http://www.global.yamaha.com/news/2009/20091021.html

 

I still don't understand why people love this car so much... why don't you ask yourself this? you have $375000 to go out and spend on a car/s, what would you get?
now other than the LFA, here is what you can get at that price...
P CGT
SLR Mclaren
LP640
2x F430
2x 997 GT2
2X Lp560-4
F430 Scuderia and a GT3
list goes on

That is a Lexus, any mainstream asian car maker and exclusivity shouldn't be in the same sentence.

 

If you had nearly $400,000 lying around for any car, you're not looking for a deal of a lifetime anyways. This is another league of it's own. I don't care for power as much as I do for driving experience and quality of engineering. Lexus promises both. I'm not a brand snob either. Just because it's Asian doesn't mean it's inferior. Just because it's from a mainstream automaker doesn't mean it's inferior either. In fact, these are some of the reasons why I'd buy one. I know that when I buy a car like this, it's going to come with the refinement, amenities, and reliability expected not just from any automaker, but one of the best in the world; Toyota. What's not to like?

 

I was driving around the other day and realized why I don't classify this as a super car. In my mind all super cars are mid engine and have that low wide stance (Some of the 430 owners are getting coilovers that lift the nose for speed bumps and driveways). This has a front engine set up and the styling just doesn't scream supercar. Maybe its just me. I am sure there is tons of technology in it. I mean come on its from Japan, but in my eyes its just meh in the supercar world. Granted I can't buy one, and I wouldn't even if there was just 1 in existance.

I guess everyone has their own opinion. That's why I like grape coolaid.

 

But the car is mid-engined.......just not in the traditional way.

 

I think Lexus is out of their mind, I red the Car & Driver and article and in that price range there are quite a few other options I would consider. I really don't think Lexus will sell many of these.

 

Of course, this is just about horsepower.

That's why I chose the F458 and not a ZR1 for the sake of a comparison.

 

With only 500 made, I'm certain all of them are already called for.

 

wow.....

 

super +1 for this comment, no way in the world would i pick a lexus, i dont care if is called super lexus 2020, or if they only made 5, i wouldn't pick this car over any lambo or ferrari, even the basic ones that are in their line up.... i just couldn't spend the money they want for it. I could maybe do it after i had every single car above and then as a collectors item, or just to play around because i had money to waste i would then consider the LFA...
P.S--SRatha +1 very good point, you pick a great line up

 

I knew those Yamaha Keyboards with the sound sampling would feature eventually.

 

BD, you obviously have more patience/stamina on this than I, but I'll address some points...

So now you're saying they never actually tested the F430 but just threw up random aero and 'Ring times? LOL.
The F430 video is on their site and posted on youtube. So is their Z06 test, and on his warmup lap, their test driver is only 2s off the final time published in the magazine.
Normally-agreed upon = independently verified?

Ferrari has a claimed Nurburgring and Hockenheim time? What is it? Who else has one, except Porsche who claim that world rally ace Walther Rohrl was 12 seconds slower than Sport Auto in the 599 and 6 seconds slower than Sport Auto in the Scuderia?


Did they both weigh the Zonda F? No. They're just quoting the mfr figures.
It also puts "1230kg (dry weight) ". The thing in quotes is the important thing here. What, did you think they were going to put up 2 rows of data, one for curb weights and one for dry weights? Get real, man.
With those other cars, they actually did weigh them. Autocar, when they weigh a car, will state both the claimed figure and the actual figure in the printed article, as they did for the Ferrari F430.

Their website only lists the mfr's curb weight for the F430:
http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/...-V8-F1/215783/

Ok, so you're saying there are other things besides downforce that can contribute to faster cornering speeds. Thanks for proving my point: there are too many variables. You can prove it's all down to downforce. Hell, you can't even prove it's downforce at all. It could be just a matter of reduced lift.

The 1530kg ZR1 was the one used against the GT-R. Here's AutoBild's ZR1 test with another car:
http://www.autobild.de/artikel/corve...ch_929844.html
Weight = 1534 kg
Notice it's the same grey ZR1 with German plate "MGC 909" that Sport Auto tested:
http://www.sportauto-online.de/super...e-1415542.html
(Click the 2nd tab near the bottom to open up the weights listing: 1533 kg.)
GM media website with preliminary ZR1 data: 1518 kg

For the Z06, here's GM claiming 1423kg:
http://archives.media.gm.com/archive..._19556_pr.html

Here is Evo's article. 1443kg. Pay close attention to their remarks about curb weights, and why comparing mfr-claimed curb weights can lead to inaccurate conclusions:


Sport Auto's result: 1440kg.


No, that argument is complete crap. If Nissan entered the market with only 500 total built GT-R's @ $300k, and it offered the driving thrills that the LFA can serve up, it would be a totally different matter.

Relevance? None. It was marketed as a well-crafted, luxury GT cruiser, not a track tool. Even the Porsche Turbo didn't come standard with a limited slip, and that's a much more sporty car.

 

In Car Magazine, they have a writeup on the McLaren with a list of key competitors. The 458 is mentioned, but not the LFA.

"Key rivals - Ferrari 599 GTB, Lamborghini Murcielago SV, Aston Martin DBS, Mercedes SLS*"
http://cars.uk.msn.com/reviews/artic...ntid=150461167

"Unsurprisingly, the LFA is the fastest car Lexus has ever built, with a 202mph top speed and a claimed 0-62mph of just 3.7 seconds. While those figures are on a par with many supercars, such as the forthcoming Ferrari 458 Italia and McLaren MP4-12C, the Lexus costs a sizable chunk more 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."
http://fwd.five.tv/cars/luxury-sports/lexus-lf-a

*Some sites have listed the SLS as a possible competitor, no doubt because they are technologically advanced and very rapid front-engined, RWD GT's. Here's what AMG's boss, Tobias Moers, thinks of the LFA in terms of competition while talking to Motor Trend:
"MT: So how about the Lexus LFA? Do you think it is an SLS competitor?

TM: Actually I don't know. It is quite hard to calculate how good that car is... I saw it on the Nordschleife for the 24 hours race. Ahh. I don't know. It's not a competitor, because they are talking about what, 500 cars? That's what I read in the press kit. I don't think so. It is too expensive. It's not a competitor. No."
http://blogs.motortrend.com/6573022/...s-v/index.html

Face it. Anyone who can afford only a Ferrari or the McLaren won't have the means to even consider the Lexus.

Show me any test of a Gallardo beating the equivalent F430 and I can show you 5-6 that say the opposite.

It's pretty simple. If you don't buy/build the CF weaving machinery yourself, you don't have to front the capital costs. When buying pre-made sheets, you are able to share the equipment and factory costs with other purchasers. Comprende?
Also, the McLaren's engine is turbocharged. It's easier to produce those numbers from a turbocharged engine.

At least they have been there recently. Can you say the same for Pagani, Koenigsegg, Bugatti, Spyker, Lamborghini, Porsche, etc?

LOL, what a crazy requirement. How many US and UK magazines have ever even done 1 single downforce test? I seem to recall that number as being zero unless you can prove otherwise. You have the requirement that fulfills itself. Congrats.
With the weights, it's already easy to call Ferrari's claims into question. C&D weighed a Euro-market F430 when they compared it against the Z06 and 997 Turbo in Germany. Consider the figures:
Ferrari claim: 1450kg
Sport Auto: 1493kg
C&D: 1516kg
Autocar: 1528kg
Sport Auto have produced the result that is closest to Ferrari's claim. Yet it's still 43kg off. Which one looks the most suspicious?


How can that car drive upside-down at 300kph (producing 1200kg of downforce) when it weighs 1458kg without the driver? That doesn't make any sense. Steve Saleen said the same thing about the S7. Do you really believe that?

So now you are saying the Apollo's awesome 'Ring time of 7:24 proves its downforce numbers? That means Sport Auto's 'Ring test is to be trusted? I thought you said they weren't trustworthy.
The Apollo in that test lapped in 7:24, which is not much better than a ZR1's 7:26 which is front-engined vs mid-engined, has more weight, less power, less torque, and doesn't run on Michelin Pilot Sport Cups. Are you trying to tell me the ZR1 produces a similar amount of downforce? The Enzo with failed dampers, non-Cup tires, less power and torque, lapped about as fast, and it doesn't make 1200kg of downforce.

 

Well, no. Having to compete with inferior cars twice the price is never something you have to do. When I was in sport, such a match was referred to as a 'walkover' or W/O.

A+. Very imaginitive. Would read again.

But anyone with the means to buy an LFA will have the means to buy both of the above and since there are only 500 LFAs, they're probably not even going to get the choice.

I said, 'damn near as fast'. You can see that that the times on the Top Gear track are damn near the same. The times on Bedford Autodrome were the same but they then ran the Ferrari with non-factory tyre pressure to get from 1:22.5 to 1:21.7 - see Issue 121 of Evo, page 92. Balocco's a load of bollocks because they made the same time with a Gallardo SE as an LP560-4. The Gallardo SL's time is something like 2:45 on that course and the LP560 is unquestionably faster than an SL.

http://www.fastestlaps.com/index.php...=47d02484a8b12

http://www.fastestlaps.com/index.php...=469f0c941f933

Both SL and LP560 are faster at Motegi. Autocar measures the LP560 faster 0-160mph. Not bad for a cheaper car. Put the same cars on a real road that isn't perfectly smooth like a race track and the LP560 wins.

This is about what I said. "The LP560 is faster on some tracks and offers the assurance of AWD and it's cheaper."

So why did Lexus choose to do things the hard way? Yoouuu onderstand?


Nah but Lotus is there next year and the Esprit is getting the LFA V10, so why even bother with the LFA. Lotus + few years in F1 + industry-wide improvement = better car.

That's exactly my point. Sport Auto have a monopoly on bull**** generation in this area. I trust their aerodynamic measurements about as much as those of a 1st year undergrad on a aerospace engineering degree. Probably less actually.

It seems to me that the scales aren't very accurate if the same car is being measured at 3 different weights. The question is, how exactly do they measure half a tank of fuel - as per kerb weight requirements? My guess is that they just measure the car as is with whatever fuel it has in it (+/-50 litres fuel ~ +/-50kg on its own). Hence the measured weight isn't a 'kerb weight' but a 'test weight'. The test weight also depends on the options chosen, the variations of other fluids between max. and min. - water (washers, coolant), engine oil, transmission oil, power steering fluid, brake fluid etc. -, whether the manual is in the glovebox, whether some dopey motoring journo has left their sandwiches and luggage in the car + pies + mp3 + CDs. Some magazines even measure a test weight with one or 2 drivers in the car. Often the driver who drives it on to the weighbridge doesn't get out, especially if it's a raised ramp. The requirements for a kerb weight measurement are very exact and it's hugely unlikely that any magazine conforms to these requirements. Even if they did, 2 different weighbridges would give 2 different readings, much like 2 different dynos. Hence why the manufacturer's figure is likely to be more accurate.


Obviously it's more of a talking point than something somebody is going to attempt but nevertheless the point is that it produces around enough net downforce to do that at that speed. Sport Auto's figures are again way off the mark.

The Apollo's lap record actually stands at 7:11.57 which is yet another example of Sport Auto being 12-13s slow of the mark with a non-911/RUF vehicle. And if you remember Sport Auto ran 7:38 with a ZR1 and a GTR, which provides two further examples of them being 12-13s shy of the mark with non-911/RUF cars.

Good day.

 

Thank you for making the point that these are not competitors. Someone with the means to buy an LFA might very well have the means to buy all three cars.

Lap times? I wasn't even talking about lap times. There are comparisons where lap times aren't even considered. In these tests, the Ferrari comes out on top almost each and every time for sheer driving dynamics. The equivalent Gallardo is generally noted for being less nimble, wooden in the brakes (if equipped with carbon-ceramics), and a generally less exciting vehicle to drive. Sometimes they get knocked down for VAG components in the cabin. Yet Lamborghini has sold a boatload of these things.
And why would Evo Magazine manipulate the Ferrari's tyre pressures, but not the Lamborghini's? Don't tell me a small team of red-coated engineers accompanied that Ferrari, as they did for the California, Scuderia in French Sport Auto's comparo with the ZR1, Scuderia in Evo and the 599 in both Evo and Auto Motor und Sport.

Because making a supercar isn't always about doing it the easiest way. By its very nature, a supercar is supposed to be harder to make than other cars. They should be bespoke, carefully crafted, and give the customer the impression that the manufacturer actually gave a crap when building it. In this market, being special can be much more important than being fast.
Additionally, it's like I said: the LFA project was initially an R&D project that ended up with a final product, much like the Z8 (a largely handbuilt car with aluminum spaceframe, the processes of technology and experience laid the foundation for the new Rolls Phantom). With the LFA, Toyota are hoping to go in the other direction: they currently have small, fuel efficient cars like the iQ. With increasing fuel and safety standards mandated by various government bodies around the world, the emphasis will be to produce small, lightweight, and safe cars. Hybrid cars like the Prius, or fully electric cars, could benefit from lighter structures to offset the weight of battery packs. If Toyota can perfect a carbon fiber manufacturing process to make this cost-effective, they will have a competitive edge in the lower markets. But the lower markets, unlike supercar markets, are incredibly cost-competitive. If Toyota can't maintain competitive prices here, they have no hope. And how to do that? Don't pass on R&D and tooling costs to the lower market cars; concentrate that into upper-market cars where technology-minded people with loads of cash are more willing to make such a purchasing decision. They aren't as cost- or value-conscious.

So what? If the Esprit is produced in numbers like they have in the past, they won't be a blip on a person's radar who wants exclusivity. Show me a Lotus Esprit that has commanded a 30-fold increase in value like the 2000GT.
If current Lotuses are anything to go by, they will not have nearly the same build quality as the LFA. Reliability? Service & support network?

Your point is that you have made a meaningless requirement. It fulfills your end point of view automatically.

Sport Auto measures the same way every time: Full ("voll") tank. They list a separate measure for the weight with the driver; that's the test weight. Evo, in that article, specifically said they did not include the driver weight or luggage, as is the EU norm. The F430 and ZR1/Z06 comes very well equipped. Changes are largely down to customization of trims, color, materials for the Ferrari. It's not like they're adding a 2000-watt sound system with 10 speakers or DVD system or glovebox wine chiller. The options on a Scuderia are even less. The F430's tested here had carbon-ceramic brakes which save some weight as well. The standard of "curb weight" is not universally accepted between one manufacturer and the next, unless they are bound by the EU norm which includes weight of driver, luggage, and 90% tank. Based on what Sport Auto have found, there is no way on earth Ferrari can be following this norm, if their F430 supposedly weighs as little as they claim, with driver+luggage+90% tank, yet weigh so much more with only 10% more fuel, no driver, no luggage. C&D and Autocar both support Sport Auto's findings, with F430s that weigh even more.
Evo noted the same thing with the California: the factory test car which came with the small army of red-coats, had carbon brakes and carbon-shelled seats, yet still weighed noticeably more than Ferrari's claim for a bog standard car. The UK press car had more options, but they simply couldn't see how that car could weigh so much more. With tolerances the way they are, we should see some cars that weigh less than the factory claim, yet where are they? None are even within 20kg, and you can bet Ferrari sends their lightest, sharpest, most well-maintained examples to comparison testing. They are more paranoid than most other manufacturers, in that sense.
In any case, I have provided the proof for the weights of the Ferrari and Corvettes, and they do not match what the mfr claims. You cannot compare weights from one mfr to the next with any form of reliability.

It's a BS marketing point. It's not going to produce enough downforce to do that at that speed. Not at that weight.

Like you said, the ZR1 and GT-R were driven by development drivers with more laps. The Sport Auto time is done with only 3 flying timed laps. Unlike any US or UK magazine, only Sport Auto have achieved the time for the GT-R that everyone was saying was impossible, that there was no way a car with that power and weight can acheive 7:38 on the Nurburgring without ~600 hp and racing slicks. Sport Auto proved that wrong: their GT-R was on stock OEM tires and was performance-tested in a straight line to confirm it was no 600-hp GT-R. ONLY Sport Auto have achieved this. No other magazine. Name me a single US or UK magazine that has done this. Go ahead. I'm all ears.

That was a different Apollo. That 7:11.57 time was set by the Apollo Speed:
http://www.fast-autos.net/vehicles/G.../Apollo_Speed/
It has option of an 800 hp engine, which I would be surprised if they didn't use for the record run. The Apollo in the supertest was listed at 700 hp. A racing driver drove to the 7:11 time, and I'm not sure how many laps he did. Gumpert no doubt tweaked the aero and tire pressures for the optimum performance. Sport Auto just gets in and goes, no tweaking of anything.
In any event, you have been caugh back-tracking. You first said Sport Auto were untrustworthy. Then you said they proved the Gumpert's aero figures by its time on the 'Ring and you yourself provided the link to support this. You can't have it both ways.