Quote:
Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1
After how much you have gutted out of it? And I'm quite familiar with the 1JZ. Flirted with buying a JZA70 once upon a time, but decided if I ever buy a supra, it's going to be a MkIV.
You keep harping about torque. You seem to know a little about cars. You should know that torque is useless without proper gear ratios to put it to the ground. Do I have to explain to you why an engine that revs to 9000 rpm with a flat torque curve is a better performance choice than one with more torque but can only rev to 7000rpm? The LFA in it's lightest configuration is also about 300lbs lighter than the SLS that they tested. Willing to be that you couldn't find an SLS lighter than that unless someone stole the seats out of it.
I never accused the SLS of being a nose heavy boat. It's a bruiser, like most... no all Mercedes performance cars are. More of the same.
The LFA can pull 1.4 lateral Gs. That is .35 more Gs and I think you'd find that's quite a bit. It also goes through the slalom 5mph faster than an SLS, incidentally, faster than an Enzo as well. The only other cars that will match or better it, are the Mosler M900 and the ZR1.
All of which while it has it's merit, is slightly irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. The LFA is as much about the way it goes about doing what it does as to just simply doing what it does. Full sensory overload. The driver's experience. The Sequential box is there because it is lighter than a dual clutch, because it gives more tactile feedback. Nothing to do with Formula One. The F1 guys would use a CVT is they could get away with it.
I think you might be confusing the GT-R with the LFA. The LFA was developed on race tracks and roads all over the world. Paul Ricard, the Nardo ring, Fuji raceway and yes the Nurburgring. It was developed to go fast around any track, not to be a nurburgring specialist. Most reviewers who have driven it on the road says it's just fine there. If you are implying that the LFA can't do better than 7.40 under anything but specialized conditions or at least better than the SLS, then I'd have to begin thinking that you are arguing just for arguing's sake. You are also being quite redundant, because the Nurburgring is anything BUT glass smooth. At 10/10ths, 9/10ths, 8/10ths, I'm pretty sure the LFA would rape the SLS around any circuit, and happily drive home after. Hope the SLS driver ticked the box for the OPTIONAL composite brakes.
As for the "Soul" argument:
Car CANNOT have souls. I'd be the last person you would hear use that bullshit argument. Cars can have character and the ability to evoke emotions, but that's about it. Both are important elements in what makes the difference between a really good car and a great car and the LFA has them both in spades. Soul, it comes up short on, because CARS CAN'T HAVE SOULS.
 |
I can guarantee you that the 1.4g rating of the LFA is a peak reading at speed, likely through a left-right transition and NOT a skidpad figure. 1.05g is its skidpad figure. That is the standard for lateral g measurement and is an average.
Lexus wanted, for some strange reason given who and how they are getting these cars, to create an 'F1' sensory experience. So some serious compromises were made for daily use. Going back to my Lexus/F1 conspiracy theory...
My point about the 'Ring is that the driver can have more of an effect there than the car. I do not believe that the LFA would be 20 seconds up on an SLS over 7 or 8 laps of Tsukuba as an example.
I also believe that 9 out of 10 enthusiast drivers would be faster on a track in an SLS than an LFA. And 9999/10000 of typical Lexus buyers would be faster in the Benz.
And the LFA got beat in the slalom by a Chevy and a Chevy-powered kit-car?
As for the optional brakes, $172000 buys a LOT of options.
I pretty much am arguing for the sake of it, don't know if you caught that in my "Forum is stalling" thread.
For the record, given the choice of owning an SLS with zero conditions and owning an LFA but having to cut off my pinkie finger, I would pick the LFA.