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

[330CIZHP]

IMO an automated manual transmission is a useless compromise.

That is very subjective. A car with almost no internal inertia is almost impossible to drive easily with a manual transmission since it is very easy to stall. Lexus had given very specific reasons for dropping the Borg-Warner double-clutch they initially selected (Aston Martin for one-77, Pagani for Zonda, Lambo for LP700 etc. give similar justification), but most manufacturers are now only putting dual-clutch in their cars so maybe single-clutch might be headed for extinction:

1 - The character, sound and feeling of a single-clutch automated
2 - More reliable, simpler design and ability to handle higher revs (Guibo pointed out)
3 - The same transmission can be used for both racing and production
4 - Roughly half the mass of the average dual clutch
5 - Compact packaging

 

[Mafalda]

Do you have the result of that M3 test? We would have to see the results of the shifts speeds themselves, if this was tested.
Sometimes you can question an Italian test when they are 20kph down on some short straights where such a difference never appears in other tests (only 1.7 kph faster than Maserati MC Stradale, LOL yeah right). On the whole, the journalist testing result for the LFA doesn't seem to indicate the transmission performance is bad. While it is slower than DCTs, it has not been shown to be appreciably slower than other single-clutch automated transmissions. This can be seen in the data traces of acceleration curves.
Another example of questionable motive is the Car Magazine comparo with the SLS by Georg Kacher. We know he's a huge German car fan, and he said the LFA's tranny was the deal breaker for him. Basically said it ruined the entire car. Yet the SLS which he obviously adores has also been panned heavily in the media for its transmission performance, and that's despite it having the same DCT transmission as the 458 (which as it turns out has had some real life mechanical problems in the hands of owners, so perhaps the speed of that car's transmission comes at the expense of some durability).
I'd be curious to know how many LFA owners felt their transmissions are slow. When watching and listening to Justin Bell, Scott Pruett, and Akira Iida blip through the gearchanges, it sure doesn't seem like any delay is happening. Then again, these guys will have had far more time to play around with the 7 transmission speeds and 2 manual gearchange modes than journalists.

from QR website, I've just find the M3 SMG II (manual is not avaible online )
comments (ten years ago...) was very good "fantastic upshift, downshift seems a cannonball"
"acceleration a bit slower than manual, M3 standard did 0-100 0.1s better, but SMG is faster on track"
M3 SMG II 343ps
0-100 5.3s
1/4 mile 13.5s
1 Km 24.1s

 

[Guibo]

from QR website, I've just find the M3 SMG II (manual is not avaible online )
comments (ten years ago...) was very good "fantastic upshift, downshift seems a cannonball"
"acceleration a bit slower than manual, M3 standard did 0-100 0.1s better, but SMG is faster on track"
M3 SMG II 343ps
0-100 5.3s
1/4 mile 13.5s
1 Km 24.1s

So it was no head-to-head same day test then. We would need to see the interval time splits, to ensure that one car is not faster than another due to manufacturing tolerances or conditions (or both). I mean, do you see a any significant difference between the shift speeds on these two cars?

(Quoting translation) Besides Toyota itself speaks of a time shift of 200 m / s, when the most advanced transmissions - not only double clutch but also of the same type - firing machine-gunned to 50 m / s.

Based on the same-day data from C&D, it would appear to me that Toyota's timing method is not the same as others. Not highly unusual, as there is no set standard by which these mechanisms are timed.

 

[Mafalda]

Guibo the point still the same: why a lots of magazine write about LF-A "gearbox is slow, worst part of the car, etc etc etc"?
about modern SCT, ex aventador, you can read "a bit brutal, so brutal, etc" but I cannot find commnts like "worst part of the car", or "slow like alfa romeo selespeed"....
or about quite old SCT, ex R8 GT, QR writes simply "good but now modern DCT are better".
only the LF-A have very negative comments. I cannot understand why when magazines feel "amazing ride, engine sound and handling" they are 100%, reliable, but when they feel slow gearshifts, something is wrong..
have a nice weekend

 

[330CIZHP]

He was talking about the M3 and when you realized you have lost the argument about the LFA, you quickly pull it back to the silly subjective impressions of questionable QR magazine. They are just that subjective impressions. Who knows and who cares??

Why don't you give it up already?? How many times have we had this argument before and how many times will we have it again? Recently Motor Trend criticized the Lamborghini/Audi r-tronic/e-gear transmission as "slow" while reviewing the Audi R8 V10 and said they prefer the 6 speed manual version. Why did you not read that??

Evo UK said LFA transmission is better than the old, clunky and outdated Gallardo e-gear system. Why did not bring that up??

I posted Car magazine calling LFA's transmission "lightning fast" and Car and driver magazine aside from what Guibo pointed out said LFA's transmission is "superbly fast and heroic in its fastest mode".

You are willing to put more stock into what those silly Italian magazines that cannot even manage to match an LFA lap time that compares to the ancient old 2001 500 HP Gallardo are saying based on their buttdyno with no evidence to back it up.

There are tons of explanations given to you with proper evidence to back up all of the claims. The videos clearly show there is no perceptible lag/gap during shifts. The tachometer videos the shifts are so fast that the tacho needle virtually never stops moving, the dynanometer shows there is no more shift times involved than any other single-clutch out there.

But definitely, psychological and subjective impressions must be more accurate than statistical, audible and visual evidence.

Watch this video again with headphones on and listen to it closely and see if you can spot a gap/drivetrain disengagement anywhere. You can't.

Guibo the point still the same: why a lots of magazine write about LF-A "gearbox is slow, worst part of the car, etc etc etc"?
about modern SCT, ex aventador, you can read "a bit brutal, so brutal, etc" but I cannot find commnts like "worst part of the car", or "slow like alfa romeo selespeed"....
or about quite old SCT, ex R8 GT, QR writes simply "good but now modern DCT are better".
only the LF-A have very negative comments. I cannot understand why when magazines feel "amazing ride, engine sound and handling" they are 100%, reliable, but when they feel slow gearshifts, something is wrong..
have a nice weekend

 

[Guibo]

mafalda, (2nd time now) do you see any significant difference in the shift speeds of those two cars?

Lot of magazines say one thing about the LFA transmission, yet lots of others say another.

"It’s slow compared with the latest dual-clutch systems, but there’s a mechanical feel and intensity to its shifts that underlines the LFA’s surprisingly abrasive personality."
--Jason Barlow, Times UK/TopGear

"Flip the gearlever paddle behind the steering wheel and the car rumbles away. You need to take care not to jig up and down on the throttle while manoeuvring – the V10 reacts so quickly that it will spin the rear tyres.
The six-speed robotised manual gearbox is hardly groundbreaking, but there are few complaints about its performance on the track or when going hard."
--Andrew English, Autoexpress
"The linear, yet savage, power delivery is intoxicating and the ferocity with which the transmission can slam in the gearchanges is literally breathtaking."
--5th Gear

"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

"The shifts are smooth and eye-blink quick in manual mode but become a bit clunky in the automatic setting. (This is the case with most single-clutch automated manuals.)"
--Car & Driver

"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

"After another upshift, it’s obvious that this automated manual is crude compared to the twin-clutch box found in the Ferrari 458 Italia, but it’s so raw that it ends up adding character.
"there’s a brutality to every upshift that suits this car’s no-compromise feel."
--AutoExpress

"...not all that quick by contemporary standards, but neither can you call it languid.
Tanahashi tried and then rejected a double-clutch gearbox, preferring the mechanical feel of a single clutch, paddle-shift system. He has a point. The physcial jolt during full-bore upshifts makes the car feel much more urgent and intense. So what if it demands careful use of the throttle at low speeds? This is a hypercar, not a Lexus saloon. if you're paying the price of a pad in the country, you want some drama and intrigue.
The gearbox feels well suited to the engine's character, and downshifts are a sonic delight. It's also interesting to note that the force required to achieve a downshift with the shift paddle is marginally more than that required to upshift — a haptic detail insisted upon by Tanahashi-san."
--Alistair Weaver, Performance Car and edmunds

"Getting back up to speed, the column-mounted paddles click up through the six-speed ASG gearbox remarkably fast."
--Autoweek

"On the track, even the fastest [setting] isn't so fast as to be violent. Some might crave yet faster meshing of gearwheels but I reckon it's fine as it is. And the downshifts are a perfectly-blipped delight.
In automatic mode, the transmission surges and the clutch slips too much. Sport manual mode is best, even when ambling, because it's easier to modulate throttle against gear shift."
--John Simister, Evo

"The gearbox is just so brilliant. A great mechanical feeling. It reacts immediately."
Sandor van Es, Autoweek.nl, NRing Edition

"There is an inarguable mechanical purity to the LFA driving experience. Its ‘old school’ automated sequential manual transmission is as engaging as the bolt action of a sniper's rifle. Intense. Mechanical. Rewarding."
--Wheels24.co.za

"Hit a clear patch of road and the first thing you notice is the phenomenal straight-line speed - 0-60 in 3.6 seconds - and the second is the insanely quick gear change."
--James Martin, Daily Mail

Saying the gearbox is the worst part of the car doesn't mean that it's slow. It could just mean that that is not as great an experience as the rest of the car. This would be sort of like nitpicking that Jessica Biel's tits are a little too small, or Olivia Wilde's jawbone is little too wide. You could still have a freaky good time with them.

 

[330CIZHP]

Here is another one. It also explains why LFA is so difficult to launch:

Acceleration, too, is supercar-league, yet the LFA is a little jumpy right out of the blocks—the transmission’s Sport setting in fastest mode (there are also Auto, Normal and Wet modes) proved too aggressively quick in clutch engagement for a hop-free launch.

Translated from Japanese:

The transmission is just brilliant. It has to be my most favorite. It has so much character, intensity and aggression.

- Drift king Tsuchiya san [Best Motoring]

 

[Levi68]

That is very subjective. A car with almost no internal inertia is almost impossible to drive easily with a manual transmission since it is very easy to stall. Lexus had given very specific reasons for dropping the Borg-Warner double-clutch they initially selected (Aston Martin for one-77, Pagani for Zonda, Lambo for LP700 etc. give similar justification), but most manufacturers are now only putting dual-clutch in their cars so maybe single-clutch might be headed for extinction:

1 - The character, sound and feeling of a single-clutch automated
2 - More reliable, simpler design and ability to handle higher revs (Guibo pointed out)
3 - The same transmission can be used for both racing and production
4 - Roughly half the mass of the average dual clutch
5 - Compact packaging

Yes, I agree. Dual-clutch feels like automatic gearbox and that has no character. Is there no way of making a dual-clutch gearbox aggressive ?
About the higher weight of a dual-clutch gearbox, in the case of the LFA it would not be an issue, as it is transaxle, and would just add weight at the rear axle.

What I don't understand is why the reviews describe the sequential gearboxes slow, when an manual gearbox is even slower, and when with a dual-clutch gearbox, you can't feel how fast the shifts are, you can only measure them.

 

[330CIZHP]

Yes, I wonder about that one as well.

The best way I can describe is, single-clutch is a sequential automated transmission so it gets compared to a dual-clutch gearbox only. A 6 speed manual might be the slowest, but since it gives a greater degree of control to the driver, it never gets criticized for being the slowest in general since it makes up for that through the greatest degree of involvment.

Part of the charm of single-clutch is how the sound pitch suddenly changes during shifts mainly because the next gear is getting slammed in. In a dual-clutch, the gear is already pre-engaged so the sound does not change much.

BMW tried to put an artificial torque surge in the M-DCT transmission in the S6 mode only to replicate the next gear engaging, but having driven an M-DCT, it does not sound or feel like a manual.

Yes, I agree. Dual-clutch feels like automatic gearbox and that has no character. Is there no way of making a dual-clutch gearbox aggressive ?
About the higher weight of a dual-clutch gearbox, in the case of the LFA it would not be an issue, as it is transaxle, and would just add weight at the rear axle.

What I don't understand is why the reviews describe the sequential gearboxes slow, when an manual gearbox is even slower, and when with a dual-clutch gearbox, you can't feel how fast the shifts are, you can only measure them.

 

[Guibo]

Guibo the point still the same: why a lots of magazine write about LF-A "gearbox is slow, worst part of the car, etc etc etc"?
about modern SCT, ex aventador, you can read "a bit brutal, so brutal, etc" but I cannot find commnts like "worst part of the car", or "slow like alfa romeo selespeed"....
or about quite old SCT, ex R8 GT, QR writes simply "good but now modern DCT are better".
only the LF-A have very negative comments. I cannot understand why when magazines feel "amazing ride, engine sound and handling" they are 100%, reliable, but when they feel slow gearshifts, something is wrong..
have a nice weekend

Selespeed...we are talking ~400 milliseconds, yes? Alfa Romeo claims the 8C shifts in 175 milliseconds. Should be faster than the LFA's claimed 200 milliseconds. Do you really think the 8C shifts faster than the LFA? It's been discussed here that German car mags favor their own home-grown products, that the British give theirs a helping hand that others might not, that the Americans publish articles of Corvettes destroying the competition when it suits them. Could there not be some patriotism at play with the Italian ones as well?

Only LFA have very negative comments about the gearbox. I think you are trying too hard to ignore, mafalda. Try this.

On R8 GT:
"No click-clack shifting here, just a pair of too-small paddles to swap the clumsy R tronic's six ratios with. If Audi insists on R tronic only those paddles really need to be about six inches long to cover a greater percentage of the wheel's circumference for a more authentic motorsport feel. And crucially, a bigger area to reach for another cog with the engine so adeptly devouring each ratio it's fed.
It takes a few laps to get into a rhythm; the brakes are strong but the gearshift is frustratingly slow and clumsy on upshifts. Downshifts are quick and accompanied by the rousing flare of the 5.2-litre V10 behind your head. It'd be way more fun with a manual, with your feet rather than electronics blipping the throttle. That's perhaps the GT's biggest failing, and one carried over from the standard cars - the R tronic not being quick or slick enough for the rest of the car.
That's an issue in a car aimed at serious drivers. A 911 GT3 RS driver will have way more fun simply down to the interaction of the manual transmission - as well as the Porsche's sharper steering. The GT merely feels like a faster R8, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it perhaps needs to be a bit more special to justify its £28,000 leap in price.*"
--Car Enthusiast
(*Car journalists once again with their self-important verdicts of determining "worth." The car sold out in the UK.)

"You’ll love the pace and the agility. Not so the price and gearbox."
--Matt Prior, Autocar

"Anyhow, I've just arrived with some considerable momentum at a chicane I know is a third-gear flick.
I've not looked at the speedo, but top end of 4th in an R8 GT is rapid and the (standard) ceramic brakes are at the very limit. So where's my downshift to third? Nowhere.
Cue arrival at chicane still in 4th, with absolutely no stabilising engine braking. Sure, it turns in - just - but there's a whole lot of protest from the tyres and it's far from comfortable. And then, just as things are beginning to settle and with an inexorable ker-chunk, hello, here comes third gear. Sorry, you're late. Where were you?
Try the above scenario in a Mercedes SLS, Ferrari 458 or PDK-equipped Porsche and even in the auto mode you'd get a flurry of crisply blipped downshifts in the braking zone, which would indicate the R8's issue is less the gearbox itself but more the programming. Which is very un-Audi.
The R tronic gearbox has always been the big chink in the R8's armour. Which is fine, because on the rest of the range you can have a nice snickety manual with the clunky aluminium gate. No such luck on the GT - it's slow-witted R tronic or nothing.
Which is a problem when you consider this R8 is intended as a 911 GT3-style variant with a degree of trackability.
first impressions count, and that infernal gearbox is a rare dropped ball."
--Pistonheads

"There is, however, a problem. Those 33 cars destined for the UK are part of a worldwide run of 333, each and every one of which is only available with Audi's six-speed R-tronic robotised manual gearbox.
Gone is the wonderful click-clack of the R8's standard open-gate manual set-up, replaced by a paddle-shift system that slurs its way through changes in a most unsupercar-like manner.
Salvation, as is so often the case these days, comes in the form of a Sport button. Here it sharpens throttle response and speeds up gearshifts. The more revs you use, the better the gearbox gets, but it's still some way off the standards of a Ferrari 458 Italia, or an Audi A1 for that matter.
So, will those 33 UK customers be disappointed? Probably not, but consider this: with a manual gearbox the entry level, V8-powered R8 is a solid five-star car and costs 'just' £86,885. It's not the price of the GT that robs it of a fifth star; that dubious honour goes to the gearbox. What is an extremely good car could have been sensational."
--Telegraph Motoring

I think when you compare the R&T speed interval data and acceleration curves, you will see the R8 GT transmission is no faster than the LFA's
LFA vs R8GT
30-40: 0.5 / 0.5
40-50*: 0.7 / 1.0
50-60: 0.7 / 0.7
60-70: 0.7 / 0.8
70-80*: 1.1 / 1.3
80-90: 0.9 / 1.0
*with shift

 

[Guibo]

Yes, I agree. Dual-clutch feels like automatic gearbox and that has no character. Is there no way of making a dual-clutch gearbox aggressive ?

Actually, I think there is. If you've seen some of the acceleration traces for the Boxster PDK and the Nissan GT-R, you can see a momentary surging immediately after a gearshift. Ferrari have revised the 458's gearbox so that customers get a more emotional kick out of it.
The Aventador's acceleration curve is crazy after the gearshift, damn near vertical. But this is not to everyone's liking, contrary to mafalda's claim. Some of the mag reviewers have said it's "over the top" or otherwise way too harsh. I'm wondering what effects this will have on durability in the long run, as there were already concerns about a gearbox recall. C&D were given a dark grey Aventador, as having asked if they could test an orange one that they saw, they were told "it was broken," whatever that means. Car Magazine of South Africa were supposed to have had an Aventador in their performance shootout, but an LP560-4 was substituted due to a "gearbox malady." But, what's an Italian supercar without a bit of drama?

 

[330CIZHP]

Jay Leno's Garage while test driving:

"[LFA's] Transmission is definitely very quick, but you get spoiled by those dual clutch transmissions"

Let me approach this mathematically.

Bottom line is, everything else remaining the same and the 0-60 mph issue is addressed, there would be nothing really to discuss about the acceleration. From the beginning I have said, the issue all rests with launching the LFA.

Even the worst 4.2 - 4.4 seconds 0 - 100 km/h still yield a 0 - 200 km/h in 11.9 - 12.0 seconds. The Nurburgring edition did a 0 - 200 km/h in 11.1 seconds with a 0 - 100 km/h in 3.9 seconds. The 100 km/h - 200 km/h is ALWAYS 7.3 - 7.5 seconds consistently. If that 0 - 100 km/h is brought in line with what one expects from a car with this power (a 3.3 - 3.4 seconds 0 - 100 km/h for the LFA), suddenly the 0 - 200 km/h gets reduced to 10.9 - 11.0 seconds. The 0 - 260 km/h would suddenly become 20.2 seconds.

Even in a head to head drag race on the same surface, LFA's trap speed was only 2 mph less than that of the 458 Italia despite getting off the line with a 0 - 60 mph that was a gigantic 0.8 seconds slower (3.2 seconds vs 4.0 seconds). That means, LFA in the middle of the race was actually gaining speed more quickly that the 458 Italia by the time they arrived at the 1/4 mile.

Like I said before, it is all in the 0 - 60 mph or 100 km/h, which in turn is all about traction. It could only be the tires not providing adequate traction off the line or the launch control not working effectively when there is not enough traction available. The transmission CANNOT be the issue.

 

[Guibo]

Like I said before, it is all in the 0 - 60 mph or 100 km/h, which in turn is all about traction. It could only be the tires not providing adequate traction off the line or the launch control not working effectively when there is not enough traction available.

Agreed. Comparing 0-100 km/h times between two M3s in differing conditions is next to useless in determining the efficiency of the transmission. There are journalists out there who can sometimes beat the launch and traction systems of even today's more advanced cars, which will also require some time to "learn" the surface. In C&D's test of the M3 SMGII, they said it was slower than their manual long-term car by 0.3s in 0-60 and the 1/4 mile. But they also said that the 0.3s deficit all occured before the car even got out of 1st gear (meaning it was due to the launch; launch control was not used as that was a Europe-only system and limited to 1 per hour, for a total of 30 per clutch life, they said). Using the rolling 5-60 method, which all but removes the variable of the launch, the SMG car was faster by 0.2s. They subsequently tested another manual M3, which matched the SMG's 0-60, but was slightly slower in the rolling start and 1/4 mile.

 

[330CIZHP]

Yeah, E46 M3 SMGII in North America got the "neutered" launch control that revved only to 1800 rpm while the European version got the SMGII where the ECU allows launching from 4000 rpm. BMW did the samething with the SMG7 for the S85 M5 where the North American M5 got a launch control limited to 1800 rpm.

The ideal launch especially with cars that are high revving and don't make gobs of torque down low, is to launch from 4500 - 5000 rpm and then have the super grippy tires do the work of preventing/minimize wheelspin as the car claws its way forward while preventing the engine bogging down to ~ 3000 rpm.

If a car torches the tire and turns it into to smoke at 4500 - 5000 rpm launch without gobs of low end torque then it is a sign of poor grip of tires.

If you look at the old AMS test of the F430 with 6 speed manual and 490 PS, they managed to get a 3.8 seconds 0 - 100 km/h out of it trapping typical at 114 - 117 mph while LFA cannot seem to break 4.0 seconds in many tests with a trap speed typically between 124 - 126 mph and 560 PS.

Agreed. Comparing 0-100 km/h times between two M3s in differing conditions is next to useless in determining the efficiency of the transmission. There are journalists out there who can sometimes beat the launch and traction systems of even today's more advanced cars, which will also require some time to "learn" the surface. In C&D's test of the M3 SMGII, they said it was slower than their manual long-term car by 0.3s in 0-60 and the 1/4 mile. But they also said that the 0.3s deficit all occured before the car even got out of 1st gear (meaning it was due to the launch; launch control was not used as that was a Europe-only system and limited to 1 per hour, for a total of 30 per clutch life, they said). Using the rolling 5-60 method, which all but removes the variable of the launch, the SMG car was faster by 0.2s. They subsequently tested another manual M3, which matched the SMG's 0-60, but was slightly slower in the rolling start and 1/4 mile.

 

[Guibo]

F430...here's another example of why we should take manufacturers' (and editors') figures with a grain of salt. The F430's semi-auto gearbox is rated at 150 milliseconds. The LFA's should take 33% longer to shift (200 milliseconds). Yet the acceleration traces and data suggest otherwise.

The LFA's gearshifts look to be almost twice as fast, not 1/3rd slower.

LFA vs F430 F1 (tested at Fiorano)
30-40: 0.6 / 0.5
40-50*: 0.9 / 1.0
50-60: 0.7 / 0.7

60-70: 0.8 / 0.8
70-80*: 1.1 / 1.3
80-90: 1.0 / 1.1

 

[Levi68]

So as a conclusion we can say the LFA is not slow, but really not slow at all, because it is on - if not above - 458 Italia level. What makes most think it is slow are its two "problems" :
- poor launch due to bad grip tires
- poor high speed acceleration due to huge downforce

But everywere in the mid-range the LFA is really fast, what permits it to make the best N-Ring laptimes in its class and even in the upper class. And plus to that, the LFA is not feather weight, it is more luxurious than its rivals. The two improvements the LFA could get are better tires and an active rear wing.


One other thing not to forget about the LFA is its height, despite being front engined, it as low as the rear engined 458 Italia.
458 Italia : 1213 mm
LFA : 1220 mm

 

[330CIZHP]

Actually in the pictures, LFA actually appears lower.

Anyway, LFA even beyond 270 km/h does not have "poor" acceleration. There are many Scott Pruett videos where he regularly hits 180 - 185 mph (290 km/h) easily with a passenger on big oval tracks in Fontana and Vegas within seconds.

Remember me posting snapshots of Akira Iida hitting 290 KM/H with the LFA on a 40 degree uphill incline on Dottinger Hohe inspite of over 600 lbs of downforce at 325 km/h?? Also, after hitting the crest of Dottinger, he went up to 298 km/h going downhill.

The issue is only in the 0 - 60 mph and 0 - 100 km/h and how inconsistent those numbers are with many tests getting 4.4 - 4.5 seconds 0 - 100 km/h, which is unrealistic for a car with this much power. LFA needs to be launched from 4500 - 5000 rpm cleanly, but with the stock tire, it does not look like it is possible since testers say it causes too much wheelhop and only goes up in smoke.

So as a conclusion we can say the LFA is not slow, but really not slow at all, because it is on - if not above - 458 Italia level. What makes most think it is slow are its two "problems" :
- poor launch due to bad grip tires
- poor high speed acceleration due to huge downforce

But everywere in the mid-range the LFA is really fast, what permits it to make the best N-Ring laptimes in its class and even in the upper class. And plus to that, the LFA is not feather weight, it is more luxurious than its rivals. The two improvements the LFA could get are better tires and an active rear wing.


One other thing not to forget about the LFA is its height, despite being front engined, it as low as the rear engined 458 Italia.
458 Italia : 1213 mm
LFA : 1220 mm

 

[Levi68]

Actually in the pictures, LFA actually appears lower.

Because the given height is of the car "dry". With fluids the car IS lower than the 458 Italia.

 

[330CIZHP]

Nice picture

 

[330CIZHP]

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