The reality is only harsh to those who put so much emphasis on performance, as you do. Not everyone is like that. If performance were so important, don't you think the ZR1 would outsell the Turbo?
If you had truly read all the information I had, you wouldn't be making *******, unsubstantiated (and, as it turns out, false) information like "all the mags" think Lexus are crazy. You read all the information and you concluded the LFA isn't faster than the GT3, when the specs indicate otherwise.
So are you now admitting you were wrong about the GT-R?
Yes, I've driven a fast car, and I've driven quite a few cars up to and beyond their limit. That is not relevant to the discussion. Here's the problem with judging relative performance based on trap speeds: ACR Plus.
Again, the Z06 doesn't routinely trap at 128 mph in mag tests. It's less than that.

 

LOL, you guys have to bring in modded cars to make a point? Sheesh. Here's a point: Take a used C5 Z06, put on $10-15k worth in parts, and that GT-R looks like garbage performance-wise. All for way, way less than $80k.
A $10k sportbike makes the ZR1 look like an absurd choice if all you're after is performance/$. See? It never ends. Why not just enjoy cars for the variety they bring to the market?

 

If you can't use magazine data, then you can't compare the SL65 BS and the LFA. Period. Your double standard is silly. The magazines I was using were the same: R&T vs R&T, MT vs MT, etc.

Are you familiar with the ACR Plus?
I love how you claim that testing conditions can affect 1/4 mile performances so much, yet on a 13-mile track that can be sunny and dry on one side with cold, wet patches on another, you think 4s is a beatdown. That's absurd. Walter Rohrl has seen time differences of 10 seconds between him and himself on different days in a Carrera GT. Are you ignoring the point about the LFA's time being done with traffic on purpose?

 

Let me ask you something. And this goes for jaspergtr, germeezy, and BGolden: Do you think it is beyond Toyota's expertise to develop a turbocharged car with much more power and much more torque than the LFA?

 

I don't have to act as if I know more about cars than you. When you say "all the mags" say something, when they haven't, then your credibility is open to questioning. When you claim the LFA is no faster than a GT3, again, your credibility is open to questioning. When you say Porsche wouldn't sell a GT3 RS at $375k, yet ignore the Sport Classic which costs even more than a GT3 RS for little performance gain over a standard Carrera S, then your value system is open to questioning.

 

No. Hell no. That is what is so disappointing to me. I felt that they have/had soooo much more potential to turn out a high hp turbo/N/A car (Supra), that I think everybody's hopes were wayyyyy up there. And then they gave us this....


... And then they priced it that....


Enter - my disappointment.

Don't get me wrong - I think it is an awesome car, but it (like Toyota) had so much more potential to give us something more for our money.

 

This has been entertaining and all but its like talking to my 5 yr old. Compare the LFA to the CGT and get back to us. That is where Toyota priced it and wanted it to compete, and guess what it doesn't. Its sad we are even comparing this car to cars less than 1/3 of its price.

 

It's not beyond anyone's capability, but this is what they brought us after 10yrs of work. Its a dissappointment to some. How hard is that to understand????

 

He doesn't get it, this is all subjective for instance.

Some people say a woman is all about looks, others admire their personality. But as a man would you routinely take a homely woman with a bad attitude and sailors mouth to expensive dining because she has good hygiene and was known to be faithful?

I own a Lexus RX400h a car that demonstrates TMC and what they can do when they use their impressive engineering talent. From the softness of the leather to the comfortable drive to the impressive hybrid system. I personally am dissapointed that Lexus would bring out a clean sheet car like this and in exchange for foregoing brand, heritage and cache they ask you to pay more and give you a car that is comparatively ugly and performs worse.

If this car represents the pinnacle of TMC as they have said it does, than the engineering present shows what is wrong with TMC. After a 10 year development period they had a lot of opportunities to reevaluate the competition!

 

Please refrain from making personal attacks. If an opinion can not be expressed without insulting another member or their comments, then it is better left unstated.

Previous posts have been edited for content. Repeated warnings or infractions will ultimately lead to temporary or permanent bans.

 

Guibo please let others respond before you continue to argue the same argument, pretty please? Lets hear some other responses or should I put up a poll? Who if they won the lottery tomorrow and had only 3 cars you could buy from would chose an LFA?

 

All in all a beautiful car, the sound is to die for (if anyone's seen the videos), but I agree the reward for the buy-in is marginal at best. Skyline is much better deal than that for the performance.

 

Again agree 100%. The Supra ran with the best of the entry level supercars[Vettes, 1st gen Viper, 300zx etc] back then for 50k. It under cut the Vette/Viper and was superior build quality and performed almost as good in the acceleration and handling and better in some areas like braking/handling etc. Phenominal value at 50k even though the public wasnt ready to pay that kind of money for a Toyota at that time. It, however, wasnt on the level of the hyper exotics like the Ferrari F40/50 etc and was priced accordingly.

Now Toyota got the formula backwards with the LF-A imho. Hyper exotic price and entry level supercar performance.


Guibo you are picking and choosing pieces of peoples posts and implying your own things. Ive continuously said that from tests Ive seen the BS/Z06 have trapped faster but I would prefer to see a head to head test and I gave reasons why. Im not going to keep rehashing the same nonsense in every post to fuel your desire for continuous arguing. I think everyone else pretty much understand where I was coming on trying to compare data from two different tests etc as regard how you were number crunching to prove your points. Read the whole post and you will get the context in which the things you are pulling out and arguing about were said.

Point made about the Ring and I completely agree so I wont argue with you on that. Anyway its been fun. Not gonna argue about the LF-A value anymore as its MY opinion and it stands. I think I have the right to my opinion as much as you do. I see both sides of the issue and they both have merit. The value/performance/gestation aspect resonates more with me than it does with you and thats fine with me

 

This question tells me you do more posting than reading of others posts carefully. Why? Look at the first few posts on the 1st page of this thread and you will see why we are so disappointed with the LF-A and you would never had asked this question or gotten into some of this silly, but entertaining back and forth lol. I myself have repeatedly answered this in few of my posts already. Our viewpoint has everything to do with the fact that we know what Toyota is capable of hence the supreme disappointment with the LF-A after all the R&D/gestation/history with F1, Le Mans, Supra etc.

 

My first post, I was secretly hoping that Toyota would have been able to produce car that that was revolutionary!