$450,000+ for this car is going to have a very limited if not many people who are willing to put up the money for something like this. Honestly it will not have that much of a following:


Same thing where Nissan is planning to sell the Spec V version of the GTR in the usa. right so a 20,000,000 yen ($260,000) good luck on that one.

I think in any sense offering performance value in the super car area will be a new frontier area and only people who are willing to pony up that sort of coinage are not car people and just buying for the wow factor, let alone how fast will someone hit a curb due to the lack or no driving skills.

Toyota does build a good product I do not even want to know what the service stops will cost on that thing.

I think any people who have this sort of money will go to the Porsche or Ferrari area.

 

+1 on that...

 

The ZR1 has better specs than the LFA, yet didn't rate as many stars by Evo. My point about the Zonda Cinque is that a car can still be rated "only" 4 stars and still be sensational. It doesn't automatically follow that "they weren't impressed." Only a complete asshat would think I'm comparing the two cars.

So you're saying that people are buying the Toyota. Another huge difference with your lame example. If people are buying it, then it's worth it. Simple. Even if they aren't, Toyota aren't making profits off this car. It's an engineering and R&D exercise, and one for image-building.

Wow, they couldn't come right out and say the LFA is definitely NOT worth the 6x price increase over the already fantastic bang-for-buck GT-R? LOL. It should be a pretty easy answer if the LFA, like you said, is such a piece of dog crap. There shouldn't even be a "difficult part."
Similarly bespoke? Haha. Carbon tub, carbon body, carbon brakes, bespoke engine revving to 9000 rpm?
Also, post up the passage where they complain about the rear end.

That is the classic definition of curb weight (as defined by R&T), and the same method by which Evo weighed its cars in that comparo. If you're going to start claiming pies, then you are no different from conspiracy theorists who doubted the GT-R. The Sport Auto figures are backed up by other mags. Sometimes it's heavier, sometimes it's lighter. In no case has the Ferrari's weight been replicated by a third party.
Now, show me the proof that they weighed it at 1450+ kg's, as you claimed. Did you make that up out of thin air?
And don't think this is just limited to Ferraris and Corvettes. It applies to many cars, even those which for sure follow EU directives for things like fuel consumption and vehicle weights (driver + luggage + 90% tanks).

Yet which Ferrari has ever been independently weight to confirm the factory claimed curb weight? We see even low-optioned cars weighing more, weighed not just by Sport Auto but by other magazines as well. Don't forget, the factory-supplied California tested by Evo weighed more than the factory claim, while the UK-spec press car weighed much, much more and Evo simply did not see where all that weight is even accounting for the known options.

I'm pretty sure this is Ferrari's usual small army of red-coated engineers. Are you claiming that those guys in red shirts and Puma sneakers are Evo staff members?

Photo caption: "Ferrari F1 test driver Marc Gene is on hand to offer tips on getting the most out of the Scuderia, which he and Michael Schumacher helped develop"

1.8s between cars tested on different days, with the Scuderia being aided by a Ferrari crew and input from a Ferrari F1 test driver who helped develop the car. Hell, the CGT saw a 0.5s worse lap in a later Evo test compared to an earlier one; you'd expect the driver to be faster with more familiarity, not slower.


Yes, can you post up that lap chart? We know the Scuderia should be faster than the GT3.2 in a straight line, and a lap time doesn't necessarily mean the same speed in corners.
Thanks for not disputing that you were lying when you mis-quoted me as using the GT2 for reference, when it was clearly the GT3.

It is stated by...who else besides Gumpert? Jeez, did you do critical thinking at school at all? It already looks like you failed Economics 101.

If it's making the massive difference in downforce like you're saying, then the driver should be able to use it to go much faster than the CGT, known as a very tricky car to drive at the limit. Yet in most corners, even the fast ones, there's not much between them.
Getting on the power sooner doesn't matter. We're talking about the speeds at the corner, not after it. In Turn 8, it's no faster than the CGT and GT-R; all 3 cars are slower than the Scuderia there, and the Scuderia is beaten in the same corner by the R500 which I doubt makes any downforce whatsoever. In any event, the explosive acceleration is not down to being able to get on the power sooner; even if the CGT had as much traction, there's no way it could accelerate as fiercely as the Gumpert in the first 1/3rd of the lap. It's a power and weight issue too.

Thank you for once again confirming that the Brit mags do ZERO downforce tests. If only you could hold them to the same self-fulfilling standard. You can find a Car Magazine test of the Focus RS and GT-R at the 'Ring and compare it to Sport Auto's result. Care to guess which magazine did the more thorough testing?

Again, why did you bother posting that? I wanted to see who did that to the Scuderia, not what was done to it. You accepted a claim that Evo Magazine personnel manipulated the Scuderia's tire pressures, yet nowhere in that pic you posted does it say that. It merely says that Evo Magazine tend to stick to the mfr's recommended tire pressures. That's their normal procedure. With the small army of red-coats present, accompanied by none other than a Ferrari F1 test driver and co-developer of the Scuderia, I can guess who actually did the manipulation, even if you are too naive to accept the truth: it's the same team that were swapping the 599's tires during Evo's test of that car. Tires so soft that they threw chunks when the car was dynoed.

It's a credibility issue. If they changed the tire pressures like you claim, then their journalistic integrity is pretty much shot. Giving one mfr a competitive advantage over others. By your logic, inflating a Lambo's front tire pressures to the max load rating is a zero cost, zero effort change so should be accepted for testing, even if it means the Lambo might understeer noticeably worse.

No, I meant Suzuki. Sport Auto's Horst von Saurma was only 12 seconds slower than Toshio Suzuki's fastest GT-R time, despite only 3 flying timed laps (not thousands like Suzuki). They have more experience in Porsches, so should be faster; as if 5 seconds is a huge difference anyway? 5 seconds between cars run on totally different days is nothing to be talking about.
So now you're saying Porsche don't do v-t graphs because it makes bull**** easier to smell. Haha, ok.

You're a moron if you think I compare the LFA to the Zonda Cinque. I haven't. I only used the Cinque to shoot down your 4-star Evo rating BS.
I didn't compare the LFA to the ZR1 either. People like you mentioned the ZR1 as being comparable because they put up similar figures (so far). By mentioning the LFA's price, exlusivity, and build quality, I'm saying these cars are not competitors.
Same thing with the 458. It's not me saying the 458 isn't in the same league with the LFA. It's Toyota/Lexus, who have limited the production to 500 and priced it way out of the 458's league. It's the same reason why AMG's boss doesn't consider the LFA a competitor to the SLS.

Dammit, are you stupid or something?? The California having more options doesn't make a difference; Evo took into account the options on the UK press car and still couldn't see where all that weight was coming from. Maybe in your hair-brained conspiracy, Sport Auto snuck into Ferrari UK's garage and put their pies inside...
The California has something to do with this conversation because it's part of the case records of production Ferraris not matching the quoted weight specs. Comprende??

Where is the Italian tradition of reporting half-tank weights??
Don't you think factories located within the EU, who conform to EU guidelines for safety and emissions, should also conform to the same guidelines for reporting weights? Or are you saying we get better pictures of relative weights between cars when the mfr's don't subscribe to a single standard?

Yet other cars are also mentioned in this thread. Are they not fair game for discussion as well? Do you go into the Bugatti forum and whine about how overpriced the Veyron is? Point me to some of your posts in the Audi forum, blasting the R8 V10 for being such an overpriced POS waste of aluminum.
I don't know SRatha, but I don't think he's mentally disabled.

 

No, I'm saying the service quality and support network will only be a bonus. The core qualities of this car have already been discussed. They are getting (from what most initial reviews are saying) a thrilling, involving, visceral car which is both agile and very stable at high speed, and instills driver confidence. They are getting a lot of high-tech bits too. They are getting exlusivity. They are getting a well-built interior with fine materials and meticulous detailing, with numerous color and trim options. They are getting a car that has been stress-tested through 2 24 Hour of Nurburgring races. If the past 2000GT is any indication, they might be getting a long-term investment that could be worth many times its initial value.
For some people, the SLS or SLR are too dull-witted. A Ferrari is too obvious and smacks of convention, a Lambo or Pagani a good alternative to Ferrari, but perhaps too aesthetically ostentatious and overt. Some people prefer a front-engine layout anyway, and an Aston makes a great unconventional choice too. But might not appeal on technological and investment grounds when measured against the LFA.

 

I understand that this car will be a rare piece of machine, but thats the deal with most hyper cars that is going to hit the market.

In any case, why would anyone want to pay for high tech stuff if it can't even beat the conventional 'steel chassis' cars. again which brings me back to exclusivity of the 500 built.

And if you really want that exclusivity, you are likely to have alot of money, being that my theory, price per unit exclusivity theory, the Lexus is more expensive per unit built than a Pagani Zonda Cinque. By all means, both are extremely expensive cars. but if you have crazy money to spend and demand the highest of exclusivity, go for a Zonda.

You are saying an SLR/SLS is dull, and Ferrari Lambo and Pagani is ostentatious? you seen the face on that car? its way too outlandish with no taste... The thing with Lambo, Ferrari and Pagani, they all seem to flow somehow, it looks right. I can't say the same with this car, Lexus probably knew that they can't sell too many so they all decided on just making 500, I hope they don't sell out...

 

Stars are awarded according to what field you're competing in. The Cinque is in the field of hypercars. The LFA is competing in the F458/MP4 field and therefore 4 stars is shyte. Now please stop bringing the Zonda into an LFA thread.

I'm saying that Toyota's high-tech. dog crap is selling. Image building because it shows how they failed at making a VFM supercar? If people are buying it, then they're asshats. Simple.

Evo being polite again. It's a 'wayward suspension'-type of comment. What they really mean is that it's an f'ing rip-off. The S2000 has an engine that revs to 9000rpm. It's nothing special. They got really carried away with the CF but at the end of the day it's still a 2-seater that weighs 1500kg.

1374kg fully fuelled is pretty damn near replication, especially since it had a full tank. So if Sport Auto didn't add things, are you saying Evo took things off? Sport Horoldo also measures the ISF 30kg overweight, so there you go.

I think from Evo's measurement it's fairly logical to assume that an F458 with a half tank will weigh less than or equal to 1480kg.

The Scuderia, the closest car to the F458, pay attention.

The California isn't an F458 class of car. Seriously, it's like looking up an LS400 and using that against the LFA. I'm sure if Toyota had ever produced any performance cars in the last 10 years we'd actually be able to examine the weights of a few of their cars but the fact remains that they haven't because they can't. So don't go nit-picking Ferrari just because they can and have produced performance cars. If anything the fact that you can nit-pick past Ferraris counts against the LFA. There's no recent history to suggest that Toyota even know what the **** they're doing with performance cars. Look how badly the ISF failed against the M3 and you want to pay $400k for a supercar from them? If they can't beat BMWs at the bottom end of the performance car market, trying to compete at the other end is just wishful thinking.


So, doesn't change the fact that the Evo test driver drove it. Porsche didn't send any drivers with the GT2 because their drivers are crap, see the 7:54 claim for the GTR.

A bit of direction from a test driver doesn't add 5-10mph to the last 2 corner speeds.

So. Are you claiming that the GT2 could suddenly be 2s quicker and corner 10mph faster on the last bend?

Nope you changed it because I have the original text in a Word file. You already tried to monkey out of it by claiming you were talking about the Caterham R500 which is a completely invalid comparison. Why would I give the answer for a GT2 if you wrote 'GT3'?

There is no lap chart for the GT3, just a time, it was part of the Evo Track Car of The Year write-up. It's still 1.6s behind so not really worth a comparison. Likely that the new GT3 was slightly quicker than the older GT2 in bends but slower on the straights and still got raped through the last 2 corners.

Well now, call me sensible, but there's only so much bull**** you can get away with. If they were claiming enough downforce to drive upside-down but only made 196kg, I'm sure it wouldn't sell. Did you go to school at all?

Fast corners? WTF are you talking about. This is Bedford Autodrome. There are only 2 corners above 60mph. You can't seriously be telling me that you expect downforce to work in a 30mph hairpin? Nobody can be that dumb surely?

Of course getting on the power about a second sooner matters PMSL. Clearly they've had a slow in, fast out corner. You need grip to be able to accelerate when cornering. If the downforce is allowing for more tyre work, you can instead save some of that tyre work that your tyres would be doing in cornering and use it for early acceleration.

They do plenty of downforce tests, they just do them on the tarmac, not in a broken wind tunnel. Well really? CAR Magazine didn't test as thoroughly at the 'ring? Maybe that's because they don't live there. CAR Magazine are pretty **** anyway. Probably as close to a British version of Sport Horoldo as you're likely to find. It's better not to measure something than to consistently measure it wrong. Sport Monaro are consistently down on downforce measurements across the board.

Doesn't say that anywhere but then you like spouting horse crap, just look at the last 8 pages! If the 599GTB was running on super-soft tyres, how come it posted a very mediocre time on the old track when it's beaten the 2008 GTR on some circuits. Face facts, you talk crap. As I recall the 599 posted a very healthy 621bhp on the dyno also.

If they lacked integrity they wouldn't have written about it and mentioned the times achieved prior to the tyre pressure change That's journalistic integrity, writing about what actually happened. The fact that they wrote about it makes me trust them a whole load more than Sport Auto who probably do it all the time and don't write about it and also achieve far better times in 911s than any other car. 7:52 in an LP560 and 7:32 in a GT2, indeed.

Sometimes tyre pressures don't work and what works in one set of weather conditions doesn't work in another. I regularly adjust tyre pressure and wouldn't hold it against a magazine for doing it in the name of increasing performance. Not that this changes the fact that the car was only half a second slower before the change and still pissed on the GT2.

If it was a 911 he'd have ran it until he made 7:26, same with the ZR1.

Don't know where you're getting the 5s from but yes, they have an unhealthy bias towards Porsches, whether it's experience or otherwise.

No, I'm saying Sport Crapo don't do v-t graphs for the 'ring because then people would be able to make cornering performance comparisons in Sport Crapo and try match them with v-t graphs in other magazines. Hence slow driving would become apparent.

No you're a moron if you compare the Cinque with the LFA and you do.

Toyota have priced it so high because they can't build good performance cars economically. I mean name me a good Toyota performance car from the last decade. Maybe then we can chase up weight and downforce measurements on it.

I think you may be confusing me with you.

Maybe Sport Crapo's drivers had so much Porsche executive semen up their **** that it weighed several hundred kg more than usual.

What of Toyota performance cars? Still waiting for you to name some.

The California is an FR GT yes? The Scuderia and F458 are MR supercars yes. I'm not bald I just shave my head for the Sport Auto wind tunnel, yoouuuu onnnderstand?

How the **** should I know. Where's the German tradition for being **** with wind tunnels? The 1374kg Evo measured for the Scuderia is less than the ISF was out in Sport Guibo's measurements. (That's about the only other 'performance' car Toyota have produced this century.) I guess if we could find some measurements for an SC430 we could use that as a basis for the LFA, even though it's a completely different kind of car, it's still a Lexus right?

Well why don't Sport Garbo measure weight with a 75kg passenger then, or do they? Maybe when it suits them?

The R8 V10 isn't a waste of aluminium though, whereas the LFA is a waste of CF and several years. You have to stay in the same league if you're doing a comparison.

E.g.

LFA vs F458 (Tick)

LFA vs MP4-12C (Tick)

Z06 vs MC12 (Cross)

SRT-10 vs Enzo (Cross)

Nod your head if you understand.

 

Why don't you ask the Ferrari and Lambo owners this same question. I mean, they could have had all the performance they needed in a ZR-1, right?

Looks are subjective and hold no weight in any real debate.

 

The bottom line with many members on this thread is that they will gladly overpay for a badge and the perceived status that comes with it. They are not real car enthusiasts, but rather brand snobs. To me a supercar isn't just about speed or numbers. It's about the driving experience. Some of the best cars I've owned were severely underpowered, but the driving experience was unparalleled. The published numbers only give you part of the story. Unless you get behind the wheel and experience the car for what it's worth, you will never know what it's like. It's what stirs the emotions that matters, which is what has made companies like Porsche, Ferrari, and Lamborghini famous. I truly believe Toyota has succeeded in this regard and if I had $400k for a brand new car, believe me, it's going to Toyota!

 

Personally I'd save a bit more and buy an F70.

 

LOL at "save." F70 seems very nice on paper.

 

+1 on your statement. Unfortunately the amount of car enthusiast are very minimal. (most are just brand ******..lol). Some of us like research the perfomance figures, etc etc. But that is who we are, the EXCEPTIONS . Most folk who will be able to afford this caliber of vehicle will also chase the brand.

This is why Toyota, Nissan and Honda(oh and Mazda..but it didn't last) all came up with surnames for their upscale luxury division. Without the name changes, sales in the US would have suffered. Brand names carry the product not the other way around. The new Hyundai Equus is a beautiful piece of machinery(probably would rival the best in it's class) but how many people do you really think would be willing to plunker $55k for a Hyundai(no offense to Hyundai owners)?

Lexus is one hell of a brand but can it command such a price for a car? who knows? How are the Lexus IS-f sales? are people chosing an M3 or C63 over the IS-f due to brand name? what does one see more on the road? I guess the answer will reveal itself when the car finally hits the market....

 

Great post. This is what seperates true automotive enthusiasts from the rest of the wannabe's(< for lack of a better word).

 

Lot of negative comments about the LFA arounfd here.
As a Lexus owner since 2001, let me add my 2 cents.
First, I don't believe any car is worth 400K. I love looking at or driving exotics but in the end, they're all a motor, tires, seats surrounded by steel. Having a shape that is sexy and a motor that hauls butt is cool but not worth that kind of cash. I hope that I stay this way even after becoming filthy rich. I'd rather take the 400K and buy several cars in the high end area. I'd be very happy with a Vette or Jag XKR, then add a Benz, Bimmer and Lexus...and maybe a Porsche (I'm a big guy).

Now that that's out of the way, the LFA is going to do something for the exotic level that no other has...bring everyday usability to the game. I thought the R8 would do that but it is showing itself to have issues, plus there are those who don't consider it an exotic. With it's high strung motor and looks, the LFA is definitely an exotic...but one that can go anywhere, anytime. Except maybe through snow but even that may be possible. I would love to see a larger torque band but it's current specs will add to it's high strung nature.
Some believe there is no heritage but how could you say that when Toyota has been racing a long time.

Additionally, I heard that Lexus may be planning to lease the cars only. No outright sales alowed. Leasing for 2 years with the option to buy. None them may come in at 400K. Lexus says it cost 1 mill to make each car and will preserve it's exclusity by making only 500 and leasing those models. If this holds true they won't have a problem moving the 500 cars.

Lastly, I like the looks of the car mostly. I think the front end could have been better but it has exotic looks. That's not a big deal to me. The big deal for me is what this does to the brand. We Lexus lovers have craved for out of the box performance. We spend thousands modding our cars to be more performance oriented. It would be nice if Lexus infused high performance at creation. It started with the ISF and will only get better now that a legitimate super car has been made. That technology and power has to eventually trickle down to us other Lexus owners. Just like AMG or M, Lexus needs a F division where every model can have the power treatment available. That's what the LFA means to me.

 

Prove it.

If people are buying it then they're fulfilling the consumer end of supply and demand: the car is worth it because people are buying it.
I asked you before and you conveniently ignored the question, so I'll ask again: The GT-R does pretty much what a Turbo does for half the price. Does that make people who buy Turbos asshats?

Why would Evo suddenly be polite? They too have a reputation for calling a dog a dog (like they did for the ZR1, GT500, and Alfa Brera).
And S2000 revs to 9000 rpm but the engine is a lot smaller and has much less reciprocating mass, less friction. Ever notice that the 360 Challenge Stradale could rev 500 rpm higher than the Enzo?

But it's not replication. You haven't provided an ounce of evidence that Ferrari weighs their cars with a half tank, nor have you provided any evidence that that is the standard method in any country. What we do have evidence for is that Ferrari are located in an EU country, and the EU has standards for measuring weights.
So the IS-F is overweight too, and you accept that. Therefore, Sport Auto's scales don't favor one marque over the other, and we can (at this point) draw zero conclusions about the weight between an LFA and the 458.
BTW, watch that Autocar review. They say that being a front-engined car makes the LFA intrinsically heavier than if it were midengined. Think about that at the technical level and it makes sense.

It doesn't have to be. It's built in the same factory, measured on the same systems. Evo took into account the options on the UK press car and couldn't see where all the weight was coming from. And the factory car they performance tested was much lighter, yet still overweight from the factory claim even with its lighter CF components.

There are obvious marketing reasons for why they would claim that time for a competitor's car, but if you think Walther Rohrl is a crap driver, then you need your head checked. Seriously.

Maybe because you're retarded?
It's pretty funny that your "original" in a Word text file would say GT2, when my original post (still unedited to this very day!), referenced specifically the GT3 and provided a link to a GT3 article. Hell, you didn't even get my name spelled right in your "Word file", LOL.
Caterham R500 isn't a completely invalid comparison. When I brought that car up, you were claiming the Scuderia had faster cornering speeds than the Caterham. That's not true. Despite its skinny tires and lack of downforce, the Caterham carries more speed. You can cry about weight all you want, but that simply underscores another point: cornering speed can be affected by weight. It's not all down to downforce as you contend.

Do you seriously think people will buy a Gumpert on the basis of whether they can drive it upside down?? Who the fck buys a supercar on the basis of its downforce figures? It's pretty obvious you didn't go to school.

The 997.1 GT3 was only a couple of mph slower in the corners than the Scuderia, and that Porsche test (with the GT-R) was done on a cold track that wouldn't help its tires. I'm pretty sure a GT3 accompanied by a Porsche crew and properly set up on a warmer day could easily close the small gap in cornering speeds.

That makes no sense. They described the Gumpert as being about as easily controllable as the R500, while the CGT (true to form) was more like driving on a knife's edge at the limit. There wouldn't be any need to be slow in, fast out. They should be at the limit of adhesion (aided by the downforce), not saving tyre work. More ludicrous BS.

That's no downforce test. You can't assign values of downforce (whether absolute or relative) with any accuracy whatsoever on the basis of cornering speeds. Your "slow in, fast out" theory further disproves your own theory.

Why wouldn't it post a very healthy figure on the dyno? It was from the factory and accompanied (again) by the the men in red. Do you even know why Ferrari goes to such lengths in these tests? Who else besides Ferrari sends an official factory car for testing when Evo are already testing a UK press car?
Some circuits? On which circuits, outside of the Motor Trend test where the driver described the GT-R's handling as poor, did the 599 have a faster time than the GT-R? Based on the FastestLaps database, that is the only 1 test out of 8 dry-weather tests where the GTB is faster, and it was only faster by a measley 1/10th of a second. You can't say the 599 isn't on sticky tires based on the Evo test; that time being slower than the GT-R is consistent with other tests. It's slower for other reasons, not because the tires are not sticky.

That is just so cuckoo. You sound like monaroCountry with his anti GT-R conspiracy theories. So, let's see. It's pies in the trunk and now they're manipulating tire pressures and not reporting it. Maybe they're not reporting it because they don't allow Ferrari to send their red-coats to mess with the car trackside during the supertest??
Just as I thought. You have absolutely ZERO evidence pointing to Evo Magazine personnel manipulating tire pressures; it was very likely one of the redcoats on hand that did it. Seriously. Who else outside of Ferrari (and maybe Dodge for its ACR) does this kind of thing for press testing?
The LP560 with ceramic brakes has been bashed in test after test for its wooden, hard-to-modulate brakes. Pretty much all ceramic-brake Lambos have this problem. Sport Auto actually went through a 3 different LP560's to try to find one that was mechanically 100%. Here's what a rennteam membe based in Germany wrote about the LP560 supertest:
"I'd like to add some comments based on SA's test documentation to clarify the lap time:
a. the newly-introduced bushings on the first and second press car caused, according to v. Saurma, a very instable car during load changes, the third car, equipped with the traditional elastomer bushings, was much more civilized in this regard
b. for some reason, the ABS system did not perfectly operate with the Pirelli sport tires, obviously lacking appropriate adaption. The somewhat longer brake distances were seen as the main reason for the resulting Nurburgring laptime. According to SA, the car would have even beaten the Superleggera's 7.46 otherwise."

Just as one example (and there are loads more examples like this regarding Lambo's use of ceramic brakes), look at Car & Driver's review of the LP560:
"The only ***** in the armor is the carbon-ceramic brake system that commands $15,600 over the standard brakes. As far as we can tell, the first few inches of brake-pedal travel has little effect on the brakes; meanwhile, the Lambo continues to hurtle toward Internet immortality on www.wrecked exotics.com. Keep pushing, and without warning, the brakes clamp down hard, and you’ve stopped well short of the stoplight. Passengers will wonder why you seem incapable of driving your Italian toy smoothly...the all-or-nothing touchiness is inexcusable."

Ask yourself if this braking behavior is good for bleeding off speed on a high-speed, hairy track like the 'Ring. Evo, Drivers Republic, and Car have all voiced similar complaints.

5s is the difference between Horst von Saurma's time in the GT2 and his time in the GT-R. 7:33 vs 7:38. On a track that long with so many variables, it's not worth talking about. And he hasn't run any stock production 911 to 7:26 so you can stop yourself right there. For only his second time ever in the GT-R, and his first official timing session with it, that is a great result, and only a damn moron like yourself would think otherwise. Same with the ZR1, which has been described as tricky even on smoother, less demanding tracks. Jim Mero has a crapload more experience in the car, being a development engineer and all (just like you were saying earlier in this thread, but are now strangely backtracking from).

But by your own admission, other mags don't test at the 'Ring, so they by default don't have v-t graphs there by which we can compare. You can't compare a v-t graph on a relatively smooth and wide track with good run-off like Bedford to a track like the 'Ring and make any meaningful comparisons; the two tracks are totally different. You're making the same mistake as when you started this bizarre diatribe: you can't disprove Sport Auto's findings based on a lack of evidence from other independent sources.

Where did I compare the LFA to the Cinque?? I only compared production #'s x MSRP to answer SRatha, and showed that one probem with a car (the gearbox) could lead to a whole star being deducted, yet the car is still "sensational," still impressive despite your claim to the contrary (ie, 4 stars == "not impressive"). At least the LFA's gearbox has a good excuse, being a prototype (not a production car) that was thrashed relentlessly by Toyota drivers and world press personnel.

How the hell is that even relevant? Show me a good Lamborghini (besides a tractor) before they built their first road car. Show me a good Pagani before the first C12. Imagine it's 1998 and we're talking about the viability of Pagani, based on their (lack of) pedigree and history. It's almost the same damn thing! Except in the case of Toyota, it's a little bit different. They have built cars that have actually won international racing titles (WRC Celica) or come close (GT One), and have supported successful privateer efforts (Dan Gurney's IMSA GTO and prototype cars, Rod Millen's Pikes Peak hillclimbers, etc).

This is like asking (back in 2002) what great Ford sports car has Ford built in the last decade which can possibly justify 4000+ $140k GT's being sold. Why buy a Ford when for not much more, you can have Ferrari?
The Celica and MR2 were good performance cars in their classes.

No, I don't understand. What was the point of this? Because a California is an FR GT, it doesn't get weighed the same way as the 458/Scuderia? WTF?

You should know because you are claiming that Ferrari weighed their cars with half-tanks, which is outside of any industry norm I can think of. That fits neither the classic US/British concept (full tanks), nor the old DIN norm (90% tanks), nor the current EU Norm (90% tanks + driver + luggage).
There is no German tradition with wind tunnels; only Sport Auto regularly test in the wind tunnel. There are no US or UK counterparts doing the same; therefore, you cannot refute their numbers.
The ISF was out more as a % than the Scuderia? Was the IS-F provided to Sport Auto a factory-supplied and -fettled example as Evo's Scuderia was? Look at the C&D test weight result: 1392 kg. And this Scuderia, also a factory-supplied example, was equipped with the optional lightweight plexi-glass side windows.

They go by the traditional definition of curb weight as described by Road & Track and practiced by mags like Evo Magazine: full tanks, no luggage, no passenger. This is an easy norm to go by. No need to find a 75kg passenger, or report a weight which was never actually measured.

The ZR1 says it is. ZR1 is faster and cheaper. I'd wager an ACR is faster too. Hell, the GT-R has already been proven to be faster. What performance advantage does the 2-seat, aluminum space frame R8 V10 hold over the 2+2 steel-bodied GT-R? R8 doesn't even have a dual clutch transmission for chrissake, while the Nissan does. By your logic, only an idiot would buy the R8 V10. It's a waste of aluminum when a steel-bodied car is faster! Your logic!

 

Cue the ZR1/ACR argument. Or Z06 vs 911 Turbo argument. It's rather one-dimensional, wouldn't you say?

Your theory doesn't hold water because of Pagani's extremely limited number, and the fact that the Cinque is a modification of a pre-existing car, not built from the ground up like the LFA. Your theory falls flat on its face because of the economy of scale that higher production cars can enjoy. In this sense, the LFA is no more outrageous than a Ford GT, BMW Z8, Ferrari Scuderia or Mercedes Black Series. And some of these cars are built on pre-existing mechanicals.

I didn't say the SLS/SLR are dull. Please read carefully. I said they are relatively dull-witted. Please consider the difference.

Styling is subjective. Some people think a Veyron is a glorified POS VW Beetle, yet that doesn't stop certain wealthy Arabs from owning two of them. You can reliably project your own preferences and tastes on other people and accurately predict they will respond the same way.