Is the Lexus LFA ready for the supercar world?

[GTR]

Originally Posted by Zpectre

No! It takes too much energy to argue with GTR. He nearly made me lose an exam today.

Maybe I'll post more once I get back home.

And I thought I'm over-doing it when I skipped class for a reply

I did eventually go to class but I was 30 minutes late when I got there. lol.

[Zpectre]

Originally Posted by GTR

Would you believe me if I said I thought the exact opposite? I loved Corvette in that game. Especially with the automatic...it'd chirp from 3rd to 4th

I found the interior to be more stylish than most of the other cars. It seemed like a car with a lot of features. Chrome in some places was a nice touch. The Porsche (in NFSHS) seemed like a big board with some gauges on it. This of course changed with the 996.

I used to drive the Corvette a lot, too.

Originally Posted by GTR

A Typical 189hp car can do 0-60 in about 8, 9 seconds. Lotus takes half as long. What I meant was, is LFA equally as impressive for it's horsepower? i.e. is it that much faster to 60 than other supercars with that amount of power? Cars like Lamborghini Murcielago (the original) or Porsche 911?

Well the Elise is a rather extreme example I used but it shows horsepower isn't everything. And the faster you go, the harder it is to make the car even faster. Not even Veyron with 1001 bhp and AWD can accelerate much faster than other supercars. The LF-A is probably a good deal faster than the M5 (a comparable car with similar mechanics) off the line.

Originally Posted by GTR

If by smaller you mean overall volume, OHV is smaller than a OHC with the same displacement, because the cams are not located on the top but rather buried inside the engine. If you mean fine tuning...then you got a point. It's not easy to get the perfect fine tune for OHV (far as I know) which makes up for a lot of low end torque, and compromises a little bit of max torque at high rpms.

With OHV you need more displacement to produce the same amount of horsepower. Therefore OHV engines have a poorer size-to-power ratio. With OHV you also can't rev very high because the design doesn't allow for it. But it's not much of a concern in the USA because the cars are bigger anyway. Due to this it ends up being a good design to mass-produce because it's cheaper.

You get good low-end torque with OHC, the Mercedes engines being the prime example.

Originally Posted by GTR

Then again there are record holding cars that got it right despite the so-called "outdated" engine designs, like the Ultima GTR and SSC Aero TT, both of which use 6.2 liter Chevy engines.

These cars use forced induction to achieve those figures and only use Chevy engines to reduce costs, not necessarily because they're better. They're the most cost-effective, however.

Originally Posted by GTR

ZR1 has the magnetic suspension setup, which is actually very comfortable.

Don't pull a GM promotional video on me! Though I agree the ZR1 is a more refined machine.

[TenPoundBurrito]

In the newest articles of Motor Trend and Automobile, the LFA has been repriced to $395,000, which is way more than cars offering similar levels of luxury and performance like the Aston Martin DBS, Bentley Continental GT Supersport, and Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano. I think the price is getting out of control. It went from $150,000 when the LFA was first announced a few years ago, to $200,000, then $300,000, then $350,000, then $375,000, and now $395,000. At least it's finally slowing down. By the time the car launches, my guestimate will be $425,000 out the door. That's way more than it's competitors. That's even more than a Lamborghini Murcielago, which starts at $322,250.

Now there's a tough choice. Lamborghini or Lexus? Hmmmmm...

[Indigo]

Doesn't matter, if it's even $375k, it's too much really.

[Zpectre]

Their argument is rarity but Lexus doesn't have the heritage to create a limited production machine and charge so much for it. I think we'll all repeat ourselves here if we go on with this thread...

[Ricochet]

Originally Posted by TenPoundBurrito

In the newest articles of Motor Trend and Automobile, the LFA has been repriced to $395,000, which is way more than cars offering similar levels of luxury and performance like the Aston Martin DBS, Bentley Continental GT Supersport, and Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano. I think the price is getting out of control. It went from $150,000 when the LFA was first announced a few years ago, to $200,000, then $300,000, then $350,000, then $375,000, and now $395,000. At least it's finally slowing down. By the time the car launches, my guestimate will be $425,000 out the door. That's way more than it's competitors. That's even more than a Lamborghini Murcielago, which starts at $322,250.

Now there's a tough choice. Lamborghini or Lexus? Hmmmmm...

Tough? More like an easy choice. With the Murci, you get the following:

1. Awesome sound
2. Babe Magnet (installed under the dash)
3. Bystander attractor
4. It's a Lamborghini dude! fo sho!
5. It's a Lamborghin. 'Nuff said.

[Primus]

Originally Posted by Ricochet

Tough? More like an easy choice. With the Murci, you get the following:

1. Awesome sound
2. Babe Magnet (installed under the dash)
3. Bystander attractor
4. It's a Lamborghini dude! fo sho!
5. It's a Lamborghin. 'Nuff said.

Only a poof would select the Lamborghini based on these 'reasons'. A poof with a wallet bigger then his brain, and a penis as non-existent as his taste.

Real reasons:

1. It's a gorgeous car, and even though looks are subjective, anyone who sees this car in-person can agree on it's beauty.
2. It comes from a manufacturer with a long line of prestige and history.
3. It's a hand built, finely tuned machine.
4. It's the complete supercar package - handling, acceleration, speed, etc.
5. It's a rarity. Driving one makes you one of the few and lucky pricks on the planet.

[GTR]

Originally Posted by Zpectre

Well the Elise is a rather extreme example I used but it shows horsepower isn't everything. And the faster you go, the harder it is to make the car even faster. Not even Veyron with 1001 bhp and AWD can accelerate much faster than other supercars. The LF-A is probably a good deal faster than the M5 (a comparable car with similar mechanics) off the line.

M5 is a monster of a car, but still a 4 door sedan, and a good 60hp less powerful. Let's try comparing it to something from the same class with similar power.

The LFA is about exactly as fast to 60 as the original 580hp Murcielago (or rather a negligible 0.1 second slower, according to the sources I found) and the top speed is about 4mph less; even though it is nearly 400lbs lighter. It seems as if with all that technology they are 8 years behind what they're going after.

With OHV you need more displacement to produce the same amount of horsepower. Therefore OHV engines have a poorer size-to-power ratio. With OHV you also can't rev very high because the design doesn't allow for it. But it's not much of a concern in the USA because the cars are bigger anyway. Due to this it ends up being a good design to mass-produce because it's cheaper.

You get good low-end torque with OHC, the Mercedes engines being the prime example.

These cars use forced induction to achieve those figures and only use Chevy engines to reduce costs, not necessarily because they're better. They're the most cost-effective, however.

If by size you mean displacement, sure, they have a poor HP/Liter figure. But that's a meaningless figure anyways. If you mean smaller in overall size, they can actually be a little smaller.

Smaller displacement OHC engines have a sharper HP and torque curve. They may have a higher max HP, but in reality, the one that can maintain slightly lower figures in a wider range of RPM will win.

OHC is indeed capable of making a lot of torque, just like OHV. But it's rather uncommon. The reason being that you'll need a big engine, which means the heads will get way too heavy (especially with DOHC). Mercedes not only has massive displacement for their engines, but they also use FI extensively, and additionally, they sometimes tune the engine for torque rather than max HP, which would explain their often rather low HP figures.

Ultima GTR uses a NA engine. Cost would be an obvious factor, but not the only one. They were after a light, small (overall size) engine to go with the light car. A lot of Ultima GTRs are fitted with the LS7 which is just as light (200kg) and much more powerful.

As for SSC TT, cost wasn't a factor at all. They rebuilt the whole engine themselves from lighter materials and achieved a stunning 192kg for the whole 6.3 liter engine, which is 8kg less than a LS3 or LS7. The car sells for $660,000 anyways, why would they want to cheap out.

Don't pull a GM promotional video on me! Though I agree the ZR1 is a more refined machine.

haha lol yeah it's more of a demonstration video in our context, but it explains a lot more than I can with words.

[Mr. Sting Ray]

Kinda meh if you ask me. I'm just not feeling it. Then again, Lexus's products don't exactly run my motor either.

[Zpectre]

Originally Posted by GTR

M5 is a monster of a car, but still a 4 door sedan, and a good 60hp less powerful. Let's try comparing it to something from the same class with similar power.

The LFA is about exactly as fast to 60 as the original 580hp Murcielago (or rather a negligible 0.1 second slower, according to the sources I found) and the top speed is about 4mph less; even though it is nearly 400lbs lighter. It seems as if with all that technology they are 8 years behind what they're going after.

A Murciélago is AWD and powered by a V12 engine... My comparison is more accurate because the cars are closer (high-revving V10, RWD, sequential gearbox). No one has tested the LF-A yet so we can't compare numbers. It will surely be faster than an M5, though, based on weight alone (which is to be expected from a sportscar that is almost 6 years newer and costs four times the price of the M5). And it will dust the Murciélago which is even older.

Originally Posted by GTR

If by size you mean displacement, sure, they have a poor HP/Liter figure. But that's a meaningless figure anyways. If you mean smaller in overall size, they can actually be a little smaller.

Smaller displacement OHC engines have a sharper HP and torque curve. They may have a higher max HP, but in reality, the one that can maintain slightly lower figures in a wider range of RPM will win.

OHC is indeed capable of making a lot of torque, just like OHV. But it's rather uncommon. The reason being that you'll need a big engine, which means the heads will get way too heavy (especially with DOHC). Mercedes not only has massive displacement for their engines, but they also use FI extensively, and additionally, they sometimes tune the engine for torque rather than max HP, which would explain their often rather low HP figures.

Hp/litre isn't meaningless because more efficiency = smaller = lighter = doesn't hamper the rest of the car as much. High-rated engines can also have flatter torque curves like the BMW M5 and the Ferrari F50.

Taking same size into account, the truth is that OHV engines found in sportscars struggle to make more horsepower than lax OHC engines of similar displacement. Currently Mercedes has the 6.2 litre in the SL 63 capable of over 510 bhp and 630 Nm of torque in its most powerful tune. Lesser versions have less horsepower but same amount of torque. The Corvette only has 430 bhp and less peak torque, though it's available at (not much) lower RPMs.

Another example: in Brazil the Opel Omega was initially sold with the Opel 3.0 engine making 165 bhp. After the Omega A was phased out in Europe they couldn't import the engines anymore, so they switched to old 4.1 OHV engines dating back to the 60s which produced 168 bhp (almost same figure) but were much heavier.

Mercedes have also abandoned the use of forced induction in their strongest engines. The only one is the V12 biturbo in the S 65/SL 65/CL 65 AMG. They do use superchargers in smaller engines but those engines have what, half the displacement of a base V8?

Originally Posted by GTR

Ultima GTR uses a NA engine. Cost would be an obvious factor, but not the only one. They were after a light, small (overall size) engine to go with the light car. A lot of Ultima GTRs are fitted with the LS7 which is just as light (200kg) and much more powerful.

Ultima GTR is a kit car and uses a tuned engine. If you add tuning in the mix pretty much anything is possible.

Originally Posted by GTR

As for SSC TT, cost wasn't a factor at all. They rebuilt the whole engine themselves from lighter materials and achieved a stunning 192kg for the whole 6.3 liter engine, which is 8kg less than a LS3 or LS7. The car sells for $660,000 anyways, why would they want to cheap out.

The new engine is used only from 2009 onwards. Chevy engines are also used because of convenience, they're easier to get and the simple configuration makes them less prone to breakdowns if you add turbos with tons of psi like they've done.

[Indigo]

Originally Posted by GTR

As for SSC TT, cost wasn't a factor at all. They rebuilt the whole engine themselves from lighter materials and achieved a stunning 192kg for the whole 6.3 liter engine, which is 8kg less than a LS3 or LS7. The car sells for $660,000 anyways, why would they want to cheap out.

Why would Lexus cheap out now? We have estimates of $375,000-$425,000 per unit. Might as well go all in.

[GTR]

Originally Posted by Zpectre

A Murciélago is AWD and powered by a V12 engine... My comparison is more accurate because the cars are closer (high-revving V10, RWD, sequential gearbox). No one has tested the LF-A yet so we can't compare numbers. It will surely be faster than an M5, though, based on weight alone (which is to be expected from a sportscar that is almost 6 years newer and costs four times the price of the M5). And it will dust the Murciélago which is even older.

The specs are already out. They state it can do 0-60 in 3.7 seconds and has a top speed of 201mph (or 325km/h). Following the strings, it appears that these guys were the one to find out first:

http://translate.google.com/translat...istory_state0=

You be the judge of the legitimacy; but in case you were wondering, I was going by those data.

I see where you're coming from, but let's compare supercar to supercar. M5 is in a whole different class, with a completely separate set of expectations, where it competes with the XFR and CTS-V.

Hp/litre isn't meaningless because more efficiency = smaller = lighter = doesn't hamper the rest of the car as much. High-rated engines can also have flatter torque curves like the BMW M5 and the Ferrari F50.

Efficiency = The ratio of the energy delivered by a machine to the energy supplied for its operation. So a 1200W 80plus powersupply is more efficient than a 200W >70% power supply, even if it draws more energy, even if it gets hotter, even if it is bigger. This applies to all machines. Size makes no difference. If it can do what it should do, it doesn't matter.

OHV's biggest excuse is being lighter and smaller for applications it is used for, being larger V6s, V8s or V10s. The sad part is that GM is the only manufacturer who truly invested in it and actually made something out of it.

Taking same size into account, the truth is that OHV engines found in sportscars struggle to make more horsepower than lax OHC engines of similar displacement. Currently Mercedes has the 6.2 litre in the SL 63 capable of over 510 bhp and 630 Nm of torque in its most powerful tune. Lesser versions have less horsepower but same amount of torque. The Corvette only has 430 bhp and less peak torque, though it's available at (not much) lower RPMs.

That's not a very realistic comparison. Corvette is in a whole different category. At 50 grand it is way less than half the price of an SL63. It gets nearly 10 mpg more on the highway, and weights a good 1000lbs less. If GM really wanted beef that engine up, they would, and they could.

Another example: in Brazil the Opel Omega was initially sold with the Opel 3.0 engine making 165 bhp. After the Omega A was phased out in Europe they couldn't import the engines anymore, so they switched to old 4.1 OHV engines dating back to the 60s which produced 168 bhp (almost same figure) but were much heavier.

Like I mentioned, GM is the only one with a OHV that is actually light. The one in the old Viper was nearly 30% heavier than the Z06. OHV might be lighter but Dodge really went overboard with over estimating this advantage.

The old OHV engines were extremely heavy. Not because they are OHV, they're just old. But I bet the 4.1 is a bit faster than the numbers show.

Mercedes have also abandoned the use of forced induction in their strongest engines. The only one is the V12 biturbo in the S 65/SL 65/CL 65 AMG. They do use superchargers in smaller engines but those engines have what, half the displacement of a base V8?

And SL600, and CL600, and S600,...

They're turbo charged, I remember they used to have twin turbos in SLs. I don't know though, they might be just there to maintain the compression in the big engine.

Ultima GTR is a kit car and uses a tuned engine. If you add tuning in the mix pretty much anything is possible.

Well the original one I believe used the stock engine. Apparently they've beefed it up now. But it is a production car, in fact that's the record it holds, fastest 0-100-0 for a production car, which is 9.4 seconds.

The new engine is used only from 2009 onwards. Chevy engines are also used because of convenience, they're easier to get and the simple configuration makes them less prone to breakdowns if you add turbos with tons of psi like they've done.

True, but why an OHV? Chevy does produce DOHC engines, and so does Ford.

Anyways, now we are really going off topic.

Let's wrap up shall we?

I think we both agree that the LFA, while not in all aspects, is not exactly a thing of beauty. And its price tag makes it hard to justify buying one, even if you're a millionaire.

I'd like to add one more thing. The price tag is in the hypercar territory. And, to be a real hypercar, you need massive HP figures. It just simply doesn't have that. So it without a doubt fails as a hypbercar. But maybe it can at least redeem itself as a supercar once it laps the Ring.

[Indigo]

No, it won't even then. The Nissan GT-R Spec V was tuned perfectly for the Ring but had a slower best time than the regular GT-R. Also, TopGear writers moaned about a bad ride on the roads, probably due to suspension tuning.

[Zpectre]

Ok, to sum it up.

No one (but GM and Chrysler) invests in OHV anymore because there's less potential for horsepower and you can get same amount of torque from SOHC. It's very difficult to use VVT with OHV (only Chrysler did it). It may actually be cheaper to standardise the assembly line by developing OHC engines which can easily be converted to DOHC if necessary.

Specs of LF-A are those divulged by Toyota. Manufacturers usually understate their data. Besides, 0-60 has a lot to do with gearing as well and isn't very accurate data to show the straight-line capability of the car. The M5 isn't a sub-4 sec car but has a massive top-end acceleration.

The LF-A is much lighter than the Murcie so it will kill it, no doubt (I'm not talking about LP640 here). My comparison is with regards to mechanics not category. I was comparing Elise to other I4 cars, therefore I can't compare LF-A to V12 cars because my comparison will result invalid.

When you weigh less you don't need power in excess of 600 bhp. Elise will beat a Civic Si, LF-A will beat an M5. This is why having 560 bhp isn't "too little" for the car's price. The Carrera GT barely tops 600 bhp and is very expensive. Nissan GT-R has 480 bhp and, at least officially, it laps the Ring in a time that is close to a Ferrari Enzo with 660 bhp (though I do think Nissan somehow cheated ). If the Lexus performed badly (which it won't, but I'll happily reconsider my argument if I'm proven wrong) then I'd give it to you.

Why do I need 1200W when most of the time I'll only use a quarter of this? It's a waste of energy. Bigger engines now use systems to shut down cylinders at low speeds but that is technology that is being added which still make them expensive and they're still not as economical (most of them at least). And these engines still won't fit in smaller cars, for which OHV (which must have big displacement to produce decent power) is crap anyways. All the OHV I4 engines I know of are crap.

Corvette is less expensive than SL but have you seen how much more luxurious the SL is? The only area in which it gets beaten by the Corvette is track performance, but few people who buy SLs care about it (even Black Series owners). I'm also comparing engines only. The rest of the car is irrelevant, even more so because there's no point in comparing a light Corvette to a heavy grand tourer like the SL. Fact remains the V8 from the SL is a better engine and uses OHC technology.

SL 600 et al are N/A cars.

Ultima GTR weighs 800 kg which is why it's so fast with 500+ bhp.

Chevy's high performance engines are all OHV, probably more due to tradition, cost of development and stubbornness. Ford's Modular engine has been used in the Koenigsegg CCR to produce over 800 bhp and it probably could go further if they wanted. There are Skyline engines with over 1000 bhp.

And I'm done arguing over this.

[Mr. Sting Ray]

Originally Posted by Zpectre

It's very difficult to use VVT with OHV (only Chrysler did it)

Bullshit. GM Vortec engines anyone? Also the GM 3500 and 3900 to name a few.

[Zpectre]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sting Ray

Bullshit. GM Vortec engines anyone? Also the GM 3500 and 3900 to name a few.

Truck engines anyone? No good for general applications.

Vortec engine and the Dodge Viper engine only feature VVT from 2008 onwards so... yes, it's difficult to implement VVT in OHV design.

[GTR]

I think they're not using them in the sports cars because they don't want people to have problems with the compression when they mod the cars. I heard the high compression combined with FI can easily bring any engine to its knees. Import guys are used to swapping engines every now and then.

Originally Posted by Zpectre

Ok, to sum it up.

No one (but GM and Chrysler) invests in OHV anymore because there's less potential for horsepower and you can get same amount of torque from SOHC. It's very difficult to use VVT with OHV (only Chrysler did it). It may actually be cheaper to standardise the assembly line by developing OHC engines which can easily be converted to DOHC if necessary.

http://www.autoblog.com/2005/12/08/a...finitive-rant/

Read up.

Specs of LF-A are those divulged by Toyota. Manufacturers usually understate their data. Besides, 0-60 has a lot to do with gearing as well and isn't very accurate data to show the straight-line capability of the car. The M5 isn't a sub-4 sec car but has a massive top-end acceleration.

Not necessarily. Then again, I compared it to the data released by Lamborghini themselves.

M5 is a heavy, torquey car. And it has a poor 0-60 and a great 60-100, just like one. A lighter, less torquey car would be the opposite. Especially if its got some fancy launch control.

The LF-A is much lighter than the Murcie so it will kill it, no doubt (I'm not talking about LP640 here). My comparison is with regards to mechanics not category. I was comparing Elise to other I4 cars, therefore I can't compare LF-A to V12 cars because my comparison will result invalid.

In handling, no doubt. In straight line, maybe, maybe not.

When you weigh less you don't need power in excess of 600 bhp. Elise will beat a Civic Si, LF-A will beat an M5. This is why having 560 bhp isn't "too little" for the car's price. The Carrera GT barely tops 600 bhp and is very expensive. Nissan GT-R has 480 bhp and, at least officially, it laps the Ring in a time that is close to a Ferrari Enzo with 660 bhp (though I do think Nissan somehow cheated ). If the Lexus performed badly (which it won't, but I'll happily reconsider my argument if I'm proven wrong) then I'd give it to you.

Don't get me wrong, I never said it won't handle good. But I still think if you're charging that much you better offer a real hyper car, not just another stripped out race car. Those are cheap.

Why do I need 1200W when most of the time I'll only use a quarter of this? It's a waste of energy. Bigger engines now use systems to shut down cylinders at low speeds but that is technology that is being added which still make them expensive and they're still not as economical (most of them at least). And these engines still won't fit in smaller cars, for which OHV (which must have big displacement to produce decent power) is crap anyways. All the OHV I4 engines I know of are crap.

OHV I4? lol dude, of course it's crap. That's pretty retarded. What kinda dumbass came up with that for a modern design...

OHV is used for "V" engines. V6, V8, V10. Again, it's to save weight and make the engine fit in the car. This is when you already know you will be using a gigantic engine, and you are trying to make the best of it.

Corvette is less expensive than SL but have you seen how much more luxurious the SL is? The only area in which it gets beaten by the Corvette is track performance, but few people who buy SLs care about it (even Black Series owners). I'm also comparing engines only. The rest of the car is irrelevant, even more so because there's no point in comparing a light Corvette to a heavy grand tourer like the SL. Fact remains the V8 from the SL is a better engine and uses OHC technology.

Sigh...dude, that's my point. They're different cars, for different purposes. Why would Mercedes ever care about gas mileage, weight or engine size when they're trying to make a luxury coupe? The only thing the Corvette shares with the Mercedes is the displacement amount. I'm sure the Corvette engine could have been tuned to be used for that purpose and deliver the same results.

SL 600 et al are N/A cars.

http://www.automotive.com/2009/99/me...387/index.html

Ultima GTR weighs 800 kg which is why it's so fast with 500+ bhp.

Which is why they used a Corvette engine. It's got a good power/weight ratio. Goes well with the purpose of the car.

Chevy's high performance engines are all OHV, probably more due to tradition, cost of development and stubbornness. Ford's Modular engine has been used in the Koenigsegg CCR to produce over 800 bhp and it probably could go further if they wanted. There are Skyline engines with over 1000 bhp.

Don't fix it if it ain't broken. Those things work perfectly fine for their application. If only GM wouldn't cheap out on materials so much.

Nothing wrong with DOHC. My point was, if you remember, OHV is more than excused to have a very high displacement, and that shouldn't be hold against it, that's all.

Lexus LFA, as a supercar, could have used a slightly bigger engine without adding much to the weight. I never said it should be an OHV, or should have the displacement of an OHV supercar. I just said 4.8 is too small to make a nice sound.

And I'm done arguing over this.

Can I go now...I need some rest...I need to stop staying up at night...fapping...*yawn* gdnight...

[AJ_Lethal]

Originally Posted by GTR

Nothing wrong with DOHC. My point was, if you remember, OHV is more than excused to have a very high displacement, and that shouldn't be hold against it, that's all.

OK, but you would imagine a LS7 with DOHC, VVT and direct injection? 560 hp at least

[RedTwentyFour]

i love the LFA so much dunno why, dont shoot me.


blubb blubb blubb

[Mr. Sting Ray]

Originally Posted by AJ_Lethal

OK, but you would imagine a LS7 with DOHC, VVT and direct injection? 560 hp at least

Then it just wouldn't sound the same. Here's a more realistic comparison. The Ford modular SOHC engine requires more money to get up to snuff, than say a GM LSX engine. Comp Cams has roughly 20 to 25 different cams for the Ford 3V 4.6. Not bad, but they cost a ridiculous amount. Now for the OHV LSX with just a single cam, Comp Cams has roughly over 50 different types of cams at your disposal for a far cheaper price. Trust me, why do you think FoMoCo fans still prefer the older 5.0s to the 4.6s? Ask around and people will tell you why. Simplicity is key.

[Zpectre]

Originally Posted by GTR

M5 is a heavy, torquey car.

I won't even read the rest of your post after reading this!!!

[ricersHA]

The Lexus LFA is not a bad idea a bit boring as said i shoul has said the front is boring looking rest of the body is nice looking and has good horsepower and top speed.I still think the NSX is the best looking from that country but if the LFA had a better looking front it would be better

[Ricochet]

If I'm not mistaken the problem you guys have with the car is it's price tag which doesn't seem justifiable due to the company's lack of history in racing and sports and the fact that the engine isn't big enough?

So if they added a bigger engine (V12, how much bigger can you get ), do you think it would make the car's price tag justified? What if there are some stuff used in the interior or engine or the drivetrain which are technologically superior and expensive? I mean, this car is coming out in 2009+, it may as well have stuff that the other cars you guys compared to don't. Lexus are known to make luxurious Toyotas, maybe this car has more luxury than its competing supercars?

[Indigo]

Ferrari can't get away with $375,000. Only the likes of McLaren or Bugatti could, and of course some of the specialty makers.

Lexus' tend to be overpriced Toyotas. So I wouldn't expect much other than build quality. Woohoo! A sports car with build quality! There's only like 2395723057028502 of those!

[GTR]

Originally Posted by Zpectre

I won't even read the rest of your post after reading this!!!

I hear that all the time, could be an American expression, I dunno.



Go to 1:12.

[Zpectre]

Originally Posted by GTR

I hear that all the time, could be an American expression, I dunno.



Go to 1:12.

I suggest going to m5board.com where every E60 owner (note: owner) will tell you the M5 isn't a (very) torquey car. In fact the E39 had more low-end torque!

It's a 1,8 ton saloon so it needs at least 600 Nm to be considered "torquey", maybe even more. 500 Nm is a lot, but relative to weight, it's a bit lacking.

The fact the Motor Trend guy said the M5 has good torque out of corners just proves the excellence of the Bavarian machine.

Originally Posted by Indigo

Lexus' tend to be overpriced Toyotas. So I wouldn't expect much other than build quality. Woohoo! A sports car with build quality! There's only like 2395723057028502 of those!

Well it does have some technology, but it's a Lexus so it doesn't inspire passion.

[GTR]

Originally Posted by Zpectre

I suggest going to m5board.com where every E60 owner (note: owner) will tell you the M5 isn't a (very) torquey car. In fact the E39 had more low-end torque!

It's a 1,8 ton saloon so it needs at least 600 Nm to be considered "torquey", maybe even more. 500 Nm is a lot, but relative to weight, it's a bit lacking.

The fact the Motor Trend guy said the M5 has good torque out of corners just proves the excellence of the Bavarian machine.



Well it does have some technology, but it's a Lexus so it doesn't inspire passion.

It's a lot more torquey than the LFA, that's for sure. I mean 383ft.lbs @ 6100rpm versus 345ft.lbs at 6800rpm...That's a lot when you consider how much more power the LFA has, and the fact that torque is almost always expected to be more when there's more HP.

[Zpectre]

Originally Posted by GTR

It's a lot more torquey than the LFA, that's for sure. I mean 383ft.lbs @ 6100rpm versus 345ft.lbs at 6800rpm...That's a lot when you consider how much more power the LFA has, and the fact that torque is almost always expected to be more when there's more HP.

But the LF-A is 350 kg lighter... That's a huge difference. The Lexus ends up making more power because it can rev higher.

[GTR]

Originally Posted by Zpectre

But the LF-A is 350 kg lighter... That's a huge difference. The Lexus ends up making more power because it can rev higher.

Yeah, so? I didn't say the M5 will be faster, I said its 60-100 time would be more impressive than its 0-60 time because it is heavier and has more torque. Cars with more torque tend to be that way, and its not so much because of the torque, but rather how it dictates the way the gearing will be done.

[vette]

I don't mind the looks so much, sound is not so bad, but the price is way too much.

Loving the topic you guys got going on, took a while to read up on all that

[Zpectre]

Originally Posted by GTR

Yeah, so? I didn't say the M5 will be faster, I said its 60-100 time would be more impressive than its 0-60 time because it is heavier and has more torque. Cars with more torque tend to be that way, and its not so much because of the torque, but rather how it dictates the way the gearing will be done.

Of course you didn't, that's why my point was that the V10 engine in the LF-A had good enough torque for its weight. Its characteristics are closer to that of a Formula 1 engine (high power, low torque) much like the S85 engine found in the M5. The Bimmer truly shines at high speeds because of gearing and high power output.

Anyway, if they're inflating the price so much, probably there's people willing to buy it at that price...

[Bajan Shifter]

I noticed that you people are arguing about the car's outstandingly high price.But I bet that some of you have not noticed that there was a Lamborghini going for $1.6 million and no one was complaining,that car being the Reventon Roadster and of course Lambos have a character and a background but also remember that Lexus is still Toyota, so their racing experience ,background and character can be tied to the Lexus LFA.

Besides,I think that Lexus may realize that the price they put out in the air was a bit too much and possibly bring it down.I personally think that it is a good supercar and it could blow some of the other fast cars out of the water(i.e Nissan GT-R) but then it can still be beaten by others(i.e Chevrolet Corvette ZR1). For those of you that think the LFA is boring, I think you should think again, this car can be just as interesting and fun as the the supercars out there.


I think that the LFA may be ready for the supercar world.

[GTR]

Originally Posted by Bajan Shifter

I noticed that you people are arguing about the car's outstandingly high price.But I bet that some of you have not noticed that there was a Lamborghini going for $1.6 million and no one was complaining,that car being the Reventon Roadster and of course Lambos have a character and a background but also remember that Lexus is still Toyota, so their racing experience ,background and character can be tied to the Lexus LFA.

Besides,I think that Lexus may realize that the price they put out in the air was a bit too much and possibly bring it down.I personally think that it is a good supercar and it could blow some of the other fast cars out of the water(i.e Nissan GT-R) but then it can still be beaten by others(i.e Chevrolet Corvette ZR1). For those of you that think the LFA is boring, I think you should think again, this car can be just as interesting and fun as the the supercars out there.


I think that the LFA may be ready for the supercar world.

Reventon is an ugly, riced, overpriced, piece of shit. Why would anyone take that over the much cheaper, lighter, jaw droppingly beautiful LP640 just baffles me.

Zpectre, I never said its faster than a LFA because its obviously not in the same class. LFA, for its class, doesn't show any advantage in its power figures. And it's not all that light. My tank of a car weights only 174lbs more. Neither are the cars in its class, but they have plenty more torque and power. ZR1 weights about the same but it has 80hp more and nearly double the torque.

Unless its got some super high tech stability control or something, like the GT-R did, it'll just be another sports car with another minimally impressive (for its class) laptime around nurburgring that follows a whole bunch of other supercars.

[AJ_Lethal]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sting Ray

Then it just wouldn't sound the same. Here's a more realistic comparison. The Ford modular SOHC engine requires more money to get up to snuff, than say a GM LSX engine. Comp Cams has roughly 20 to 25 different cams for the Ford 3V 4.6. Not bad, but they cost a ridiculous amount. Now for the OHV LSX with just a single cam, Comp Cams has roughly over 50 different types of cams at your disposal for a far cheaper price. Trust me, why do you think FoMoCo fans still prefer the older 5.0s to the 4.6s? Ask around and people will tell you why. Simplicity is key.

Hey, it's a theorical subject that i put on. I didn't say: "GM has to pump it by the millions".

[Ricochet]

Originally Posted by Bajan Shifter

I noticed that you people are arguing about the car's outstandingly high price.But I bet that some of you have not noticed that there was a Lamborghini going for $1.6 million and no one was complaining,that car being the Reventon Roadster and of course Lambos have a character and a background but also remember that Lexus is still Toyota, so their racing experience ,background and character can be tied to the Lexus LFA.

Besides,I think that Lexus may realize that the price they put out in the air was a bit too much and possibly bring it down.I personally think that it is a good supercar and it could blow some of the other fast cars out of the water(i.e Nissan GT-R) but then it can still be beaten by others(i.e Chevrolet Corvette ZR1). For those of you that think the LFA is boring, I think you should think again, this car can be just as interesting and fun as the the supercars out there.


I think that the LFA may be ready for the supercar world.

Those Reventons are exclusive cars; only 20 of them are being made (29 if you include the roadster), that sort of gives them the value and uniqueness like most other cars in that price range have. Furthermore, Lamborghini has a history, it is known for making prestigious, stylish and outrageous cars, so they can justify such a high cost. And if Toyota wanted to connect their racing history to a new sports car, they should've labeled it a Toyota if that was the case. The 2000GT, the Supra, the Celica, those are sports cars made by Toyota which are respected and have been used in racing. Lexus have a poor racing history (well, a poor history in general, in almost everything), maybe they justified its price tag by labeling it a Lexus right? Since Lexus' are overpriced anyways.

And there is such a thing called opinion - some people don't like the car and its features, others, like you, do. Live with it.

[Zpectre]

Reventón gets kudos for coolness, unlike the LF-A.

I think the LF-A is too expensive, but it looks good actually. The pictures in this topic don't do it justice. You can say that the LF-A is somewhat exclusive since there will be only 500 of them but even that doesn't allow Lexus to charge that much for it. However, the LF-A could reveal itself to be a wonder if it provides unparalled comfort and luxury while still being able to outlap Porsches and Lamborghinis.

Originally Posted by GTR

Zpectre, I never said its faster than a LFA because its obviously not in the same class. LFA, for its class, doesn't show any advantage in its power figures. And it's not all that light. My tank of a car weights only 174lbs more. Neither are the cars in its class, but they have plenty more torque and power. ZR1 weights about the same but it has 80hp more and nearly double the torque.

You said the M5 engine was torquey, I countered that by saying you shouldn't judge torque without taking weight into consideration, which means the LF-A's torque could be just fine for its 1480 kg whereas the M5, sitting at 1830 kg, is acknowledged by its owners as not being a very torquey car, even though its torque figures are better.

You can't compare the weight of a luxurious LF-A to that of a Camaro Z28 with basic comfort features. Camaro (at least the 4th gen you own) doesn't have a lot of technological stuff weighing it down. If the LF-A really is as luxurious as something like an SLR, then props to Toyota for keeping the weight that low. In comparison, the Nissan GT-R weighs more than 200 kg more.

Out of all the cars in this class, its horsepower figures are worse only than those from the Ferrari 458 and the Dodge Viper. The LF-A may not be the strongest in paper, but it could prove to be the fastest once taken to the track. And no, ZR1 isn't in its class. ZR1 is trying to go against cars like Carrera GT or Zonda F, but obviously not with the same finesse, since it's still just a Corvette, no matter how fast it is.

[GTR]

You don't understand what I mean man. It's all in a relative context. I said a torquey, heavy car will have less impressive 0-60 and more impressive 60-100 (in comparison to its 0-60). Why is that? It's not easy for a car that's both heavy and struggles to gain traction to jump to get up and go. But once its rolling, it can unleash all it can give.

I also said a lighter, less toquey car will have better 0-60 and worse 60-100. It'll be able to get up and go right away, like any tuner would, but once it gets into higher gears it'll start running out of breath (or torque, rather).

While I stand by that, there is no way in hell I can pit an M5 against a LFA. While they may represent the two different sides of this concept, they're in different classes.

If M5 is good in higher gears, as you said, there is only one thing that comes to mind: torque. In higher gears the RPM drops; and HP is literally tied to your RPM, so you only have torque to rely on. Assuming you were correct, and based on what I heard from the MotorTrend guy, I made a case that M5 is indeed a torquey car. If these two sources are both incorrect, I wouldn't insist on what I implied.

And please, don't be closeminded. Porsche, BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar, VW...they all had their good days and bad days. It wasn't long ago that Mercedes was suffering badly from poor quality and plastic parts on their "luxury" sedans. VW has fell below GM's worst of the worst in reliability. And it wasn't log ago Hyundai was a total piece of junk and now it's making the top spots in quality and reliability.

There is nothing particularly bad, cheap or unusual about the Corvette. When you buy a Corvette you know what you're getting into. You're investing in performance, not luxury or comfort, even though there is enough comfort if you so desire some. It certainly is more than a sports car would need. I have been inside a Corvette, I found nothing cheap or tacky except for the plastic center console. But then again, nearly every car had something just as tacky going on in that autoshow. Even Lexus and Hyundai Genesis.

Seriously man, this Chevy bashing needs to stop. They made something good, and kicked ass, just accept it, and move on. Even I'm not that closeminded...if you remember I hate Nissan GT-R but I never denied that it's a real performer for its price.

[Zpectre]

Originally Posted by GTR

You don't understand what I mean man. It's all in a relative context. I said a torquey, heavy car will have less impressive 0-60 and more impressive 60-100 (in comparison to its 0-60). Why is that? It's not easy for a car that's both heavy and struggles to gain traction to jump to get up and go. But once its rolling, it can unleash all it can give.

I also said a lighter, less toquey car will have better 0-60 and worse 60-100. It'll be able to get up and go right away, like any tuner would, but once it gets into higher gears it'll start running out of breath (or torque, rather).

While I stand by that, there is no way in hell I can pit an M5 against a LFA. While they may represent the two different sides of this concept, they're in different classes.

If M5 is good in higher gears, as you said, there is only one thing that comes to mind: torque. In higher gears the RPM drops; and HP is literally tied to your RPM, so you only have torque to rely on. Assuming you were correct, and based on what I heard from the MotorTrend guy, I made a case that M5 is indeed a torquey car. If these two sources are both incorrect, I wouldn't insist on what I implied.

Torque is good at low speeds. At high speeds it's much more about horsepower and keeping the car within a favourable power band, which is achievable by gearing. The M5 has excellent gearing because of the 7-speed SMG.

Originally Posted by GTR

And please, don't be closeminded. Porsche, BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar, VW...they all had their good days and bad days. It wasn't long ago that Mercedes was suffering badly from poor quality and plastic parts on their "luxury" sedans. VW has fell below GM's worst of the worst in reliability. And it wasn't log ago Hyundai was a total piece of junk and now it's making the top spots in quality and reliability.

Interesting because where I live the VWs are very reliable...

Originally Posted by GTR

There is nothing particularly bad, cheap or unusual about the Corvette. When you buy a Corvette you know what you're getting into. You're investing in performance, not luxury or comfort, even though there is enough comfort if you so desire some. It certainly is more than a sports car would need. I have been inside a Corvette, I found nothing cheap or tacky except for the plastic center console. But then again, nearly every car had something just as tacky going on in that autoshow. Even Lexus and Hyundai Genesis.

My daily driver has a plastic center console...

It's all a matter of taste really. I prefer more well-rounded cars. I've grown up around European cars so those are what I'm used to. Though I wouldn't pass on a Corvette.

Originally Posted by GTR

Seriously man, this Chevy bashing needs to stop. They made something good, and kicked ass, just accept it, and move on. Even I'm not that closeminded...if you remember I hate Nissan GT-R but I never denied that it's a real performer for its price.

They needed 638 bhp to do that however...

[GTR]

Originally Posted by Zpectre

Torque is good at low engine speeds. At high engine speeds it's much more about horsepower and keeping the car within a favorable power band, which is achievable by gearing. The M5 has excellent gearing because of the 7-speed SMG.

Fix'ed.

So basically they used shorter gears to keep the RPM up. Makes sense.

Interesting because where I live the VWs are very reliable...

Not all of their models are unreliable...but my point was that things change. Chevy, with the exception of their low end "budget" cars, has actually been making fairly decent cars. In fact Buick has scored very well in JD power's list and its near the top of the list with Lexus, Toyota and Lincoln. And look here, Hyundai makes the top list, while the consumer reports guy calls VW and MB unreliable, despite their good reputation of reliable cars.

My daily driver has a plastic center console...
It's all a matter of taste really. I prefer more well-rounded cars. I've grown up around European cars so those are what I'm used to. Though I wouldn't pass on a Corvette.

So does mine, and so do I. But the way I see it, the gap is closing up real quick. Corvette isn't all that bad man, I mean I know it's not exactly luxurious but its what it was supposed to be. A sports car, decent comfort, and good performance.

They needed 638 bhp to do that however...

What's wrong with that?

But then again their Z06 also dominated when it came out, and that was "only" 505hp.

[AJ_Lethal]

Originally Posted by GTR

Not all of their models are unreliable...but my point was that things change. Chevy, with the exception of their low end "budget" cars, has actually been making fairly decent cars. In fact Buick has scored very well in JD power's list and its near the top of the list with Lexus, Toyota and Lincoln. And look here, Hyundai makes the top list, while the consumer reports guy calls VW and MB unreliable, despite their good reputation of reliable cars.

Why Hyundai did the big quality jump and GM not?