Lexus LFA breaks cover before Tokyo unveiling

[Snaps]

Originally Posted by Dimman

I'm really not a fan of the new Ferrari's styling.

Completely agree with ya here... the F430/360/575M/599 etc. type styling is far sexier than the 458 IMO.

[Calais]

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

I'll get around to making another thread with the scans of the pretty extensive article maybe before next year.

love that line, im going to have to use it tomorrow as its the last day of the year for us Aussies

[SUB-FT86]

Even with all the things magazines say about the LF-A I still don't think it's worth its price tag. I think it should have been priced at 200k instead and I still find that hard to spend on a car from a company who never built a supercar before. Even if you look at Nurburgring times and the LFA embarrasses a GTR by like 7 seconds the GT-R is still the best priced supercar for the money. Also the 2012 GT-R is going back to the ring.

[OldSkoolToys]

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.

Oye oye oye!!! You'll respect the car that was honorably called the affordable Porsche from 1982 - 1992.

Its clear that Toyota, and other Japanese cars (like the RX-7) were taking their stabs at the Euro Gran Tourer market by making their cars slightly heavier and more 'refined'. That was just the trend in the mid-late 80's on the flagship sports cars. The Supra alone gained 700lbs going from the MKII to the MKIII, but having owned and driven one, it was much more nimble around the corners than people give it credit for.

ANYWAYS....what were we talking about again? Oh yeah, the AMG vs. the LFA.

Look, this easily comes down to age difference. The AMG is more much 'refined' supercar while the LFA is a supercar aimed at racecar characteristics. I've been saying this for awhile now and its one of the reasons I can't bring myself to read much in Car and Driver, Motor Trend, etc. anymore. The magazine reviewers and editors are getting OLD. It shows in their reviews all the time. Of course they're gonna pick the more restrained AMG over the LFA, they're not pumping out the testosterone they were back in their haydays. Besides we all know most of them are so far up BMW's / Mercedes' asses that both car makers could hand them a lump of coal and they'd boast how amazing the texture feels compared to <insert non-german carmaker here>'s bar of gold.

I'd go with the LFA anyday of the week over the AMG. And yes, I'm slightly biased because I'm Toyota guy, but honestly, the LFA is the type of car I like. Its supposed to be a track monster.

@Sub FT86: Actually, Toyota is credited by most for creating Japans first Supercar back in the '60s with the 2000GT.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

Oye oye oye!!! You'll respect the car that was honorably called the affordable Porsche from 1982 - 1992.

Its clear that Toyota, and other Japanese cars (like the RX-7) were taking their stabs at the Euro Gran Tourer market by making their cars slightly heavier and more 'refined'. That was just the trend in the mid-late 80's on the flagship sports cars. The Supra alone gained 700lbs going from the MKII to the MKIII, but having owned and driven one, it was much more nimble around the corners than people give it credit for.

ANYWAYS....what were we talking about again? Oh yeah, the AMG vs. the LFA.

Look, this easily comes down to age difference. The AMG is more much 'refined' supercar while the LFA is a supercar aimed at racecar characteristics. I've been saying this for awhile now and its one of the reasons I can't bring myself to read much in Car and Driver, Motor Trend, etc. anymore. The magazine reviewers and editors are getting OLD. It shows in their reviews all the time. Of course they're gonna pick the more restrained AMG over the LFA, they're not pumping out the testosterone they were back in their haydays. Besides we all know most of them are so far up BMW's / Mercedes' asses that both car makers could hand them a lump of coal and they'd boast how amazing the texture feels compared to <insert non-german carmaker here>'s bar of gold.

I'd go with the LFA anyday of the week over the AMG. And yes, I'm slightly biased because I'm Toyota guy, but honestly, the LFA is the type of car I like. Its supposed to be a track monster.

@Sub FT86: Actually, Toyota is credited by most for creating Japans first Supercar back in the '60s with the 2000GT.

Believe it or not I have a healthy amount of respect for the MkIII.

Thoroughly agree with many of your points too. Thanks for correcting Sub... I was gonna tear him a new one.

I always thought the LFA was going to be very easy to drive. Now that it's in the hands of the reviewers, it seems that it's more like a modern take on supercars of old. Those that you MUST respect or they will kill you. The LFA, together with the GT2 RS probably will be the last of a dying breed.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

Believe it or not I have a healthy amount of respect for the MkIII.

Thoroughly agree with many of your points too. Thanks for correcting Sub... I was gonna tear him a new one.

I always thought the LFA was going to be very easy to drive. Now that it's in the hands of the reviewers, it seems that it's more like a modern take on supercars of old. Those that you MUST respect or they will kill you. The LFA, together with the GT2 RS probably will be the last of a dying breed.

With what? Your fanboy love of all things Toyota/Lexus? Just because people don't share the same mindset as you doesn't make you right. Also the sports car that guy was talking about was from the 60's. That's a whopping 40+ years ago with no consistency like Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Porsche. Also I didn't even know the engine was built by Yamaha and the 3 companies I just mention builds all of there engines in-house. If I had the money I would rather one of the 3 makers mention but if this car was priced in between them and the GT-R it would've been a great car for the money. It seems like every site I go on there is so much fanboism it's scary.

[Dimman]

Personally I wouldn't classify the 2000GT as a Supercar of its day. Compare it to a Jag XKE or a Ferrari 250GTO of a few years earlier and it would get murdered. Maybe an 'exotic' but not quite a Supercar.

Yamaha and Toyota have a long working relationship and Toyota holds a bunch of stock in Yamaha. The 2000GT's motor was designed by Yamaha and offered to Nissan first, I believe, who passed and then Toyota picked it up for the 2000GT. They've been working together for a long time, specifically on high-performance Toyota engines.

As far as complicated corporate relationships go, it's my understanding that Toyota was contracted by Porsche for extensive work on the 996 when they went water-cooled on the 911.

Lexus targeting youth with the LFA? C'mon... It was offered to specially selected Toyota/Lexus clients and cost $375,000. How is that targeting youth?

LFA: Great car on the track, sounds awesome, waaaaaayyy too much money. I believe they would've sold better if they cost around... $23,000US. heh

Oh, and Mk3 = Only premium Supra in GT5 (and in my colour too!) = Win.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Oh, and Mk3 = Only premium Supra in GT5 (and in my colour too!) = Win.

Can always paint it to different color... & technically, Yellowhat Supra is Premium car too, but who's counting Super GT that doesn't let me do any different paints.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Can always paint it to different color... & technically, Yellowhat Supra is Premium car too, but who's counting Super GT that doesn't let me do any different paints.

They did something weird with the Supra in GT5 (or maybe it was a JDM thing?). The '88 Turbo A there has the late model body style (we call them '89+ from when we got them) with the new front bumper, tail-lights and 3pc wing. But when you paint it the moldings stay black like on the '87 ('86.5) cars. WTF?

It's like some transition between the late model body style with the early model colour scheme (no body colour moldings).

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Dimman

They did something weird with the Supra in GT5 (or maybe it was a JDM thing?). The '88 Turbo A there has the late model body style (we call them '89+ from when we got them) with the new front bumper, tail-lights and 3pc wing. But when you paint it the moldings stay black like on the '87 ('86.5) cars. WTF?

It's like some transition between the late model body style with the early model colour scheme (no body colour moldings).

I thought they change the molding part in '91 (in Japan)?... but of course you have more knowledge on MKIII Supra more than me, so maybe they did screw it up.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

With what? Your fanboy love of all things Toyota/Lexus? Just because people don't share the same mindset as you doesn't make you right. Also the sports car that guy was talking about was from the 60's. That's a whopping 40+ years ago with no consistency like Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Porsche. Also I didn't even know the engine was built by Yamaha and the 3 companies I just mention builds all of there engines in-house. If I had the money I would rather one of the 3 makers mention but if this car was priced in between them and the GT-R it would've been a great car for the money. It seems like every site I go on there is so much fanboism it's scary.

Suck a ****. It's worth it to the 500 people who spent the money to buy it and that's all that matters. I am not a fanboy, I am a gear head, one that really appreciates special machinery and I am one of Toyota's biggest critics.

You haven't driven one, much less seen one in person I'd bet, and the conclusion by the people that have seems to be that it is indeed worth every penny.

If you are coming here (and FT-86 forum) to argue about 0-60 times and such, it's likely that you won't be around for long, but whatever. It's usually the fanboys themelves who cry "fanboy" when somebody steps up and presents something in the correct light.

Fact:
Toyota did indeed create a supercar before. If you don't consider it one, fine. That does not change another fact; Just because it's their first doesn't mean they had to price it to make it accessible to everyone. Nobody told Konigsegg that they couldn't price the CC8 at $350,000 their first time out. No one certainly told Pagani that they couldn't price the Zonda C12 @ $320,000. The LFA is quicker and laps faster than both.

What's scary is that you can't recognize what's a great car and what's a "great car for the money".

That is all.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

Suck a ****. It's worth it to the 500 people who spent the money to buy it and that's all that matters. I am not a fanboy, I am a gear head, one that really appreciates special machinery and I am one of Toyota's biggest critics.

You haven't driven one, much less seen one in person I'd bet, and the conclusion by the people that have seems to be that it is indeed worth every penny.

If you are coming here (and FT-86 forum) to argue about 0-60 times and such, it's likely that you won't be around for long, but whatever. It's usually the fanboys themelves who cry "fanboy" when somebody steps up and presents something in the correct light.

Fact:
Toyota did indeed create a supercar before. If you don't consider it one, fine. That does not change another fact; Just because it's their first doesn't mean they had to price it to make it accessible to everyone. Nobody told Konigsegg that they couldn't price the CC8 at $350,000 their first time out. No one certainly told Pagani that they couldn't price the Zonda C12 @ $320,000. The LFA is quicker and laps faster than both.

What's scary is that you can't recognize what's a great car and what's a "great car for the money".

That is all.

[DanZilla]

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

Suck a ****. It's worth it to the 500 people who spent the money to buy it and that's all that matters. I am not a fanboy, I am a gear head, one that really appreciates special machinery and I am one of Toyota's biggest critics.

You haven't driven one, much less seen one in person I'd bet, and the conclusion by the people that have seems to be that it is indeed worth every penny.

If you are coming here (and FT-86 forum) to argue about 0-60 times and such, it's likely that you won't be around for long, but whatever. It's usually the fanboys themelves who cry "fanboy" when somebody steps up and presents something in the correct light.

Fact:
Toyota did indeed create a supercar before. If you don't consider it one, fine. That does not change another fact; Just because it's their first doesn't mean they had to price it to make it accessible to everyone. Nobody told Konigsegg that they couldn't price the CC8 at $350,000 their first time out. No one certainly told Pagani that they couldn't price the Zonda C12 @ $320,000. The LFA is quicker and laps faster than both.

What's scary is that you can't recognize what's a great car and what's a "great car for the money".

That is all.

[chulooz]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

Even with all the things magazines say about the LF-A I still don't think it's worth its price tag. I think it should have been priced at 200k instead and I still find that hard to spend on a car from a company who never built a supercar before. Even if you look at Nurburgring times and the LFA embarrasses a GTR by like 7 seconds the GT-R is still the best priced supercar for the money. Also the 2012 GT-R is going back to the ring.

comparing the LFA to a GTR, thats quality trolling right there.