Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So the LFA cost about $400,000 but is slower than the GTR to 60 and is only a few tenths of a second faster to the quarter mile than the GTR. Based upon the above test, the LFA doesn't seem to be worth the roughly $300,000 extra over the GTR. For these two cars though, the real test would be a track with lots of curves. Since the GTR is AWD, and faster off the line, I'd guess that it would have an advantage on the track over the LFA.
Read the full article at motortrend.com and what held back the LFA's engine was the transmission. The GTR has the more modern and tech advanced transmission of the two and it was this transmission and AWD that gave the GTR an advantage in some points. With this racing engine, if the LFA had a similiar transmission the GTR has then this would have been no contest. Question, if Yamaha makes such fast car engines, why don't they make cars?
If the LFA had the same trans as the GTR it probably would have shredded third gear at some point in the race. Not to beat a dead horse, but while the trans in the GTR is a technical tour de force, it is not widely regarded as a very reliable transmission for anything more than normal driving.
Either way, I just couldn't see spending that kind of money on a LFA it would need to be a hell of a lot better of a performer to start justifying that price tag. Considering you could get a GTR, ZR1 and GT3 and still have money left over vs. buying one LFA.
Well, because Yamaha knows their engines, but don't know much about the rest of the car building.
For one (and I like both these cars, but favor the GT-R), a drag race with two track machines? Probably THE worst test of performance ever. Both of those cars are made for cornering, the acceleration and top speed is a by-product.
As for the price of the LF-A, of course if you compare the numbers it's not going to be worth it's asking price, yet they do sell very well, before anyone's actually gotten one.
As Toyota has stated fairly blatantly: The LF-A is a research vehicle, it was never made to make money, and even at this price, they won't. But they have gained important knowledge on certain production techniques that only they have refined (for now) and might give them a competitive advantage on cheaper cars in the future.
I like the LF-A because it's a glimpse of things to come, and I like the philosophy of the people who make it (like keeping a non double clutch transmission because of the feel of it and weighing one shift paddle more than the other to give a better feel of an upshift), and it's those things, and the exclusivity that will make the car worth it for some very few people who can buy cars in this price range.
But really... drag racing? Get a Mustang for that sort of thing, it should be illegal not to put these vehicles through some corners.
I think the reason you see so many of these cars being tested in a quarter mile is:
1. Too many variables on a road course.
2. There aren't that many testers out there that could actually drive one of these cars to their potential.
You are right though that it doesn't matter at all what their 1/4 mile time or 0-60 time is because that's not what these cars are all about. I think it's the reason that Top Gear is so popular, they give you all the angles.
Either way, I just couldn't see spending that kind of money on a LFA it would need to be a hell of a lot better of a performer to start justifying that price tag. Considering you could get a GTR, ZR1 and GT3 and still have money left over vs. buying one LFA.
I'll bet you that most of the LF-A buyers already have a GT-R (or two now that the Spec-V is out), ZR1 and a GT3 in every colour available.
What justifies the price tag in the LF-A isn't the performance figures, it's the exclusivity and the unique build of it. And it obviously does justify it's price tag, cause last I checked most (if not all) of them were sold.
If the LFA had the same trans as the GTR it probably would have shredded third gear at some point in the race. Not to beat a dead horse, but while the trans in the GTR is a technical tour de force, it is not widely regarded as a very reliable transmission for anything more than normal driving.
Either way, I just couldn't see spending that kind of money on a LFA it would need to be a hell of a lot better of a performer to start justifying that price tag. Considering you could get a GTR, ZR1 and GT3 and still have money left over vs. buying one LFA.
Didn't say the LFA should have the same transmission as the GTR. Said it should have a more modern or similiar transmission like the GTR. Other performance cars have the double clutch transmission without the fatal failure the GTR has had. Would it benefit Motor Trend or other car testing magazines to have a purpose built test track or a contract with an existing track to use for their basic track testing? When ever they, car magazines, do track testing it's usually at some auto maker's test track and never the same track for all their track testing. Are there any old out of use SCCA tracks from the 70s and 80s they could buy and use for testing the handling of vehicles? One of the reasons why auto mags do the 0-60 and quarter mile test is it can be done virtually anywhere in the country and doesn't take up much money or ground to do so. Heck, it can even be done on some parking lots.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.