Is it worth it? On the basis of looks alone, I'd say no. However, technology, sound, story and early reports, exclusivity are all there. It would ultimately come down to the drive-not likely to happen but it would necessary for me to consider purchase.

 

Notice I said:
"Ferrari had claimed that the 360 Modena produced 397 lb of downforce at 180 mph (reported in R&T). Yet the 360 Challenge Stradale which makes more downforce produced net lift of 6kg at 200 kph. F430 was supposed to have produced 300 lbs of downforce at 124 mph, yet Sport Auto found about 8kg of average lift at 124 mph."
So, please explain to me how it is that:
1) The 360 CS, touted by Ferrari as having more downforce than the regular 360, ended up producing net lift, and
2) how the F430, as claimed by Ferrari as having 300 lbs of downforce at 124 mph, showed 8kg of lift at the same exact speed??

Better lap times and higher cornering speeds are some evidence of downforce (or reduced lift) at work, if all other factors of the cars in question are the same. There's a difference in power, weight, suspension, and tire development between the 360 Modena, 360CS, and F430. You can't point to cornering speeds and say it's all down to HUNDREDS of pounds of downforce, where before there was actually lift as independently measured. For all we know, it's just reduced lift; you can not prove it's downforce, nor can you prove the magnitude of that downforce. Just look at the GT-R: it has less downforce than some supercars, yet can take the same corners just as fast or faster.
Anyways, you made the claim. You should support it with some data.

And do you think Sport Auto owns that wind tunnel? How many mags do you know of that have their own wind tunnels? That wind tunnel belongs to Daimler, and in case you haven't heard of them, they are involved in Formula One as well...

Whose more accurate scale weighed both the Zonda F and the ZR1?

There are variables in NRing lap times, that's why I included a reasonable 5s buffer. Do you honestly think the Zonda F is going to be 10-20s faster than the ZR1? Marc Basseng figures his ideal lap in the Club Sport version (which has even more power) would be a 7:20 flat. Jim Mero already hit within 7 seconds of that with a strong headwind and some blown corners, but he's not a professional racer. Jan Magnussen is, and believes 7:1x is easily within the ZR1's reach. The reality is that there is likely next to nothing separating the ZR1 from the Zonda F on the 'Ring.
Note that Hockenheim is much more controlled for conditions, and the ZR1 beats the Zonda F there.
Isn't road course performance the true measure of a car's worth, in terms of price and technology? That was your criteria. Now that I'm using your criteria, you must accept that the Zonda F is a waste of money and only unwitting suckers would buy such a machine. The ZR1 is loaded with technology as well, and it's just as fast on a road course, and it costs only 1/6th the price. So now you're saying the price difference is all in the interior. $500k's worth. Gimme a break.

So a C12S is as old as a Testarossa? Now you're really grasping. And like I said, a Ferrari or Porsche Turbo of the same era would have been just as fast as the original Zonda, for a mere fraction of the price.
The first Zonda might not have been such a great deal, yet enough people seemed to have bought them to keep the company not only afloat, but to gradually grow over time.

The Z8 being ghastly is irrelevant to this discussion, unless you want to make the point that a ghastly BMW with engine and transmission from a sedan yet priced like a Ferrari can indeed find some sales success. The point of that car was not to be a sales success anyway. It was a halo car, using new materials and techniques which BMW would use in later cars. It was not an end, but a means to other processes...sound familiar?

 

wow so detailed..... +1 rep

 

^

 

As I said that's because Sport Auto don't know what they're doing.

Because Sport Auto.

Because Sport Auto.

I'm sorry but it's the truth, they really don't know WTF they're doing. The question should be, "Why is it that Sport Auto can't match professionally measured downforce figures when they do the measurement... and why can't they match performance as measured by the rest of the world... and why they can't they even achieve consistency between their own tests."

I'm really tired of this useless bunch of assclowns being quoted as some kind of authority in the motoring world.

Do you seriously think anything else has the ability to make such a big difference in terms of high speed cornering g. A magic diff maybe? I think someone already tried that story in F1 many moons ago.

Oh dear, independently measured by Sport Auto, drop everything, god has spoken.

You can't verify Sport Auto's test procedure either and more importantly, neither can I.

Is that specifically down to peak g, or just faster entry and exit? That's the difference.

Data means nothing without a verification of the test method. Ferrari have already provided the data, probably from the same wind tunnel they use so successfully for F1 development. So there's my data. I don't see how some poxy little German magazine, who's always at odds with the motoring world, is any authority to dispute these. If you recall my original statement regarded the Enzo anyway, but then you strawman'd your way off into talking about the 360 and Sport Crapo as a way of somehow disproving the Enzo downforce, even though Sport Crapo haven't measured the LFA's downforce yet, nor the Enzo's, not that it would even mean anything if they had. It's a pretty retarded argument really isn't it?

Well everyone's. The kerb weight of a Zonda F is 1230kg. Let's have a video of it being weighed with witnesses if you want to dispute the commonly accepted figure. Same applies to your downforce readings. Video with witnesses (other than Sport Auto) if you want to dispute the norm. It's fairly meaningless otherwise. I could sit here and claim I measured it at 300kg. Let's have a video of the weighing like Evo did with the GTR and Veyron. You know how the internet works, if you want to go against the grain, you need a video, or else it's bull****.

10s sounds about right.

Yeah it has 5% more power, you'll find that doesn't make a great difference. Can actually cause problems as flat-out sections are suddenly no longer flat out.

With Sport Auto again lol. Find some other results. Much like the GTR, the ZR1 spent rather a long time going for a 'ring fast lap. The Zondas, Enzo and MC12 spent next to no time by comparison. You really can't deal in IFs either. If it's capable of a 7:1X then do it!

You don't half waffle on son. You've proved nothing. You've taken all your results from 1 magazine and dealt in speculation. The fact still remains that the Zonda F is 300kg lighter than a ZR1, has more or less the same power and laps faster. And that's without looking at the 4 year time gap between the cars.

The other point of note is that the Zonda is a Pagani, whereas the LFA is a Toyota and is not entirely dissimilar to a riced-out Supra MKIV in appearance.

I also noted how you deliberately strayed away from the real here-and-now comparisons which are the F458 and MP4-12C. Explain to me how a re-badged Toyota can ask for double the tag of bigger name cars that are better in performance and technology. If you want to break into a higher market as a nobody, you have to make a car that's better and cheaper than all relevant competition, like the GTR.

All the differences a Zonda F has over a ZR1, the LFA doesn't have over an F458 or MP4-12C. This really is the most convoluted POS argument I've ever come across.

Well you seemed to be going down memory lane. Automotive tech moves so fast that it's meaningless to compare two cars that are separated by more than 2 years. The first Zonda probably wasn't worth the money either, so. FWIW even the original C12 had a higher PWR than the 996TT.

Wasn't aware that many people drooled over the Z8 either.

Explain to me why the hell I would buy a Toyota with a half-decent V10 when, in 2 years, there'll be a Lotus Esprit with the same engine and better handling (by virtue of the fact it's Lotus) for a third of the price.

 

374k for a Lexus? No thanks. It is a very nice car and have to admit the quality because I've been a long time Lexus owner, I'd rather spend that money on a Ferrari or Lambo

 

you got right to the point...., thanks ....lol

 

Where is this big difference in high speed cornering g's you're talking about?

You mean there are other independently confirmed measurements of Ferrari downforce that are at odds with Sport Auto's? Show them to me.

You can't verify Ferrari's test procedure either. Therefore your data means nothing without verification.

So you're saying the difference is that the GT-R magically produces gobs of downforce at corner entry and exit...ok.

We don't need video evidence to prove this, and Sport Auto is not always at odds with the motoring world. British mags, for example, have recorded very slow times for cars too. As have edmunds, Automobile, and Road & Track in the US. And the Brit mags too have found Ferraris weigh more than the claimed figures.
599 GTB
Ferrari claim: 1688kg
Evo Magazine: 1733kg
Sport Auto: 1748kg

F430
Ferrari claim: 1450kg
Sport Auto: 1493kg
Autocar: 1528kg
AutoZeitung: 1520kg

According to Evo, the 1230kg figure for the Zonda F is the dry weight:
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/carg...arrera_gt.html#

When Evo tested the Ferrari California, they actually had two cars.
"Both? As ever with Ferrari, it’s a test of two halves; the figures taken on an Italian car attended by Italian technicians, the on-road impressions formed from the UK press car."
California, claimed weight: 1735kg
California, Ferrari-owned Italian model used for performance figures: 1786kg
California, UK press car: 1901kg

Take a look at these weight claims for Corvettes and tell me if Sport Auto's figures are out of whack.
ZR1
GM: 1518kg
AutoBild: 1530
Sport Auto: 1533

Z06
GM: 1420
Evo: 1443
Sport Auto: 1440

You brought in a car with active aero, and I wasn't even disproving the Enzo anyway. I was only saying that independently tested downforce figures for the 360/360CS/F430/ have shown them to be far less than what Ferrari have reported. That's a fact. If Sport Auto tested the Enzo and proved the aero figures were bang on the money, would you still say it doesn't mean anything? Haha, sure you would.

Yet we have video proof of Jim Mero lapping the circuit in 7:26 with some blown corners. That's not 10s slower than the ZondaF Club Sport.

So now it's badge and appearance. Whatever happened to net technological result of faster lap times?

I already said it. If you can't remember, that's too bad. Besides, show me a link saying the 458 and McLaren are the legit competitors. Then show me a link saying there aren't people in this world who could buy all of these cars.
Besides, just because there may be better cars in performance and technology doesn't mean another car is a failure. Look at Ferrari vs Lamborghini: Ferrari almost always wins in any comparo, yet Lamborghini still sells a crapload of cars. In this category, people with the means don't buy cars the same way people like you might: cost/practicality/performance is not the greatest concern. The purchasing decision is much more emotional.

Zonda F has no real performance advantage over the ZR1 either.
LFA has advantage of very low production numbers and CF tub and body. That is already an explanation for pricing differences with the Ferrari, which everyone knows is artificially priced below true market value anyway. The MP4-12C doesn't have to sell only 500 units, they are talking about 1000+ units per year. Plus the CF isn't woven in-house. It's incredible that you continue to fail to understand this.

PWR doesn't mean everything, as we've already discussed at great length.

There doesn't have to be many people who drool over the Z8, though when they were first released, they were briefly changing hands at nearly 2x's the MSPR. There doesn't even have to be enough people. The Z8 was a technological and manufacturing exercise. In any case, BMW went on to sell nearly 6 thousand of them.

Explain to me why the hell I would buy a Toyota with a half-decent V10 when, in 2 years, there'll be a Lotus Esprit with the same engine and better handling (by virtue of the fact it's Lotus) for a third of the price.
If you can only afford the Lotus, then you have your answer right there.
Being a Lotus doesn't automatically means it handles better.
Do Lotus Esprits command $200k+ at auction?

 

Some comments from Autoweek that might explain why the LFA is relatively heavy despite the carbon tub and body:

"The suspension was not just developed at the Nürburgring, as seemingly everything is nowadays, but during the Nürburgring 24-hour race. The shocks on the production car are the same ones used in the race. When engineers and drivers noticed some slight chassis flex in the races, Tanahashi-san added front and rear crossbraces connected by a latticelike central brace and two more carbon-fiber braces in the front structure."

It's built not just to withstand a 4-lap stint on any racetrack. It's built largely with chassis flex reduction (or elimination) in mind during the course of a 24 hour race on arguably the most grueling, demanding track on the planet. Do recall that the Ferrari Enzo used in the supercar 'Ring comparo had its dampers fail during a lap.

 

Look at the cornering gs from magazine tests. Where is the Sport Auto video showing how the 430 was tested? Again, it's not my responsibility to prove anything. You're the one going against the normally-agreed data, so you provide proof.

You're confused between confirmed measurements and mere stated figures. If someone came to the table claiming a 7:00 lap for a car, you'd want to see a video, I know I would. Without a video, Sport Auto's measurements aren't worth ****. They just have a nasty habit of stirring up bollox because they pretend to accurately measure things that no other magazine really measures directly. Does that mean we have to accept the word of these ******s? Hell no. It's like me posting one test where car A beats car B and then claiming that that is a definitive result. The absence of other results leaves the burden of proof with you not me. No other magazine has seen fit to question Ferrari's downforce figures.

Oh yeah, Sport Auto are about as independent as Best Motoring.

Because Sport Auto says so? Right.

If Ferrari were claiming 300+kg of missing downforce I'm sure some other magazine would have picked it up during road tests by now. Sure they don't measure it, but they'll sure as hell notice it when they're driving don't you think. I mean an extra 300kg on a 1400kg car is over 20%! Nobody is going to not notice a missing 20%!

Ferrari's claimed track performance has been verified, their power claims have been verified and their acceleration figures have been verified by the entire cast of magazines. Sport Auto on the otherhand have a habit of throwing up results which go against the norm. Whether it's the extra 3-4% of performance they manage to extract from all 911s/RUFs relative to all other cars or ridiculous measurements of aerodynamic performance. Guess who I trust? It isn't Sport Auto?

No, learn to read. The GTR is extraordinarily stable and allows very late braking, it also allows drivers to get on the power very early. So whilst the peak corner g is merely impressive, the average g over the course of the entire corner is spectacular.


Funny you mention Evo and Autocar because they both quote the Zonda F at 1230kg.

It also puts 1230kg in the box where it says 'kerb weight'.

Can't see how your quibbling strawman really helps you out in the broad scheme of this argument - regarding the LFA - if you can remember that far back. Even at what Sport Auto quote, the Zonda F is hugely lighter than a ZR1 and is hence a good use of CF. Being heavier than the F458, the Euro LFA is a waste of CF. Youuu onnnderstand?

Evidence? If this is the case, the LFA could in fact weigh 2 tons.

Unfortunately this does nothing to prove your case for an LFA being justified at $400k, it just shows that all manufacturers talk bollox.

Proof?

Yes, I would still say it means nothing. I will not accept any figure that comes out of Sport Auto without back-up from at least 1 US magazine and 1 UK magazine. They are not to be trusted. If you can find me some other downforce measurements from a US and UK magazine then I'll believe you.

An absence of 300+kg of downforce isn't something that any test driver worth his salt wouldn't notice. That's an 'oh yeah I'm in a tree' kind of thing to miss.

Having looked at Sport Crapo supertests. All their downforce measurements seem to be under, so it's likely that their measurements of the LFA figures would be less than the factory quote too. So where does this leave your initial argument? Nowhere. Such inconsistency isn't something you can found an argument for a $400k Lexus on. Based on the other car measurements of downforce, the initial LFA 'ring times suggest that it isn't producing its stated downforce either, unless it has really crap handling besides. 7:30 is the best a production LFA has made so far. Even the race version with slicks was only making low 7:20s. So if it has all this downforce where other cars 'supposedly' have lift, where's the times to prove it.

Video proof after a long time trying. There's no such thing as a perfect 'ring lap and I doubt anyone got anywhere near one in a mid-engined Zonda given the time they spent trying.

I also can't believe you're comparing a Zonda with a Toyota. What are you on? You're also failing to note the 4 year time gap as well.

Well when the LFA gives us a 7:15, we'll have that technological result won't we. Until then it's an over-priced piece of crap.

Show me a link saying they aren't.

I'm sorry but your argument is retarded. It's like if Nissan had entered the market with a GTR at $300k and said, "Nevermind the Porsche 997TT, it's not a competitor," and then some idiot picked up on one small facet of GTR engineering, like ATTESA or DCT, and claimed it as the reason why a GTR was out of the 997TT's league and was entitled to claim a higher tag without bettering the 997TT lap times or performance in any way. You'd be laughed off every forum and that's what people are doing with the LFA at $400k along with the people claiming that the F458 isn't a competitor.

Show me a link saying that everyone isn't retarded.

It sure as hell doesn't make it a success.

Ferrari doesn't win 'in every' comparo and people buy LP560-4s because they're cheaper than Scuderias, whilst being damn near as fast in nearly every respect but with the security of AWD.

Your conclusions come out of nowhere with diversionary strawmans that waste everyone's time. You're only actual argument as to why the LFA is worth $400k is that it has a CF tub, well rub-a-dub-dub. There's a bit more to a car than the chassis and unless you're going to put more work into those areas, the CF is a waste.

Why do you insist on comparing a 4 year-old car to a ZR1? Not that your comparisons are even correct. How can you state low production numbers as a technological advantage? You can make cheese or rice in low volume if you really want.

'Plus the CF isn't woven in house.' Who cares? How does that make a difference? So the MP4-12C should be penalised because it's selling more than 500? WTF?

No but it's a good indication of inline speed and that's what you mentioned.

Look, the Z8 is ****, doesn't even have a limited slip diff, the end.

No because they're not losers who can only make overpriced cars, in low volume, at a loss. The fact is that Lexus went for an Al chassis as well but they realised they were too crap to compete, so went for an ultra-expensive low volume CF car instead.

And guess who's in F1 next year? Not Toyota.

 

For the most part the customer doesn't care about how the product is built. This is something we learned in engineering metrics classes. The customer shouldn't be paying for that. And I really hope nobody pays prices for cars solely based on Cd and Cl and 'ring times. Paying that price for a limited-edition car is something else.

Did anybody actually read the review about somebody who's actually been in one (on this site)? He even said he's trying to get one and he already owns an F430.

The F1 aspect is a moot point; there are many people who own Ferraris who don't follow F1 or know anybody who's ever driven for them; MS maybe (but they wouldn't know he drove for Jordan and Benetton before that)

 

I'll bet there are lots of people trying to get hold of one, just like there are lots of people after a Tall Boy Cabinet, but that doesn't make it a great car. It's rare and as such it's collectable.


BTW Guibo, Sport Auto only recorded 196kg of downforce for the Gumper Apollo S at 200kph. This being a car that's supposed to be able to drive upside-down at 300kph, i.e. 1200kg of downforce @ 300kph.

1.5^2 * 196kg = 441kg so that's some way short. And I believe the Apollo's awesome 'ring time proves that it's generating the claimed downforce. As I said, Sport Auto's measurements are out.

http://www.gumpert.de/intern/fileadm...uto_281009.pdf

 

+1, you CANNOT say a Gt2 in an exclusive car, b/c you can drive up to a restaurant and most will never know that the guy next you driving a base carrera with a wing didnt spend the same as you.

Porsche are by far my fav cars, and amazing, but you guys cannot lie to yourselves and say that its as exclusive as this car.

I am not 100% sure, but i am pretty sure this car has a better power/weight ratio then a corvette zr1 which is alot to say considering that cars power and weight/size.

 

You're the second person to say that and the second person to be wrong.

ZR1 - 418bhp/1000kg
LFA - 372bhp/1000kg

 

Since many of you idiots base your value of something strictly on horsepower, here is the cost per horsepower.

Bugatti Veyron: $1500.00
Ferrari Enzo: $964.74
Mclaren SLR: $729.34
Porsche CGT: $726.07
Lamborghini LP670: $671.64
Lexus LFA: $669.64
Ferrari F430 Scuderia: $559.88
Ferrari 599GTB: $517.06
Ferrari 458: $401.78
Porsche GT2: $366.04
Lamborghini LP560: $353.57
Porsche 911 turbo: $266.60
Nissan GT-R: $166.58
Corvette ZR1: $162.96
Dodge Viper SRT: $152.03
Cheverolet Corvette ZO6: $146.38