Why not have a little cry. I call things as I see them.

 

The prices are quite different but they're close enough for people to be able to decide for themselves. Many people don't use their car hard enough to notice the handling difference and hence all they care about is acceleration and a bit of AWD assurance, hence they go for the Porsche. Put a decat exhaust on the MP4 and it'll sound plenty visceral.

Yes because saying that things should live up to their value in delivered performance is the same as saying that everyone should get the same. Capitalism is about progression through competition. The LFA doesn't compete at that price, the end. I can forgive you for thinking that way because the original definition of capitalism has been lost. Capitalism doesn't cause market crashes, it's the deviation from classical capitalism which causes it.

Yes they did.

Why don't you buy the magazine you cheap-skate? Issue 138 p38&39. Feel free to check it out.



By using VDIM?


Evo wrote:

Of course it is. Anything that doesn't fit your argument is pointless.

Lexan side window. How much weight are you going to lose from a side window. The windows in Evo also look to be absolutely normal.

It seems to be exactly 1s/minute slower there too, which further proves my point, thanks.

Link to prove it. Still seems to me like we have 2 different results for the same car from Sport Retardo.

So if the tyres are standard fit what's your problem? I still don't see any evidence of chunks flying off either.

Are you somehow confused. The LP560 is faster than the standard F430 but slower than the Scuderia. It is priced in between the 2. The Gallardo SE is marginally faster than the F430 on one track and I think it was priced about the same but can't really remember that far back.

The LP640 lap wasn't wet at all my little liar because I have Issue 131 on my desk too. It was tested against the XJ220, the track was bone dry and the sun was out. The Balocco results are retarded because they're not even consistent with each other. If known slower cars from the same company are faster it makes the case right there.

They could always drop production levels and only make a car after it's been ordered and in a limited lease-purchase way.

Joke's on the retards who paid $1.5m for a bodykitted LP640.

Some predictions don't require a crystal ball. I can predict that aliens won't abduct all Texans and **** probe them tomorrow. See what I mean. The Lexus's perfromance is not special enough to last 5 years. It's a very average supercar, if there's such a thing.

LOL, you really miss out quite a lot of facts. The Enzo's 'ring time is only bettered by 2 proper cars (the MC12 - an Enzo in drag, and the Zonda F CS) after a whole 7 years. Straightline-wise, yes the F1 beats it, just, but then it pretty much beats anything, including a Veyron, from a 2nd gear roll. Talking about the ACR is just daft. C&D measured ride vibrations against the GTR, 911 Turbo and R8. The ACR was more than twice as bad them. It has so much aerodynamic downforce that it tops out at under 170mph (165 in fact) without adjusting the ride height and shock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTBJ3bfsIeQ

It's like comparing an Enzo to an Ultima GTR. The ACR is just an average any-old car with a rock-solid suspension and an extremely huge inefficient downforce kit and some sticky rubber. It's nothing that you couldn't do to a Z06 with some aftermarket parts and some spare time.

 

What supercar is? Unless the car comes with forced induction, is a lightweight kit car, or costs a million dollars, with your sole measuring stick for performance being ring times, please tell me what "supercar" has performance special enough to last 5 years? You bring up the McLaren F1, which by todays standards there is no other car like it (power/weight). Regulations today almost make it impossible to have a car like the McLaren F1. Every "supercar" becomes outdated after 5 years. That's why there are current iterations of it which is better than its predecessor.

 

With your logic BD, the great and mighty GT-R will be special for a long time because with a Cobb AP and now future upgrades, it will be unstoppable. Seriously your love for the GT-R bleeds right through every single one of your arguments and everyone can see that it is your ultimate measuring stick. "Everyone, sell your cars. You've all been duped. If performance is the only thing that matters in supercar ownership, your Ferraris, Lamborghinis, and Mclarens among others are useless. Buy a GT-R, mod it, and be king of the ring forever." See how ridiculous that sounds. Again as everyone else has been saying, performance isn't everything.

 

If all they wanted is acceleration and a bit of AWD assurance, why don't they just buy a modded GT-R? These guys have plenty of money to do so if they can buy a Turbo, yet they don't. Are they retards?
You have to put a decat exhaust on a ~ £150000 supercar built by an F1 manufacturer to make it sound visceral?

Right, because all of those $10k+ wristwatches on the market are competing to make a watch that tells time better. LOL.

Prove it. Both their online site and video review say otherwise.

It's not even out yet over here, doofus.
Since you were so ready and willing to scan the Scuderia bit (which was unnecessary, as the relevant information was already on their website anyway), why don't you post up this section of the Evo article. One paragraph before, and one paragraph after. Or tell us who the writer is. Was it John Simister?

In any case, here's another VDIM-off review:
"Indeed this is a very serious machine, but one that also wants to play and does not punish too severely for doing so. So with the safety systems off, the LFA does go sideways, it will spin the rear tyres out of corners and it will allow a reasonably competent driver to recover such indiscretions and well, yes it's also fun."
--Telegraph

Not just one side window, but 2. And the motors that power them. And the power door locks too. All of this adds up. And this is just what we can see from the article. There could very well be other weight-saving measures.

It doesn't prove your point. On the fast Nurburgring, the GT2 will be able to hit vastly higher speeds on the straights, particularly the last one (310kph with Rohrl at the wheel). Until you post up those 997.2 GT3 cornering speeds, you don't have a point.

It's right off of this page from the printed supertest:


But like I said, 4kg of lift isn't going to make the difference vs 4kg of downforce. It's just too small a difference to conclude that the Scuderia will fly off of a 80-mph turn because of it. "All of this lift" is just your typical senseless hyperbole.
Where's the proof that they weighed the Scuderia at 1450+ kg??

The problem is: Why does Ferrari always have to send a team of redcoats to accompany a car for testing? Why did they do that even when Evo had on hand an official UK press car? Why have they, on occassion, contacted owners to persuade them from submitting their cars for testing? The point, as it relates to Ferrari vs Lambo, is that the Ferrari was given an edge which they did not give to the Gallardo.

Here's the evidence of the particles of tires flying off:
"The little black crumbs peppering Kenny P, rather bravely installed at the rear of the test cell with his camera, suggest another reason. The rear P Zeros are getting so hot that they’re throwing off morsels of rubber and may actually be sticking to the rollers, increasing rolling resistance...The softness of the tyres is interesting. Ferrari wouldn’t be the first company to get extra grip by specifying a soft compound..."
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evoc...b_fiorano.html

No, you are confused. A person buys an LP560 because he likes it and wants it. Not because he cannot afford a Ferrari. A Gallardo SE customer probably doesn't give a rat's *** about track times. These cars are so evenly matched that customers likely don't give two ***** about the numbers.

I have that issue too. Turn to page 103:
"[The Lamborghini] was 1.6sec quicker around the West Circuit despite some damp patches when it took its turn on the track."
Lap chart caption:
"Lambo would have gone faster but for damp patches (not present for the Jag's lap) causing a few oversteer moments, needing quick corrections."

See? The track wasn't bone dry, "my little liar."


But that's not what you had in mind when you originally brought up this stupid example. If you had, you would have said it.

So now Z8 is for retards, Koenigsegg is for retards, original Zonda is for retards, Reventon is for retards. Let me guess, only non-retards buy GT-R's. That's what you're really trying to say.

Have you yourself driven the LFA?
The reviews indicate it is anything but average, being built better than most, being more practical than many, being more finely adjustable on the limit and stable at high speed and extremely quick in responses.
Did your crystal ball tell you that the 2000GT would see a 28-fold increase in value from its original MSRP?

Wait, WTF does ride vibrations have to do with performance? Your whole argument about a car's worth has centered on its bang-for-buck ratio. The ACR with its antiquated steel chassis, pushrod motor, imprecise gearchange, steel brakes beat the Enzo for only 1/6th the price. Why don't people who own Enzos suddenly just sell them and buy ACR's instead?
And with equal rubber, the F1 can beat the Enzo on a twisty circuit too. Evo Magazine did just that.

This is what you have been doing. Your whole claim in this thread (and in others) is that given equal money, you'd be a fool to buy the slower car. You've distilled the whole supercar buying and ownership experience into nothing more than objective performance vs $'s. This is retarded. The ACR is just an average any-old car with a huge inefficient downforce kit, yet it lapped faster than the Zonda Club Sport, which sure as hell isn't 7 years old. By your own logic, the Club Sport is a waste of carbon fiber.

 

Wait are we comparing the intrinsic value of the pure sex Zonda versus the thinking mans supercar?

I don't think your getting it, the LFA does not have the gravitas , the panache , or the name recognition of cars like the 458 Italia. But in lieu of this your also buying a car that performs worse and costs more money. Where do I sign, I think since I own a Lexus SUV I am the perfect customer to jump into the 2 year LFA lease!

 

There's so much to read between the two major people posting in this thread, i only read throuhg the first half.

My thoughts are, it's a toyota/lexus. Unless it's significanly faster, sounds better, or looks better to me, it has to be cheaper than a ferrari,porsche,lambo, etc... It just has to be or I won't even consider it. Even if it sounds the same, produces the same sound, looks just as good, it still has to be cheaper. Just cause it's a toyota.

 

"I'm gonna pay my Mexican lawn maintenance crew $50 for a $100 job because they are Mexican." Good of you to join the debate.

 

Well you have to remember that Lexus came into this market against established competition making their name by selling an equal or better car for less money. As the car maker got their name established then they started to raise their prices.

 

Either the competition was overpriced or the Lexus was priced right. Even Lexus admitted that they are LOSING money on the LFA. You can't say that about any Porsche, Lamborghini, or Ferrari. I wonder.

 

not my fault toyota wanted to use a one off chasis or super high tech technology that even at 350k it's selling at a loss.

 

Were not talking about picking a Hyundai Genesis over a base model C300 here folks, were talking about a car priced in the realm of people that can buy whatever they want.

 

When a car's this expensive, what I care about is the name, sound, looks, and to some extent performance.

 

Yeah I stopped here. Enough said.

 

So for you brand *****'s, what do you think about Toyota as a company?