Joeb427

iTrader: (1)

I did a autotrader.com search and there are 32 LFA's available.Probably more that aren't listed.
Odd with a limited production number that LFA's haven't sold out by now.

RocketGuy3

iTrader: (1)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it is nowhere remotely close to the law of diminishing returns. The IS350 offers a significant amount more luxury and/or speed than any car that is a significant amount cheaper (comparing new cars at the time of purchase).


Obviously there is some amount of subjectivity that goes into just about any purchase like that. You gotta ultimately buy what you think will make you happy... but if you really believe that logic shouldn't enter into the equation when buying an expensive car... Well we're not going to see eye-to-eye on much.

But logical or not, if there is some reason other than "no one else has one" and/or "I'll look cool/rich" that someone wants to buy an LFA or a $800K Porsche, I don't think I've heard it. Goes back to the whole exclusivity/pedigree thing. EDIT: I suppose some people may think some of them just look REALLY, REALLY COOL or something... which is at least a little better.

Anyways, it's whatevs. We're not gonna agree on this.

LexFather

And this has nothing to do with the topic and proves me LFA whipping boy commentary again

Bro, it ain't all about the numbers. People with the means buy what they want. The LFA for example was mind-boggling to many as it was a Lexus for $375,000 no matter the carbon fiber or lap times.

The 458 is worth the $$$$ on looks alone. To me.

RocketGuy3

iTrader: (1)

I know it's not all about the numbers, brobot, and I know they buy what they want (who doesn't buy what they want?). That's my point. It's about fluff. People buy them when they literally have more money than they know what to do with. I think it's silly to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on something just because you think it's pretty to look at, too, especially when it doesn't do the job it was designed to do as well as it should do it.

As I said, I think many of these cars are just exercises of excess, overindulgence, and over-engineering. I was trying to avoid taking it this far, but... as hippieish as it may sound, and as much as I'm sure people here will hate me for saying it, it's my opinion that their mere existence exemplifies a good chunk of what is wrong with humanity. Not claiming to be free of some materialistic desires myself, and I know it's difficult to say where the line is drawn, but I think a $400K performance car (especially one that's slower than a $100K car) is past that line by any reasonable definition.

... They're fun to race in Forza, though.

LexFather

Okay I read fluff and mind wandered away

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

ok, but what's your point?

wow. not sure why you're on an enthusiast car website if you think some of the pinnacle of car capability is what's wrong with humanity.

oh there's your point. it isn't about reasonable. these cars are about excess, and what a dull world it would be if EVERYONE drove something just 'adequate'. if i could afford an LFA as a weekend car, hell yes i'd have one. if that means i'm also going to hell, then so be it.

G Star

iTrader: (2)

Sure, people have said that about the LFA as well, then they drove it and understood why they were inherently wrong.

jat0223

iTrader: (1)

From what I've read, the LFA wasn't created to be the fastest thing around, but the best drivers car. Reviewers usually criticize it's price tag until they drive it then they understand.

TerrySmith

This is a cumulative list. They don't test every car every year. They only test new cars or existing models for which substantial changes have been made. For example, 2008 IS F tested in 2008 (3:14.0) but not tested again until 2011 (3:05.4) after substantial updates.

Here is the list through 2012.

I cannot find (yet) a list that includes the 2013 tests listed at the top of this thread with the historic list at the link.

LFA at 2:55.1 was beat by the Ferrari 458 in 2013 and also by 11 other cars previously tested.

Some examples from the total list:
2008 Viper SRT10 ACR (2:48.6)
2012 ZR1 (2:50.7)
2007 Z06 (2:58.2)
2011 CTS-V (3:04.2

I think this LL test is a pretty unbiased way to compare performance (and nothing else) but still includes driver skill and tweaked-vs.-stock as variables.

Not sure C&D should allow Ferrari engineers to "help" with the test. Also, C&D should attempt to enforce testing of stock (unmodified or untweaked) cars somehow. Not sure how they account for variations in driver skills. Even one driver in one car will vary from day to day.

But with those exceptions, this still seems like a pretty unbiased comparison method.

spwolf

for that track, yes... plus if they allow Ferrari to adjust the car for the track, it makes those numbers irrelevant.

TRDFantasy

Yes, the fact that it was a 458 specially "tuned" by Ferrari engineers there just for that track automatically invalidates the results. Ferrari basically cheated. Now the cynics of course will ask well any other manufacturer could have done the same thing. No, other manufacturers don't engage in that kind of nonsense, because it is cheating the comparison, and is highly misleading. The Italians though are well experienced and versed in the art of being misleading of course.

That, plus the fact that the 458 was driven to the limit, and the LFA was not. Also the 458 had EVERY possible available factory performance option installed, where as the LFA was a customer car which did not have every available factory performance/weight reduction option.

Too many differences and variances in this test to even consider the 458 vs LFA comparison here credible.

Let's not forget, at almost every other track, the LFA has been faster than the 458.

natnut

You could say the same about the LFA as well.

Even Jay Leno, who has driven almost every supercar in existence, was impressed by the LFA's "driving spirit".

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

I'd still buy the Mosler MT900S over any of the other cars if I wanted a fast lap at VIR. Beats everything and no excuses are required. Mosler has also won One Lap every time they showed up. It's really unfortunate Mosler can get their car street legal weighing in at 2450 lbs without fuel, and the lightest LFA is 3200+ despite everything Toyota/Lexus did to make it light.

And back on topic - the thread is about the Lightning Lap. It's not about luxury, exclusiveness, why people spend money on cars, or anything else. It's just about getting around VIR as quickly as possible with the drivers C&D brought to the track in cars provided by the manufacturers. FWIW, Ferrari will not allow their cars to be run without "cheating" because they will not let anyone do a showroom floor test of their machinery and publish the results.

LexFather

^^ for the record this is the #003 LFA from Atlanta at the 1sicklexus meet ... Roy's car.. C&D stated they basically did not push it at 10/10.

I'm just happy to see the LfA involved and the IS F with its updated time is on par with some great company!

gengar

It's simply a matter of perspective. Measuring statistical performance vs. price is one of the silliest ways to evaluate a purchase and this becomes apparent once we decide to examine other goods/services that we frequently buy/consume. Take food for example - we buy it or at least consume it every day. Does anyone ever go out to a restaurant and look at the menu and say 'well, Item A has 1000 calories but Item B has only 800 calories and it costs more, so why would anyone ever buy Item B?' Do we have food magazines that month after month publish articles comparing the calories per cent value that restaurants offer? Does Jeremy Clarkson go on his TV show decrying a $18 steak because it costs six times more but doesn't have six times more calories than a $3 Big Mac? Of course not, because that'd be stupid and we'd all call it stupid. But for some reason, when we talk about sports cars, we suddenly think it's important to talk about all these stupid things.

If you look purely at price and performance and want to factor in diminishing returns, then even a $20 meal might seem "indulgent" or "excessive" compared to what you could get for your "10-20%" of the cost, and I'm sure someone, somewhere actually feels that way. But imagine if we were on a food enthusiast forum, where people were concerned more with the flavor, quality, and experience of the food and likely couldn't care less about how much calories/$ that food provided, and someone posted about every $20 meal being "indulgent" or "excessive"? I think most of us would at the very least be dismissive of such commentary because of the context of the forum. Yet nevertheless somehow this type of inane drivel comes up again and again in discussion on cars - and that really demonstrates the lack of perspective most people have on the subject.

BTW, a short comment on the first part of your post: If you think something is cool and you can afford it, you really should consider buying it - even if only for the reason that if people don't buy cool things, then people won't make cool things.