Quote:
Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1
^^ Tiff drives with all aids OFF.
**sigh, where do I start**
It's useless arguing with you, because obviously you prefer the big engine in an "I don't care how much it weighs because I have one thousand torques" kind of car. Should have been obvious... you drive a MkIII.
The LFA's transmission has been described as "harsh" but it was designed to be that way. This is the only review where it has been described as letting the car down. Yes. The Sequential is "slow".... if you can call 0.2s slow. It is that way because that is the way they wanted it to be. You don't think Lexus had the money and resources to design a double clutch transmission if they felt that it was necessary for the car? The ASG was developed specially for the LFA.
The Benz has a better engine? You must be out of your ever living mind. It has more rear weight bias? What's your point? If Lexus felt that the LFA needed more weight in the back, they probably would have put the engine there in the first place. The car does exactly what it's designed to do, and does a damn good job at it.
I'm not saying the SLS isn't a great car, it is. But the LFA is better. Performance does not = 0-60 and 1/4 mile.... I guess the Euro car lovers only feel that those parameters = performance when they get slaughtered around the track, in driving response and overall sensation.
Where it the other way around, we'd be hearing fairly tail bullshit about "soul" and what's not.
Puh-lease.
|
Ahem... my Mk3 weighs less than the LFA. It's also a 1JZGTE which means 500cc smaller than 7M or 2JZ, oversquare bore, short stroke = not great torque but revs awesome.
The SLS weighs only 113 lbs more than the LFA yet has 125 lb-ft more torque 2050 rpm sooner.
The rear-weight bias is 1% more than the LFA. This means contrary to what a lot of people probably think, the SLS is not some nose-heavy boat.
It pulls only .05g less laterally than the LFA. It doesn't need a glass-smooth track to do it.
The retarded sequential is there because it is Formula One-y. Twin clutch 'boxes have proven that they are levels of magnitude superior to single clutch auto-manuals. And it's not even great by single-clutch standards.
The LFA car was built to lap the 'Ring because that is the new '200mph club'. To be a modern supercar you need a sub-8 minute 'Ring time. But the LFA is too specialized. It doesn't handle real roads well. And we still don't have an official third party time from an LFA at the 'Ring.
In the SLS vid that Ichi posted AMG refers to the 7:40 of the SLS as an 'attainable' time. Meaning not some 'Ring expert pro-only one shot time on slicks or shaved R compound 'street' tires.
At 10/10ths the LFA will moderately outperform the SLS in my opinion. At 1 to 9/10ths on anything other than perfect track tarmac (where these cars will be driven by all but true pros) the SLS will be significantly faster. Power under the curve is your friend.
The 'Soul' bullshit was tossed around a lot during the LFA's release.
Ichi: Tsukuba would be an excellent test venue. Very good combination of tight turns, straights, transitions, heavy braking and fast sweepers. Besides if the 'Ring isn't the LFA's 'home' track then surely it's the Toyota-owned Fuji Speedway. (Fuji's the track in the vid I posted ^) But I think even Fuji would take some of the driver's memory out of the equation and you would see the LFA's alleged 'Ring superiority be significantly eroded.
PS: Arguing with me is useful to kill time waiting for the next ridiculously obscure F/T/R-86/S info tid-bit to emerge... (that was the point of this round two)
Heh