I already answered that. It's there in the subjective comments by those who have driven this car. It's a shame that you are too lazy or biased to read and consider these comments. Do you seriously think Toyota don't know how to build a turbocharged engine? If all they wanted was performance, they sure as hell wouldn't have chosen a high-strung NA V-10. But if they were after something else, a high-strung V-10 fits the bill on many levels.
No, you don't get it. The need to rev up quickly was a primary concern (also one reason they went with a single-clutch instead of a DCT), not a s a result of "only" 354 lb-ft. This gives the car the visceral, race-car like feel that many reviewers have experienced. How the hell do you measure this? What performance breakthrough is offered by the Zonda F compared to an Enzo? What performance breakthrough is offered by the Reventon? with the ZR1/ACR on the scene, doesn't that make all of these Euro exotics pretty much redundant?
You agree that the car is worth $400k. Don't you also agree the car is different enough to make it a viable choice for someone who doesn't want the obvious Ferrari choice, or who wants a much sharper car than the 599 and SLR?

 

That's your "proof" that Evo ratings apply only within categories? LOL. I just showed you proof to the contrary.
Can I quote you on this, then?
"People who buy Porsche Turbos are unwitting asshat suckers."
--BD
I'm pretty sure I can.

Where did I say it was inferior??? Jesus, your reading comprehension is worse than mC's.

Neither of those are official sources, and you know it.

We are talking about what (you claim) that both Evo and Autocar said: that they complained about the LFA's rear end. Autocar said the LFA's could be brought out at will and that it was easy to control. This marks you out for the liar that you are. Selective amnesia indeed!
Different scales...So now you are accepting that different scales in the same factory can read differently. Then on what basis can you make any reliable judgement between the LFA and 458 weights? You don't have any!
Sport Auto were closer to the factory claim on the F430 than either the British mag or the American one.

Thanks for proving yet again that mfr weight claims should be taken with a grain of salt. Veyron, built by VW, is from an EU country, where the EU norm is 90% tank + driver + luggage. Yet this Veyron is 137kg over the factory claim with only 8kg more fuel.

How quickly? You mean I made the comment about GT2 downforce (even though I don't even know Porsche's downforce claim for the GT2), then went back and not only changed GT2 to GT3, but then was able to find a GT3 downforce article, and using HTML tags linked it exactly the same way I had done for the Scuderia claim, without the edit ever showing up in my post? How long is a "ninja edit" good for?

Scuderia is 378 bhp/ton. The 997.2 GT3 is 312 bhp/ton. They aren't that similar.
No, you answer the question before I post it up. Your contention is that the R500 was faster due to faster acceleration. Not its cornering speeds.

Wrong. Quit lying, just like your claim that they weighed it at 1450+ kg. Sport Auto's wind tunnel did not show lift for the Scuderia.

I didn't say there was a problem, did I? You were trying to insinuate there was, by using a lone example of where the 599 was faster than the GT-R in another test. All I said was that the tires were so soft they chunked on the dyno and you tried to refute this with some jibberish.

Evo let them do it because they want to test the car and this is likely the only way Ferrari would let them. Don't you get it? It matters because the Ferrari is given an advantage that is not extended to Lamborghini or Porsche. Like I said, Ferrari comes out on top of the equivalent Gallardo in nearly every test, yet Lamborghini still sells Gallardos.

No way is the SV as light as the ZR1. ZR1 should have higher potential; it has magnetic shocks which should theoretically respond nearly instantaneously to bumpy track conditions. But didn't the Brit mags also say the GT3 handles better than the ZR1?
If the Subject is LFA only, then you cannot comment about other cars. You only, as you have taken the position that other cars cannot be commented on.

Haha, cry about it to someone who cares. The Evo Scuderia test wasn't a same day test either; and they had Ferrari's F1 test driver (who also co-developed the Scuderia) giving hints on how to maximize its potential, with other Ferrari crew members manipulating tire pressures. If you don't recognize the differences there, then you are in absolutely NO position to complain about the Balocco result.

But then Minardi don't make road cars, nor do they have a WRC title under their belt, nor did they set fastest laps against the CLR and 911 GT1 at Le Mans.
If the C12 was overpriced, nobody would have bought it and thus Pagani would be bankrupt and thus no Zonda F. They didn't just suddenly jump to the F anyway. There was the C12S in between. Point being, if we had this same discussion back in 1999, everyone here would be predicting the downfall of Pagani: no heritage, no racing pedigree. Why buy a Pagani when you can have a Ferrari/Lamborghini, established supercar marques, instead?

If you think any car's price should be measured against its 'Ring lap time, then you're more hopelessly lost than I'd thought.
Based on 'Ring lap times,
Is the Zonda great at its price?
Is the Enzo great at its price?
Is the 599 great at its price?
Is the Scuderia great at its price?
Is the MC12 great at its price?
Is the CGT great at its price?
Is the ZR1 great at its price?
Is the GT2 great at its price?
Many of these can be beaten or matched by the GT-R, and if they're faster, they're not faster by much. Yet their value has not changed with the arrival of the GT-R. People still buy them. Your retarded logic brings people to one conclusion: only idiots buy anything else than a GT-R.

 

Which concludes that BD is a nothing more than a GT-R fanboi. Every car thread he participates in has some GT-R related babble and how great it is. blah blah blah

 

I call things as I see them. There are those who don't want to call things as they see them because that would call their investments into questions.

Don't remember saying that. There are reasons to buy a Porsche but you have to be honest with yourself and realise that the GTR is best for time attack on any tyre and not go making ludicrous claims like heavychevy. A Porsche 997.2 Turbo is actually very good value relative to an LFA but then most things are.

Well if the LFA's engine isn't superior, why should it be a reason for the car to be worth more? The entire crux or your argument pivots about a point which says, "manufacturers should be able to make inferior kit and it be worth more." I'm afraid I don't subscribe to that philosophy.

Don't cry much.

No it marks you out as having selective amnesia because you heard the 'high-speed stability' but not the 'ultimately dynamically inferior to MR' bit.

F458 will be made by the same area as the Scuderia, so the scales should be accurate. I'm entitled to make any judgements I like. If Toyota want to prove them wrong, then get their **** out on track and set some times that are better than the F458. Until then, all we have to go on says the F458 is better.

As should the LFAs when the factory even state a variance from 1480-1580kg. Looks like the F458 kerb weight variance is lower than the LFA's huh? 1480kg +/-24kg vs 1480-1580kg us JIS half tank.

Really, stay away from the kitchen this Christmas. You'll be stuffed and cooked. I'm not even going to try and make sense of your ramblings.

Well at least you've accepted the kerb weight of the Scuderia now that you think it suits your point. The GT2 was never 2s quicker than the old 997 GT3, so that blows your point right out of the water. The 2008 GTR was 0.9s quicker than the old GT3 and about the same as the GT2 (give 0.1s). Hence that difference in PWR alone can't give 2s.

Not lying, Sport Homo's test shows the Scuderia to have net lift. Go to their site and type 'Scuderia' into 'Suchen' box, then look through the results tab.

You insinuated that the 599GTB in the Evo test had super-soft rubber that flew to bits, yet the lap results are about right. Did you bang your head and forget?

Yes, well a Gallardo is slightly cheaper than a Scuderia and somewhat less than $400,000!


Evo measured the SV 4s quicker than the LP640. Is that +30hp and -100kg at work? Use your loaf lad.

Of course not. Even though we know the 2008 GTR is roughly as fast as a Gallardo SL but the Balocco result has it 4s slower. Face facts your argument is dead in the water and is still nothing to do with the LFA my little strawman.

But if they did, they would probably be the ****test road cars ever.

Hmmm maybe Nissan should charge $400k for the GTR because they beat the 962 in IMSA GTP with an entirely unrelated car.

Maybe Pagani would have made the Zonda F even better if the original C12 was a flop. Well in 10 years time if Toyota have built something truly wonderful I'll praise that car then, but for now it's same old, same old.

You still don't understand. The Enzo is 7 years old and even today there are but a handful of cars that are faster and only 2 that are faster without being completely compromised as road cars, one of which is actually an Enzo with a Maserati badge, the other a Zonda F CS. Get a grip. Not of that, of reality.

 

lol they should just put a singled 2jzgte in it, conservativly tuned to 800 hp
at 30 psi then it would be a winner.

 

But that's what you mean, don't you? What the hell reasons can there be for buying a Porsche Turbo or Zonda when a GT-R does pretty much what they do on the 'Ring for far less money?
Speaking about value in the $400k class of cars is retarded.

Because the engine isn't the only thing that determines a car's price. Look at the M5 vs Z8: same engine, yet one car cost 2x's as much as the other. Once you understand why, and learn to accept simple supply and demand economics, you'll shut the hell up.

How can it be selective amnesia when neither Autocar nor Evo have said it, as you claimed? You said Autocar and Evo both said it, and so far, we have only seen Autocar commenting that the LFA's pointable, controllable rear end is a good thing. Quite the opposite of your unfounded assertion.

1) You haven't provided a single shred of proof that JIS standard is half tank
2) The LFA is still under development; nobody has final weight numbers on this car, not even Toyota apparently.
We can draw no meaningful conclusion about weights between these cars.
And no, the 458 is not most like the Scuderia. It's most like the F430. If the past 2 generations are anything to go by, the stripped out track version of the 458 will be the one to measure against the Scuderia.

I just pulled those numbers from Evo because they were convenient to use. Want to use Evo's test car number? Fine: 366 hp/tonne vs 312. The Ferrari should be faster in a straight line.

Perhaps because the GT3 was faster in the corners???? This means that with bonafide R-compounds like the Scuderia uses, plus tweaking by a small army of engineers from Stuttgart and driver input from Rohrl, the new GT3 might corner just as fast as the Scuderia. If there's a difference, you can't prove the Scuderia produces the claimed downforce figures.

Why would I do then when I can just look at the supertest result directly?

Zero left at the front. 4kg of downforce at the rear.

Just because it had super-soft rubber means it will automatically be faster than a GT-R? Now who's banging their head? The 599 can still have super-soft rubber and STILL be slower than the GT-R. Therefore, your questioning my comments is stupid. Fact of the matter is, Ferrari sent a small team of redcoats with that Ferrari (again). Ask yourself: Why do they do this?? Who else does this? Who else contacts private owners to persuade them from not participating in comparos?

Scuderia? I'm talking about even the standard F430. $400k is irrelevant. By your logic, the Gallardo (and Lamborghini) should whither away and disappear, since Ferrari makes better cars.

And when Evo measured the SV, was it likewise damp in the same places as it was for the LP640? Hell, we have seen variances in dry times on Bedford in the same car by nearly 1 second.

Thanks for proving my point that track conditions can result in different times. Throw in a works team + F1 driver to support the car and set it up, and the differences can be even greater.

At the current production rate and with a steel body and turbocharged engine making less than 500 hp and an interior like that? Probably not. If they built a production version of the R391, perhaps. Charge whatever they want, and then let the market decide.

Maybe monkeys might fly out of your ***, which is where I think most of your ideas come from. If the original C12 was a flop, there would be no Zonda F. What other models did Pagani have to sustain itself? Where is the revenue coming from?

Do you see Enzo values dropping as a result of cars like the GT-R and Caparo T1 being on the market? The 599 sure as hell isn't 7 years old. Nor is the LP640; do you honestly think a $1.4M Reventon will clobber the GT-R on the 'Ring? By your logic, it must or else it's just a waste.
Quite clearly, it is you who does not understand.

 

Seriously. Everyone should just liquidate their Enzos, Paganis, Koenigseggs, 599's, Lamborghinis, AMG Black Series, R8 V10's, DBS's and jump on board for the GT-R. If they don't, they're nothing more than unwitting asshat suckers.

 

You still are spending all of your time trying to justify wether the car is worth $400k. Its already been established that its worth $400k seeing as its value is simply determined by what people are willing to pay. Then your justifying why people would buy the car which doesn't matter either because already 25 people in Europe alone have put a deposit down on the car.

My simple question is can you explain outside of a ricer argument what does all of its technology do to make it the pinnacle of the automobile and make it better than its cheaper and more established competition? I keep being told and had it forced down my throat what a breakthrough the LFA is. I guess I should congratulate Ferrari and Mclaren that they are able to produce a car that outperforms the LFA for far less money using thier incredibly inferior engineering.

 

As a car company that has never made a supercar, I applaud Toyota for their efforts. It's a huge undertaking. Breakthroughs? Nothing I can think of. The way I think of it is the LFA is an achievement by Toyota who has done the best with existing technology. How many car companies can you say tested, refined, raced, and developed their car at the Ring. Preliminary times have been in the 7:2x/:30's, but nothing official. I know that seems redundant, but it is a testament of the product. If you are going to test anywhere test it at the ring, but it did not stop there. The car was tested in the extreme's of conditions; sub-zero to very hot conditions.

What does this tell me? It tells me that a car company did whatever they could to make sure the consumer is going to get a car that will never let them down. Now for many of you reliability might not be of any importance as it paired with supercar isn't normally uttered in the same sentence, but Toyota built a reputation around that word.

Next, is the driving experience. The feel, sound, acceleration, handling, brakes are all important. Some companies emphasize some of these characteristics more than others. For a car company that doesn't make sport cars this is even a bigger undertaking. How would Toyota know what a supercar is supposed to drive like? Well they had targeted Italy's and Germany's finest. From those who have driven it, everyone can agree that it is one heck of a car. The only drawbacks have been the stiff suspension and price.

Thirdly, Toyota emphasized the importance of how the driver should have control of a car at all times. They've experimented with the idea of tradition mid/rear engine designs, but with an unexperienced driver, this layout is unfogiving. With the front-mid engine layout, Toyota has developed a car that will not give up on the driver. This can possibly also be the reason why the car doesn't have more power. It's not because Toyota is not capable of extracting more power, it's a question of whether it is necessary. Even CG-T owners have a rough time going past 7/10s in their car. How enjoyable is a car that can't even hook? Like many have said, power isn't everything. It's one part of the equation.

Should a supercar have compromises? No. The driver should be able to enjoy the features found in a high class car, meaning you can have your cake and eat it to. Where many supercars drop power seating, power windows, stereo system, air-conditioning, glass for plastic, and many other features Toyota didn't. Not only does it have safety features found in all their cars, they also included all the features as above, hence the weight penalty. You can't expect a car to be fully loaded and weigh less than 3000 lbs. The cars many of you are comparing it to have smaller motors, less cylinders, and don't have to worry about polar locations of the transaxle and engine.

Do I think it's worth $400,000? Absolutely. In my opinion, you are getting a car comparable to a Porsche CG-T and Ferrari Enzo for much less than what both those cars went for, brand new. Now it might be outperformed by cars like the McLaren and the F458, but then again a Scuderia can hang with an Enzo. I don't think anyone is going to cry about a few 10ths in acceleration times many of you are fixated on as it is almost inperceptible. It's not all about straightline peformance anyways.

 

I'm not. Try reading my posts for a change. I asked you:
"What performance breakthrough is offered by the Zonda F compared to an Enzo? What performance breakthrough is offered by the Reventon?"

To which you have failed to respond. I can add: What breakthrough is offered by the Koenigsegg? What breakthrough is offeredy by the Murcielago SV?

The Ferrari and McLaren should be far less money. They're building far more of them. By virtue of their production numbers, price, and layout, it should be pretty clear that they are not competitors to the LFA. The 599 GTB is a closer competitor, as would the uber Mercs (SL65 Black or even the SLR).

UK journalist Andrew English listed the following at the end of his LFA review:
"Alternatives: Nissan GT-R*, from £56,800. Lamborghini Murcielago LP640, from £212,750. Ferrari 599 GTB, from £197,673
*
At the level of pub conversation, the big question is, of course, whether the Nissan GT-R would spank the LFA...Lexus will counter that the LFA is not competing in that arena – indeed, at more than a third of a million, it can't."

MSN UK:
"Key rivals - Ferrari 599 GTB, Lamborghini Murcielago SV, Aston Martin DBS, Mercedes SLS"

5th Gear:
"...the Lexus costs a sizable chunk more [than the 458 and MP4-12C] and, in effect, competes with the likes of the Pagani Zonda and Ferrari 599 GTB - although in that stratosphere we're not so sure buyers look at things that logically."

Car & Driver:
"The LFA is the most exciting car to come out of Japan since the GT-R...but it’s more involving than the Nissan and a much more special experience. In many ways, its closest natural rival is the Ferrari 599 GTB, although the Lexus is more visceral and exciting and better balanced and more nimble."

 

At least the 997.2T has the advantage of being faster in a straight line and significantly lighter than a GTR even if it still gets out-handled. The LFA has none of those advantages over an F458/MP4. Some people also like a flat-6 engine note. V10 vs flat-crank V8? Not much in it.

Supply and demand is bollocks and that's the reason the global economy falls on its **** every 10-15 years. The Z8 is shyte but even shyte attracts lots of flies.

Evo and Autocar have said it. Try reading the Evo articles in Issue 138. Without VDIM the cars is an unguided worm. That's why all customer drives were with VDIM on.

Oh yes I have but nothing is ever an official source if it proves you wrong.

Hence 1480-1580kg. Taking the mean of that puts it a lot heavier than an F458 even if the F458 weight is 20-30kg out.

You couldn't draw a meaningful conclusion about anything. Yes the F458 will be bang on like the Scuderia. Pretty sure the F430 was bang on too.

But as stated the GT2 isn't 2s faster than the old GT3.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. Perhaps it wasn't faster in corners. Why would it be? The GT2 was a later more developed car. 'Perhaps' and 'if' are the words of the loser. You'll notice that hc and mC use them frequently.

Could you post a link to that because it seems we have 2 different tests with 2 different results.

Go to Wertungen Tab 4 (Windkanal) - shows lift!
http://www.sportauto-online.de/super...g-1041447.html


So the 599GTB must have had super-soft rubber in all its tests then because every lap on fastestlaps comes out within about the same margin. Get real before someone sends a small army of white-coats round to collect you.

The standard F430 was slightly cheaper than the LP560 and it also came out earlier. And FWIW the Gallardo SE was faster than the base F430 round the old Bedford track. What exactly is your point Mr. Strawman?

As I mentioned earlier, Sport Auto and another Euro magazine, who I couldn't remember the name of, were retarded. The other magazine? That was the one that did the Balocco test.

Why not by your logic? Throw in a bit of Carbon Fibre, make it in a limited run, without selling the other GTRs (i.e. the GTR as it is now is not on the market). It'd work, but it wouldn't be worth it. Just look at the Spec-V and Z-Tune. The Z-Tune wasn't even a new car fresh from the factory, it was a modded R34 V-Spec with up to 30,000km on the clock. Still wasn't quite as bad a rip-off as the LFA though.

Maybe the monkeys would drown in semen before they could fly free from your ***. Where did they get the money in the first place? I have a feeling the guy funding the company was already quite rich.


The Reventon is a waste. It's a body-kitted LP640, plain to see. A very expensive bodykit. Once a car like the Enzo or McLaren F1 has established itself over time, it should hold value as it's a classic.

Do you see an LFA's performance being as special in 2017 as the Enzo's is now? Do you see it being as special in 2026 as an F1's is now? The answer is 'no'. Just like the 360s, F430s and eventually F458, it's performance will fade into a zone of mediocrity after about 3-4 years.

 

Please remember its you that is saying what a performance breakthrough the LFA is. I am simply asking for evidence of such claims, no one has claimed that the 599 GTB and Reventon are performance breakthroughs or that they move their class forward due to their cutting edge technology. I just don't see what the LFA does that has not been done before? The only possible thing I can think is provide Lexus reliability and Toyota service cost but that again is something that neither your nor I know.

 

It's faster, but is that extra speed completely reflected in the price difference? What good is the weight advantage if it still gets out-handled? See? This is your "logic" at work. By your logic, you have to accept that the Turbo is a waste of money, is only for asshats.
And some people prefer a front-engine layout. And some people prefer not to see another car just like their own too often. I doubt McLaren's turbocharged engine is going to sound as visceral as the LFA's.

So you're promoting a socialist agenda instead? Ok, Trabant for you.
You can't argue away the Z8 with that statement. In fact, it only reinforces my point, about your ignorance of supply and demand. But we already knew as much when you thought the world was only just suddenly mad.

Autocar didn't say it either online nor in their video.
Why don't you post up the entire Evo article for all of us to see? I would say all customer drives were with VDIM on so that they don't wreck only 3 such prototypes in existence. It's good to know the LFA rewards skillful driving.
In any case, Car & Driver did drive it w/o VDIM on, on none other than the hairiest track there is, and wrote:
"Out on the Nordschleife, even in sport mode, the stability-control system intrudes earlier than we expected, making it difficult to rotate the car into corners with power. But turn off the stability control, and the LFA comes alive. The car’s behavior is then determined by a combination of steering lock and throttle input, just the way a good front-engine, rear-drive car should be. Too little throttle, and the car noses wide; dial in the right amount, and the attitude is neutral. Apply too much power too early, and the tail will slide, but it’s very controllable.
There’s notably more grip above 50 mph, when the active rear spoiler comes into play. The car does everything instantly, with hardly any body roll and loads of grip...it’s more involving than the Nissan and a much more special experience."

So, there we have not one, but two sources. One British (Autocar), one American (C&D). Both saying the car's rear end is easily controllable, even with the stability systems turned off.

Taking the mean is pointless. We don't even know what those figures represent.

The Scuderia isn't bang on, though. The factory-supplied car with the optional lightweight Lexan side windows (and power functions delete) weighed more than the claim.
Go to ferrarichat.com and you'll see a curb weights thread. It appears that customer cars usually only get close to the factory claim when the tanks are empty.
The F430 was not bang on either, as proven by the figures I posted by Autocar, C&D, and Sport Auto (with Sport Auto being the closest one).

Here's another one for you: The only German press CTS-V, a pre-production car, was weighed by C&D at 1940kg. Sport Auto weighed this same exact car with full tank at only 8kg more.

Because the GT3 is the sharper driver's car. Its throttle response is immediate and more linear. Not the lag then massive boost like the GT2. It's also lighter. How the hell do you think it stays so close to the GT2 on a high-speed track like the Nurburgring? Because it's accelerating just as fast? Nope.

It's the same test. There has only ever been one supertest of the Scuderia. It's perhaps a typo on their site. Like how Autocar lists Ferrari's claimed weight for the F430 on their website, but in the actual print article, they printed the weight that they found on their own scale.
4kg of lift vs 4kg of downforce isn't likely to make the difference between a car flying off an 80 mph turn anyway; it's such a tiny fraction of the car's overall weight.
Hey, show me where they weighed the Scuderia at 1450+ kg, like you claimed.

When did I ever say they didn't put the same tires for all those other tests, dumbass?? Ferrari have been on record as saying the P Zero "The Hero" tires which come as standard fitment on the 599 are a huge part of its performance, in addition to the electronics. Jeez, you're dumber than I thought you were. And that's quite something!

And yet people still bought the LP560, even though the standard F430 was cheaper. That's exactly my point! Lamborghini has neither the racing pedigree nor the magazine review wins over Ferrari, yet they still can thrive. Just because Ferrari is faster/better does not make them redundant.
The Gallardo SE was faster than the base F430; did that stop people from buying F430s?

The results are retarded simply because you don't agree with them and they weren't done on the same day. This proves my point about differences in conditions leading to different results.
I asked you whether the SV lap was damp like it was for the LP lap. By your silence, I'm going to guess it was dry.

I'll tell you why not: BECAUSE LIKE I SAID AT CURRENT PRODUCTION LEVELS, IT WOULDN'T WORK. Jesus, you're dense. And the LFA is quite a bit different than having "a bit of Carbon Fibre thrown in."
Your last sentence there is contradictory. If it works (ie, it sells), then it's worth it.

And yet Lamborghini has sold 12 of them, with firm interest for 3, as well as interest for the Roadster version. Joke's on you.

You can't predict the future. Is the Enzo's performance that special? The McLaren F1 was pretty much just as fast years before it. Years after it, a factory Dodge Viper was faster around the 'Ring; no carbon brakes, no active aero. It was beaten in same-day track tests against the Carrera GT. Its weaker brother, on steel brakes, beat it on the 'Ring during the same test session. The Enzo's performance is awesome, yes. But it will be remembered not primarily for its performance, but because it's one of the few ultra-limited Ferrari hypercars. Realistically, even if Ferrari charged $1M, there would still be waiting lists. Do you disagree?

 

Where did I say the LFA is a performance breakthrough? I'm pretty sure I've never said it has world-leading acceleration, braking, or lap times.
What I have seen, from reviews so far, is that it combines Scuderia-levels of driver involvement, and phenomenal responsiveness, in an extremely well-crafted front-engined GT. This is no doubt aided by the offset counter gear designed to allow the engine to sit as low as possible. Autocar described it as "more solidly constructed than anything Italian." It's also more bespoke, with many more major components (the most important being the tub/body itself) built in-house. It's not any one thing; nobody buys this car for any one thing. It's all of these factors combined together. Perhaps there has been another car built just like this. Can you name it?

 

I say ban BD. He's nothing more than a troll that is in love with the GT-R and trying to convince the world how great it is. Take your agenda elsewhere. Better yet, apply at a Nissan dealership if you're not already employed by one.