[DASHOCKER]

Autocar magazine did a comparo of these supercars. I'm not much into mags but it seems as if the Lexus is not performing up to par considering its out of this world price tag..

courtesy of a member of Acurazine..

Ferrari 458 Italia

0-60mph - 3,3s
0-100mph - 7,0s
0-150mph - 16,2s

Lexus LFA

0-60mph - 4,2s
0-100mph - 8,2s
0-150mph - 18,9s

Noble M600

0-60mph - 3,5s
0-100mph - 6,8s
0-150mph - 14,0s

Porsche 911 GT3 RS

0-60mph - 3,9s
0-100mph - 8,4s
0-150mph - 20,1s

Scans:
http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/1959/10001y.jpg
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1260/scan0001at.jpg
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/7461/30001k.jpg
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/6628/40001o.jpg
http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/5655/50001l.jpg
http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/8274/60001.jpg
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/889/80001.jpg
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/6799/90001.jpg

[OBI_agent]

Hey op, thanks for sharing. Was a good read.

I wish the noble M600 would have come with A B S. IN today's time, A B S is a must and without it, it's just meaningless to produce a supercar. All that power needs stopping and no anti lock brakes would be really scary.

Anyway, F458 rules

[Sniz]

Noble is a badass and the LFA is just plain stupid.

[DASHOCKER]

The Ferrari is making a lot of noise.. It is on the car carriers now heading to dealerships.. What an amazing machine!

The LFA has yet to be released.

[graider]

something is wrong with that lfa or those guy didn't drive it properly. 0-60mph in 4.2 secs? that the same as the m3.

same when they test the zr1 vs gt2, the zr1 was slower. no way. that is completely opposite with every other mags.

[Boost Gomez]

Originally Posted by graider

something is wrong with that lfa or those guy didn't drive it properly. 0-60mph in 4.2 secs? that the same as the m3.

same when they test the zr1 vs gt2, the zr1 was slower. no way. that is completely opposite with every other mags.

Autocar seems to be biased against non-European makes.

[c0nstant]

Originally Posted by Boost Gomez

Autocar seems to be biased against non-European makes.

seems that way, doesn't it

[footie]

Originally Posted by graider

something is wrong with that lfa or those guy didn't drive it properly. 0-60mph in 4.2 secs? that the same as the m3.

same when they test the zr1 vs gt2, the zr1 was slower. no way. that is completely opposite with every other mags.

Why would you assume such a thing?

There is clear differences between how Autocar and all UK mags test the cars and how the Americans do it. No dragstrip, no 1ft rollout, no adjusting the times to a set of paraments, and neither do they abuse a car to achieve unrealistic results. Another thing that needs to be remembered, the LF-A was the only car without Launch Control software, such technology makes a world of difference especially if you happen to be launching on a normal (less grippy) surface.

Another thing, if you genuinely believe an M3 is truly capable of matching that time of the LF-A on the same surface in the hands of the same guys then you have too much belief in the M3's abilities, it's a bloody quick car but I have never done a 4.2s time when I had mine, in fact the best I ever seen was 4.73s on a public road which I might add is the same type of surface which Autocar test on.

Please check Autocar and EVO acceleration times for the same cars, I think you will find that for the most part they are very consistent.

[bavarian19]

The LFA is overpriced and underperforms most of those cars.

[graider]

i definitely think something is wrong with this one because usually manufacturer claim is always spot on in regards to 0-60mph times. lexus said 3.7s for 0-60mph in their official spec and other mags were able to achieve similar time. for example, motortrend was able to do it in 3.8s. But 4.2s for the LFA is totally not believable, that is a whole 0.6s different. I believe it should be faster than the gt3rs in a straight line given it has better power to weight ratio.

I don't mean the m3 is exactly achieving 4.2s, but still let say the m3, isf, c63 amg is is doing around 4.5s. do you genuinely believe a car in the 3300lbs with 560hp can only do it only in 4.2s? common sense just doesn't allow me to believe the time posted for the LFA in this mag at all.

Originally Posted by footie

Why would you assume such a thing?

There is clear differences between how Autocar and all UK mags test the cars and how the Americans do it. No dragstrip, no 1ft rollout, no adjusting the times to a set of paraments, and neither do they abuse a car to achieve unrealistic results. Another thing that needs to be remembered, the LF-A was the only car without Launch Control software, such technology makes a world of difference especially if you happen to be launching on a normal (less grippy) surface.

Another thing, if you genuinely believe an M3 is truly capable of matching that time of the LF-A on the same surface in the hands of the same guys then you have too much belief in the M3's abilities, it's a bloody quick car but I have never done a 4.2s time when I had mine, in fact the best I ever seen was 4.73s on a public road which I might add is the same type of surface which Autocar test on.

Please check Autocar and EVO acceleration times for the same cars, I think you will find that for the most part they are very consistent.

[abisson]

The 458 is ridiculously fast for an "entry into the brand" car.

I would imo take a GT3RS.

[Boost Gomez]

Originally Posted by jh valley

seems that way, doesn't it

Your sig is hilarious.

[esqu1re]

LFA needs to be 1/2 the price. It reminds me of what Honda did in the 90's with the NSX, and I want to like the LFA, but the price is too much. Sigh. I think it would be good at 180K. Sell more than 500 examples to compensate.

[MediaArtist]

That LFA time is almost as funny as the guys here who claim they got 4.5 in their "chipped" 335i's.

[DimSum]

LFA is garbage.

[footie]

Originally Posted by graider

i definitely think something is wrong with this one because usually manufacturer claim is always spot on in regards to 0-60mph times. lexus said 3.7s for 0-60mph in their official spec and other mags were able to achieve similar time. for example, motortrend was able to do it in 3.8s. But 4.2s for the LFA is totally not believable, that is a whole 0.6s different. I believe it should be faster than the gt3rs in a straight line given it has better power to weight ratio.

I don't mean the m3 is exactly achieving 4.2s, but still let say the m3, isf, c63 amg is is doing around 4.5s. do you genuinely believe a car in the 3300lbs with 560hp can only do it only in 4.2s? common sense just doesn't allow me to believe the time posted for the LFA in this mag at all.

Hard as it might seem but when you are talking about so much power, solely going to the one axle then little weight can easily become a penalty, especially if the surface leaves you struggling for traction.

Mastering the feathering the throttle in the Lexus compared to the other cars which were doing it all for you explains why on this occasion the LF-A failed to match the others in the sprint to 60mph, but even after this point it failed to keep up with the Ferrari which frankly there is no excuse for.

[graider]

Originally Posted by footie

Hard as it might seem but when you are talking about so much power, solely going to the one axle then little weight can easily become a penalty, especially if the surface leaves you struggling for traction.

Mastering the feathering the throttle in the Lexus compared to the other cars which were doing it all for you explains why on this occasion the LF-A failed to match the others in the sprint to 60mph, but even after this point it failed to keep up with the Ferrari which frankly there is no excuse for.

you bring up a good point and that is exactly what I'm getting at. this is one single test and maybe traction was an issue for the LFA or maybe they do not know how to launch it, but it is no way a 4.2s car. same thing happen when they test the zr1 vs gt2, no way the zr1 is that slow off the line. it is just funny how everyone are so quick to call the lfa slow based on this very single test.

here is a lfa lap in top gear track in very wet condition. o.2s off the gtr lap in dry. fastest wet lap on top gear for a production car. not to shabby consider many mags confirm the lfa suspension is very soft and comfy.

[footie]

Originally Posted by graider

you bring up a good point and that is exactly what I'm getting at. this is one single test and maybe traction was an issue for the LFA or maybe they do not know how to launch it, but it is no way a 4.2s car. same thing happen when they test the zr1 vs gt2, no way the zr1 is that slow off the line. it is just funny how everyone are so quick to call the lfa slow based on this very single test.

here is a lfa lap in top gear track in very wet condition. o.2s off the gtr lap in dry. fastest wet lap on top gear for a production car. not to shabby consider many mags confirm the lfa suspension is very soft and comfy.

Do you know who from Autocar did the acceleration run for the LF-A?

Most of the guys are extremely skilled at launching cars, so I find it hard to believe that who ever did the run didn't achieve the very best from the car on that particular day and surface. But regardless of what you might think about these results they are a true reflection of what all these cars are capable of on UK roads.

This is the problem I have with many US mag tests because they aren't a true reflection of what will happen on a typical day and typical road in the US, they are quite often tested on a dragstrip, using 1ft rollout and adjusting to set parameters. Find me one person that can achieve 3.9s from the stock M3 on a typical road?

We all need to forget about these 0-60mph times and concentrate on the times between 40mph and say 130mph (higher in the case of supercars) to get is true impression of whether the car is quicker than one or the other. 0-60mph when conducted properly shall always be won by cars with LC and AWD motors.

Compare results from 60-150mph and you see that the LF-A fares a little better, it's still well behind the Ferrari which shouldn't be the case given they are roughly putting out the same output.

Ferrari 458 Italia - 12.9s
Lexus LFA - 14.7s
Noble M600 - 11.5s
Porsche 911 GT3 RS - 16.2s

That Noble is a beast, other-worldly compared to the rest.

[graider]

Originally Posted by footie

Do you know who from Autocar did the acceleration run for the LF-A?

Most of the guys are extremely skilled at launching cars, so I find it hard to believe that who ever did the run didn't achieve the very best from the car on that particular day and surface. But regardless of what you might think about these results they are a true reflection of what all these cars are capable of on UK roads.

This is the problem I have with many US mag tests because they aren't a true reflection of what will happen on a typical day and typical road in the US, they are quite often tested on a dragstrip, using 1ft rollout and adjusting to set parameters. Find me one person that can achieve 3.9s from the stock M3 on a typical road?

We all need to forget about these 0-60mph times and concentrate on the times between 40mph and say 130mph (higher in the case of supercars) to get is true impression of whether the car is quicker than one or the other. 0-60mph when conducted properly shall always be won by cars with LC and AWD motors.

Compare results from 60-150mph and you see that the LF-A fares a little better, it's still well behind the Ferrari which shouldn't be the case given they are roughly putting out the same output.

Ferrari 458 Italia - 12.9s
Lexus LFA - 14.7s
Noble M600 - 11.5s
Porsche 911 GT3 RS - 16.2s

That Noble is a beast, other-worldly compared to the rest.

actually no, the 458 has more hp and alot more torque. not to mention it is lighter + DCT. lot of time can be saved with DCT. the LFA came with smg like trans.

i doubt the 4.2s times because if you look below, the lfa is actually faster in acceleration than the rs. So the only reason why they got 4.2s for the lfa is they had too much wheel spin at launch due to driver error or these guys don't know how to launch the LFA properly. I believe different car required different launch technique which explain why the huge different between the time quote by this mag compare to others. I don't see how road in UK is any different than US for launching a car.
Lexus LFA - 14.7s
Porsche 911 GT3 RS - 16.2s

In any case, given the choice I still take the LFA or RS. LOL atleast they don't combust like those 458 that I saw recently.

[footie]

Trust me when I say Autocar know how to launch this car. They will have performed multiple run to determine the best method but on this surface all they could achieve was 4.2s. Maybe you need to look more closely at some of the other times to see how they achieved them and what kind of surface they were conducted on.

[atsavin27]

noble m600 ftw

[OBI_agent]

Originally Posted by graider

i definitely think something is wrong with this one because usually manufacturer claim is always spot on in regards to 0-60mph times. lexus said 3.7s for 0-60mph in their official spec and other mags were able to achieve similar time. for example, motortrend was able to do it in 3.8s. But 4.2s for the LFA is totally not believable, that is a whole 0.6s different. I believe it should be faster than the gt3rs in a straight line given it has better power to weight ratio.

I don't mean the m3 is exactly achieving 4.2s, but still let say the m3, isf, c63 amg is is doing around 4.5s. do you genuinely believe a car in the 3300lbs with 560hp can only do it only in 4.2s? common sense just doesn't allow me to believe the time posted for the LFA in this mag at all.

This is a quote from motortrend on how they got their best launch. Nothing against your opinion but american magazines always seem to get the most optimistic 0-60 result which are hard to replicate in real life.

Lexus claims no official launch control for the LFA, and its SMG transmission isn't particularly snappy when simply flooring the throttle. Yet all attempts at power braked launches (even with traction control completely shut off) are met with frantic resistance. Herky-jerky engagement results in only mid-4 second launches -- far off the claimed 3.6-second pace claimed by Lexus. At this point, our boy Bill suggests we try some illicit activity with his LFA. "Put it in neutral, rev to 4000 rpm, and then grab the + paddle for first gear," he says.
To his credit, road test editor Scott Mortara adamantly refuses -- not wanting to be the first (and last) journalist to litter the dragstrip with $375,000 worth of LFA powertrain. Only after a phone consultation with the engineers back at Lexus HQ, does Mortara grudgingly consent to try this technique.
It works, but not all of the time. A great launch means only a chirp of the tires and blistering acceleration, but vary the rpm just bit and the LFA torches its rubber before rocketing down the strip. A slight delay between paddle actuation and SMG response further complicates a fast start.


Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz0wNyjY5Lp