the LP560 is faster by larger margins. I don't see how the LP560 isn't putting more torque to the wheels even with the LFA's shorter gearing. Even at low speeds where drag isn't such an issue, the Lambo is faster.

For mafalda, looking closer at those R&T data traces and the times from the actual PDFs, here's the breakdown in increments, in-gear and with shifts (noted):

LP560-4 vs LFA
0-40: 1.8 vs 2.2 (delta - 0.4)
40-50: 0.7 vs 0.9 (shift)
50-70: 1.4 vs 1.5
70-80: 1.1 vs 1.1 (shift)
80-100: 1.9 vs 2.1
100-110: 1.5 vs 1.6 (shift)
110-120: 1.3 vs 1.6

It would appear the LP560-4 is faster, but it has little to do with shift speeds. If anything, the LFA's delta in time increments where a shift occurs actually seem smaller than in increments where there is no shift. The Lambo is faster probably because it has lower drag and likely more net torque to the wheels, made possible in part by the bore x stroke arrangement below:
LP560-4 - 84.5 x 92.8
LFA - 88.0 x 79.0

 

[Mafalda]

What is is in the LFA's class, mafalda?
The difference is that many respected mags have voiced near unanimous praise for the LFA's engine while few (if any) have said it's 3x's slower than a Lambo's. Of those mags that have criticized the LFA for its less-than-benchmark transmission, many have gone on to say that it actually matches the character (and intent) of the LFA.

"there’s a brutality to every upshift that suits this car’s no-compromise feel."
Lexus LFA | Car Group Tests | Car Reviews | Auto Express

"They've settled for just a single-plate clutch so the gearchange does take good old fashioned tenths of seconds rather than the milliseconds of the Ferrari, but engineers wanted that. They wanted a bit more feel, a more driver feel into the car. And I quite like the idea."
--Tiff Needell, 5th Gear

"Though its sequential, paddle-shft auto is miles away from the latest dual-clutch systems, when it comes to shift speeds or smoothness, the LFA's 'box has a muscular, mechanical quality that suits the car's basic character."
--Jason Barlow, TopGear

And what was one of Tiff's complaint about the DCT-equipped MP4? That it didn't change down when he wanted it to.

Are you quite sure the LP560-4 has the same power? According to lambornima, it's a 600-hp car. You also forget several other important factors: AWD, sticky Corsas, more rearward weight bias, less drag force (0.67 CdA for the Lambo, 0.79 for the LFA), more torque (540Nm vs 480Nm). Your attempt to distill differences in performances down to shift speed differences is laughable. Just look at the chart I posted. Does it look like shifts take 3x's longer in the LFA? With the LFA's greater drag, we should expect it to already be slower at the gearshift points. Does it sound to you like there is any delay worth talking about as Justing Bell is upshifting or downshifting?


No, you were criticized for refusing to see that someone would want to buy the LFA. You were criticized for not realizing that the LFA was not benchmarked against cars like the 458/MP4 in bang/buck. You were criticized for saying LFA has strange lease program (only in USA), yet Ferrari did the same thing with the F50.
Is this the same Aventador that is sold out for 18 months? You assume all in the market (only asking for 500 customers) want something as relatively sterile as the MP4, or want something as shouty and visually loud as the Lambo. If that were true, Aston Martin would never sell any cars.

I was criticized cause those replies of mine
SUPERCARS.NET - Comprehensive Specifications, Galleries & Forums since 1996

"the same performance of F50, 15 years later.
Useless supercar, just for mid-east collectors "

""Zero to 60 mph: 3.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 7.8 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 12.9 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 18.3 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 11.8 sec @ 124 mph"

worst than an 997 TT PDK, Lambo LP560, 997 GT2 manual and Ferrari 430 Scuderia and (surely) 458 Italia
and I'm pretty sure it will be just good, but nothing special, on track.
overpriced... but fuel economomy is good... "

"Performance: LFA is nothing specials
Design: ugly
Price: twice than challangers and with the strangest contract ever.
Handling: I'm waiting, but I doubt it will be the new benchmark....

regards...
"

I have partially changed my mind about the design, but I've not changed idea, and the data say I am right.
compared with cars of similar power, the LFA is the slowest in a straight line and no so fast on track. the only good test was the Supertest @ 'Ring (Autobild), track where the LFA has been developed.....
Guibo you love the LFA as it is? well, I'm happy for you. about me, contrary, maybe I would driveiy, but I'd buy another car.

 

[330CIZHP]

Speechless! I could point out so many inaccuracies and huge marginalization of LFA's overall capabilities you made based on solely one a single early prototype, which is what supposedly a standard GT3 can even attain with 435 HP (except trap speed). It basically contradicts what 99% of the people who have actually driven the car say. However, I am not interested nor have the time to fight such blatant bias against a car. Sorry, I have no other plausible explanation for what you had written down there as they are neither rational nor objective, but rather emotional.


Common sense tells me, a car that has proven itself as the 9th fastest production car of all times around Nurburgring without Cup or Corsa tires and without electronic wizardry (torque-vectoring diff, magnetic suspension etc.) hitting 292 KM/H on the final uphill climb cannot be as bad as you are making it out to be. Yet, that is not even the fastest it has been around it either.

http://www.fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife.html

http://www.fastestlaps.com/tracks/circuit_de_nevers_magny-cours_club.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring_lap_times

http://www.fastestlaps.com/tracks/goodwood.html

I remember how most people used to say LFA can't even compete against the 599 GTB or even the R8 V10 and then low and behold it came out and comprehensively beat both of them in a comparos.

The people who truly followed all the development and the intangibles, truly got it and know all the ins and outs. Some people got it while other never did and still don't. You don't and you most likely never will. Knock yourself out with your bias against the LFA and stick to your fellow European brand cars.

I was criticized cause those replies of mine
SUPERCARS.NET - Comprehensive Specifications, Galleries & Forums since 1996

"the same performance of F50, 15 years later.
Useless supercar, just for mid-east collectors "

""Zero to 60 mph: 3.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 7.8 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 12.9 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 18.3 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 11.8 sec @ 124 mph"

worst than an 997 TT PDK, Lambo LP560, 997 GT2 manual and Ferrari 430 Scuderia and (surely) 458 Italia
and I'm pretty sure it will be just good, but nothing special, on track.
overpriced... but fuel economomy is good... "

"Performance: LFA is nothing specials
Design: ugly
Price: twice than challangers and with the strangest contract ever.
Handling: I'm waiting, but I doubt it will be the new benchmark....

regards...
"

I have partially changed my mind about the design, but I've not changed idea, and the data say I am right.
compared with cars of similar power, the LFA is the slowest in a straight line and no so fast on track. the only good test was the Supertest @ 'Ring (Autobild), track where the LFA has been developed.....
Guibo you love the LFA as it is? well, I'm happy for you. about me, contrary, maybe I would driveiy, but I'd buy another car.

 

[H50]

Here is a Fly by shot of me on the track straight line.. Taken By Lexus staff..

 

[Mafalda]

Speechless! I could point out so many inaccuracies and huge marginalization of LFA's overall capabilities you made based on solely one a single early prototype, which is what supposedly a standard GT3 can even attain with 435 HP (except trap speed). It basically contradicts what 99% of the people who have actually driven the car say. However, I am not interested nor have the time to fight such blatant bias against a car. Sorry, I have no other plausible explanation for what you had written down there as they are neither rational nor objective, but rather emotional.


Common sense tells me, a car that has proven itself as the 9th fastest production car of all times around Nurburgring without Cup or Corsa tires and without electronic wizardry (torque-vectoring diff, magnetic suspension etc.) hitting 292 KM/H on the final uphill climb cannot be as bad as you are making it out to be. Yet, that is not even the fastest it has been around it either.

Nordschleife lap records - FastestLaps.com

Circuit de Nevers Magny-Cours Club lap records - FastestLaps.com

List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Goodwood lap records - FastestLaps.com

I remember how most people used to say LFA can't even compete against the 599 GTB or even the R8 V10 and then low and behold it came out and comprehensively beat both of them in a comparos.

The people who truly followed all the development and the intangibles, truly got it and know all the ins and outs. Some people got it while other never did and still don't. You don't and you most likely never will. Knock yourself out with your bias against the LFA and stick to your fellow European brand cars.

I'm not AGAINST the LFA, simply I cannot find in it any benchmark, except for "engine sound"...
please explane me about "marginalization"
or tell me if I MUST love this car, and why.
I've just posted a full road test, accept it or send an email here
Contattaci - Auto.it

 

[Mafalda]

Here is a Fly by shot of me on the track straight line.. Taken By Lexus staff..

nice. LFA is much more better in yellow than white

 

[Mafalda]

Link for these Lambo dynos? You'd have to know what correction factors were applied (if any) to make a conclusive decision about that. Even the same type of dyno can read differently depending on who's doing the calibrations. Hatch down with no fan vs hood up with fans?

LFA has a bit shorter gearing through the transmission, but its wheel diameter is likely greater. The LP560-4's wheel diameter is listed on Tire Rack at 26.1". There's none listed for the LFA's S001, but the P Zero Nero in the LFA size has a diameter of 27.2".
Also, check the in-gear acceleration times from Sport Auto. In 4th, the LFA is generally only 0.1-0.2s faster in 10 kph increments, but in 5th and 6th, the LP560 is faster by larger margins. I don't see how the LP560 isn't putting more torque to the wheels even with the LFA's shorter gearing. Even at low speeds where drag isn't such an issue, the Lambo is faster.

For mafalda, looking closer at those R&T data traces and the times from the actual PDFs, here's the breakdown in increments, in-gear and with shifts (noted):

LP560-4 vs LFA
0-40: 1.8 vs 2.2 (delta - 0.4)
40-50: 0.7 vs 0.9 (shift)
50-70: 1.4 vs 1.5
70-80: 1.1 vs 1.1 (shift)
80-100: 1.9 vs 2.1
100-110: 1.5 vs 1.6 (shift)
110-120: 1.3 vs 1.6

It would appear the LP560-4 is faster, but it has little to do with shift speeds. If anything, the LFA's delta in time increments where a shift occurs actually seem smaller than in increments where there is no shift. The Lambo is faster probably because it has lower drag and likely more net torque to the wheels, made possible in part by the bore x stroke arrangement below:
LP560-4 - 84.5 x 92.8
LFA - 88.0 x 79.0

interesting, really
just for stats,
LFA 100-254 17.16
LP560 100-26x (...262? I don't rememeber as well) 17.01s

 

[330CIZHP]

Ofcourse, you never drove it (none of us have) so you would not be able to compare the driving dynamics, engine response and character to any other car except what we do best here - bench race (I am guilty of that as well).

Regarding 260 KM/H no wonder you pick the worst times, why did you not look up the Motorsports France test? Getting from 100 km/h - 260 km/h in 16.7 seconds is absurdly fast and that is what they got from the LFA. Being any quicker, I see absolutely no reason for it to make LFA's case.

When we drive the car, we forget all the numbers as the experience and the visceral feel dominates everything. Isn't that what separates Ferrari and Lamborghini from ZR-1 and Z06??? I find it surprising to read that on this board.

This illustrates the example the best when two Corvette board members who regularly bashed the LFA went to an LFA test drive event for kicks thinking they would "dislike" on that car to put it gently, what happened after they drove the car is simply epic.

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

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

With all the hoopla surrounding the 458 Italia, even 458 Italia vs LP560-4 look very evenly matched in the real world (not withstanding the Corsa tire on the LP560-4).

We saw the samething in SLS AMG vs 458 Italia where they were dead even in TopGear drag race:

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

I'm not AGAINST the LFA, simply I cannot find in it any benchmark, except for "engine sound"...
please explane me about "marginalization"
or tell me if I MUST love this car, and why.
I've just posted a full road test, accept it or send an email here
Contattaci - Auto.it