Top Gear LFA thread (SPOILERS)
Guest
Posts: n/a
VERY VERY impressive for a wet lap!
http://www.fastestlaps.com/track1.html
That site shows the damp/wet lamp times....No doubt in my mind it could have lost a second or two EASILY.
http://www.fastestlaps.com/track1.html
That site shows the damp/wet lamp times....No doubt in my mind it could have lost a second or two EASILY.
any ideas how much time a dry lap would take off if the wet lap was 1:22.8?
vid, quality is kinda bad, choppy framerate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfTflPA_rH8
vid, quality is kinda bad, choppy framerate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfTflPA_rH8
To bad we will never know how fast it will run in the dry around that track.
watching it now....I <3 LFA.
just finished the segment and here are my thoughts:
-Too many nerd/geek remarks when commenting on the LFA. I'm one to poke fun but wow, they went overboard.
-Too bad it was a wet track (very wet I might add) It got 1.22 which is the fastest wet lap, 3 seconds faster than the gallardo.
And I just realized, the LFA is the perfect exotic for todays economy. Nowadays some people are ashamed to buy flashy brand names like ferrari and lambo but nobody knows what the LFA is or what it costs. The rich can still have fun but do it in a (errrr) Lexus.
just finished the segment and here are my thoughts:
-Too many nerd/geek remarks when commenting on the LFA. I'm one to poke fun but wow, they went overboard.
-Too bad it was a wet track (very wet I might add) It got 1.22 which is the fastest wet lap, 3 seconds faster than the gallardo.
And I just realized, the LFA is the perfect exotic for todays economy. Nowadays some people are ashamed to buy flashy brand names like ferrari and lambo but nobody knows what the LFA is or what it costs. The rich can still have fun but do it in a (errrr) Lexus.
Last edited by G Star; Jan 3, 2010 at 06:27 PM.
Lexus Champion
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,365
Likes: 2,765
From: Calgary, AB
It sucks the lap time was not dry.
Still great to see the fastest wet laptime by 3 seconds.
I thoroughly believed the LF-A had the ability to dominate the dry lap board. Considering the levels of power in the very wet, another 3 seconds could have easily been shaved off bringing the laptimes down to 1.19.xx making it atleast as fast as Lamborghini LP670 superveloce and faster than Enzo, Scuderia F430, Porsche GT2 etc in the dry.
For once, I wanted the GT-R fanbois to shutup since LF-A is simply in a different league because the engine is an N/A engineering marvel from the ground up and the whole chassis setup is centered around lightweight materials, which is why it is 700 lbs lighter.
I honestly think Jeremy's comments about the price were idiotic since the Ferrari Enzo cost close to a million and Porsche Carrera GT cost $440,000. Why is it so difficult to believe the LF-A's price considering it is an engineering marvel?
Still great to see the fastest wet laptime by 3 seconds.I thoroughly believed the LF-A had the ability to dominate the dry lap board. Considering the levels of power in the very wet, another 3 seconds could have easily been shaved off bringing the laptimes down to 1.19.xx making it atleast as fast as Lamborghini LP670 superveloce and faster than Enzo, Scuderia F430, Porsche GT2 etc in the dry.
For once, I wanted the GT-R fanbois to shutup since LF-A is simply in a different league because the engine is an N/A engineering marvel from the ground up and the whole chassis setup is centered around lightweight materials, which is why it is 700 lbs lighter.
I honestly think Jeremy's comments about the price were idiotic since the Ferrari Enzo cost close to a million and Porsche Carrera GT cost $440,000. Why is it so difficult to believe the LF-A's price considering it is an engineering marvel?
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; Jan 3, 2010 at 06:46 PM.
Lexus Test Driver
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
From: CA
VERY VERY impressive for a wet lap!
http://www.fastestlaps.com/track1.html
That site shows the damp/wet lamp times....No doubt in my mind it could have lost a second or two EASILY.
http://www.fastestlaps.com/track1.html
That site shows the damp/wet lamp times....No doubt in my mind it could have lost a second or two EASILY.
How is that very very impressive? I don't know much about this wet/dry lap thing, but would it be fair to say it cannot go more than 3 seconds faster if it was a dry lap? Then its still only 1:19.8 which great, but hardly anything to celebrate about as numerous cars have better time that were launched much before the LF-A. If Lexus was trying to make a statement then its should be able to dominate at least the past supercars.
Lexus Champion
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,365
Likes: 2,765
From: Calgary, AB
Those cars (Bugatti Veyron, Zonda F, MC12) running under 1:19 were/are way more expensive than the Lexus LF-A so even if LF-A cannot beat these cars, it is an apples to oranges anyway.
The only car I would expect LF-A to beat is the LP560-4 Gallardo that ran a 1:19.5 since there is no advantage the LP560-4 has over the LF-A.
The only car I would expect LF-A to beat is the LP560-4 Gallardo that ran a 1:19.5 since there is no advantage the LP560-4 has over the LF-A.
How is that very very impressive? I don't know
much about this wet/dry lap thing, but would it be fair to say it cannot go more than 3 seconds faster if it was a dry lap? Then its still only 1:19.8 which great, but hardly anything to celebrate about as numerous cars have better time that were launched much before the LF-A. If Lexus was trying to make a statement then its should be able to dominate at least the past supercars.
much about this wet/dry lap thing, but would it be fair to say it cannot go more than 3 seconds faster if it was a dry lap? Then its still only 1:19.8 which great, but hardly anything to celebrate about as numerous cars have better time that were launched much before the LF-A. If Lexus was trying to make a statement then its should be able to dominate at least the past supercars.
Lexus Test Driver
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
From: CA
Those cars (Bugatti Veyron, Zonda F, MC12) running under 1:19 were/are way more expensive than the Lexus LF-A so even if LF-A cannot beat these cars, it is an apples to oranges anyway.
The only car I would expect LF-A to beat is the LP560-4 Gallardo that ran a 1:19.5 since there is no advantage the LP560-4 has over the LF-A.
The only car I would expect LF-A to beat is the LP560-4 Gallardo that ran a 1:19.5 since there is no advantage the LP560-4 has over the LF-A.
17. Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4 1:19.5 (partly damp) 128 ´08 560 / 1530 Stig
18. Porsche 997 GT2 1:19.5 (partly damp) 128 ´07 530 / 1440 Stig
19. Ferrari 430 Scuderia 1:19.7 127 ´07 510 / 1402 The Stig
20. Nissan GT-R
Even if the LF-A could do 3 full seconds better on dry track, it would still be behind these cars. Not to mention LP 560 and GT2 ran on partly damp track.
I mean, if Lexus really wanted to make a statement this car should beat these cars easily. Right now it seems its only able to hang with them.
Instructor
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 15
From: Guam
Top Gear - LFA test drive
FYI. Today's episode Season 14 Episode 7 has Hammond driving the Lexus LFA. If you can't watch it you can probably find torrents of this episode.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mj59
http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/next_episode.shtml
Chu...
ps. Sorry for the repost. Didn't realize another thread was started in "Car-Chat".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mj59
http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/next_episode.shtml
Chu...
ps. Sorry for the repost. Didn't realize another thread was started in "Car-Chat".
Last edited by ChuH; Jan 3, 2010 at 07:24 PM.
I'm very impressed. Sounds great from all angles!! The V10 is really something special.
I'm not sure about being 3 seconds faster in the dry though. It was wet, but it wasn't pouring rain. Looks about as wet as the Gallardo's run. It definitely had to be faster than the Gallardo though. 200lbs less with ~60hp more ought to do it!
I'm not sure about being 3 seconds faster in the dry though. It was wet, but it wasn't pouring rain. Looks about as wet as the Gallardo's run. It definitely had to be faster than the Gallardo though. 200lbs less with ~60hp more ought to do it!
Guest
Posts: n/a
How is that very very impressive? I don't know much about this wet/dry lap thing, but would it be fair to say it cannot go more than 3 seconds faster if it was a dry lap? Then its still only 1:19.8 which great, but hardly anything to celebrate about as numerous cars have better time that were launched much before the LF-A. If Lexus was trying to make a statement then its should be able to dominate at least the past supercars.
3 seconds is a lifetime on a short circuit. In racing wet laps would be driven with wet tires if u want any chance of staying competitive.
These cars are not wet cars. Their tires are for ultimate dry performance. The LFA did a great job on the wet
Lexus Test Driver
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
From: CA
If u don't think it's impressive and then say u don't understand dry/damp/wet why post negatively?
3 seconds is a lifetime on a short circuit. In racing wet laps would be driven with wet tires if u want any chance of staying competitive.
These cars are not wet cars. Their tires are for ultimate dry performance. The LFA did a great job on the wet
3 seconds is a lifetime on a short circuit. In racing wet laps would be driven with wet tires if u want any chance of staying competitive.
These cars are not wet cars. Their tires are for ultimate dry performance. The LFA did a great job on the wet
Then what do you think the LF-A can do on dry?