Don't need to. 2+2 = 4. Why do you think an Evora, Megane R26.R or Focus RS can get 5 stars? Everything is class relative.

No comment.

'Wayward suspension' is a polite way of saying that it's a 'bag of ****e' on real roads.

Big deal. F458 revs to 9000rpm. Caparo T1 revs to over 11,000rpm. A crazy frog under the hood doesn't make your car worth $400k.

I know that half a tank is the traditional standard in the UK because I've lived here all my life. It's widely been accepted as a half tank before foreign ******* changed it.

http://www.caradvice.com.au/280/kerb...t-curb-weight/

JIS (Japanese is half tank).
http://www.autozine.org/html/0_spec.htm

Given the accuracy of these tests, +/- 24 kg is spot on anyway. Now you've been proved wrong, shut up.

If I was you I could use it to draw all sorts of conclusions about the LFA's kerb weight and my opinion of Sport Monaro still hasn't changed.

Lame excuse. As I remember they said it makes it dynamically inferior to MR.

How do you know it's measured on the same systems, prove it. Well then the LFA must be 30kg heavier too then because the ISF is and the LS460. So congrats, the F458 is 24kg heavier than stated and the LFA 30kg heavier, so that makes the F458 lighter by an even greater margin by your logic (which is no logic). Do you see how flawed your argument is? You're trying to say that the F458 MIGHT be heavier, without any proof. Well the LFA MIGHT also be heavier, again without any proof. It's a ridiculous strawman argument. Just admit you're talking bollox and we can all stop typing. The fact that Lexus even quote a 1480-1580kg variance for kerb weight says it all.

It wouldn't have made any difference, that's why. Rohrl whispering in someone's ear isn't going to help them lap faster. Ferrari are just a little paranoid about mags and with the likes of Sport Ronaldo, who can blame them?

I think you're confusing me with you.

A ninja edit doesn't show, everyone knows that. I've also spelt Sport Auto wrong several times, funny that.

Well maybe there's hope for you after all.


I made no reference to the Caterham. You brought that in as an unsuccessful means to prove that downforce wasn't a factor.

Proof. The lightweight helps it change direction and accelerate faster but in terms of grip vs weight, which is what we're talking about, it does nothing.

If not, then there's absolutely no reason to create a false statement then is there. Do people people buy supercars based on downforce figures? Some probably do, yes. Far more important than a 0-60 times at any rate.

I'm pretty sure you could come up with all the excuses under the sun but the facts are there on plane paper. Surely with all this terrible lift, the Scuderia should be flying off the track in 80mph bends that the GT2 is only negotiating at 70mph? Hot, cold, inbetween, it's a full 10mph. Look at this, almost 40kg on downforce and it couldn't keep up:

http://www.sportauto-online.de/super...g-1041363.html

Das windkanal ist ficht, ja?

You think the driver is a computer? Either way, the Gumpert's tyres undeniably did far more work overall in the last half of the corner. Clearly if they're accelerating out far sooner than the other cars, they could have gone in faster and come out slower. 2+2 = 4 yes?

You just don't like that real life doesn't match das Sport Auto Windkanal. Their aerodynamic testing probably consists of a fat guy in shorts farting through a smoke generator. Clearly I'm trying to explain the concept of combined accelerative and cornering work on tyres and failing because you have no understanding of physics.

They're probably paranoid because of Sport Auto. I mean you're seriously trying to say that Ferrari is pretty **** only for the team of mechanics that accompany their test cars? Are we back to heavychevy and Monarohat style conspiracy theories again? All because you want to protect a $400k Lexus? Toyota sent a team of mechanics with their F1 car, didn't do much good.

I agree that the GTR is faster but I think the difference in the Evo test is quite representative of the differences in the other tests, even Sport Romario's Hockenheim test, just as your link shows. You seem to have gone on a paranoid witch-hunt against Ferrari. I'm not aware that any LFA has been let out from the arm's reach of Lexus engineers yet either. It's as if it were an endangered faeces.

No, they're just much better at driving 911s for no apparent reason. You're the one who's gone all foil-hat on Ferrari just because you can't stand that the F458 is a cheaper and better alternative to the LFA. So instead you've founded an argument on 'mights' and 'maybes' because concrete evidence impossible to come by.

You do like to nit-pick. The point is that it happened. I couldn't give a **** who did it. Nice try at starting another MB-wasting strawman though.


Funny that other magazines, including Evo, still figured it quicker than a GT2. Was this down to mechanics again? What was their excuse for the ZR1 and all the other cars they couldn't drive to their full potential?

All the other magazines you mentioned all worked with it though and all did much better. In the 2008 Car Of Year test, CAR made 1:01.2 with the GT2 and 1:00.5 in the LP560 (watch video time trials).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytGT47mDk9s

Evo beat the GT2 by 1s also. C&D also beat the GT2 in the LP560.

No but if the GTR was a 911 he would have, same for the ZR1.

Why not cry a little too.

No but we could compare with v-t graphs of corners at other circuits and road trials and spot all the sand-bagging.

Excuses for a Ł350k car.

You seem to be confused. Lamborghini are not on their first supercar in the here and now, Lexus are. Suzuki did well in Pikes Peak too, maybe they should make a $400k CF-shod bag bag of crap with 354lbft. Nissan had far more IMSA success than Toyota, particularly in GTP. They may not have won LeMans but in GTP they beat the XJR-12s and 962s that did. All we really have for Toyota today as a prelude to the LFA is the ISF and a failed F1 career.

Ever heard of the Escort Cosworth?

Quick maths lesson: $110k (original price) < $400k. People got a lot of car for that money relative to the time and that's how to do things when you're a new entry into the supercar class. (Not that they were if you count the previous GT40 success.) There's also the legendary RS200 and RS500.... the whole Ford-Cosworth legacy in F1 that has backed 10 British chassis to constructor's titles and 15 winners in Champ Car. Combine that with 4 Le Mans wins with a similar-looking car and you can see how Toyota gets comprehensively pissed on. Please do better research.

No, I don't understand. Why will the LFA be overweight because some LS600s have come in heavy? Get a grip lad.

I thought you would know that the JIS standard is definitely half a tank. Doesn't bode well for the LFA, LOL.

I can refute whatever numbers I like. I have a sixth sense for BS.

An R8 doesn't cost $400k.

Ok so I do agree Lexus is crazy, but I also agree this car is worth $400k. Its value is simply expressed by those that are willing to pay it and supposedly in Europe they already have 25 deposits. They will sell this car based on its artificially limited production and the hype, and also the desire by people to have something different.

What is in questions here is what defines an exotic and is something by a mass market manufacturer with no racing provenance or heritage considered an exotic based on its construction or performance. Would a ZR1 rebadged as a Cadillac XLR-R be considered an exotic?

The other thing that I find amusing is how people including the media spend all of their time talking about the rotary loom over at Toyota but no one, including alot of people in this thread can tell me a realistic and tangible benefit. Does this cars construction or redline make it better than the competition or even the class lower competition in any quantifiable way?

If you want to talk about revolutionary lets talk about the F458 Italia a car that manages to take chassis technology and electronics to a whole new level to aid the drivers control instead of taking over it. It also has a 9,000 rpm redline and what I believe to be specific output and torque per liter records for production N/A engines. I personally think its innovative that an engine 300 cc smaller produces more hp and more torque than the LFA's clean sheet V-10.

^+1.

You call that "proof"? How dumb are you?
The Megane R26.R can get rated 5 stars because it is that good to drive, regardless of its class. Look at it's position in eCOTY last year:

It's closer to the GT2 (5 stars) than to the Alfa, Maserati, and Aston (4.5 stars).

Why not? Chickensh1t? It should be easy enough to answer. By your silence, I'm going to conclude that you DO think people who buy Turbos are asshats when the GT-R does similar things, has been faster in comparos, and costs much, much less.

A 458 is still only 8 cylinders vs 10. Like I said, it's easier to achieve high revs with a smaller engine. The T1 is only 3.5L and a V8; plus it doesn't have to contend with emissions regulations outside of its home market. Being such a low-volume car, it's likely exempt from regs that the mass market mfrs have to follow.

You live in the UK, yet you are unaware of how Evo weighed their cars, haha. Neither of those are reputable, official sources. Your first one even allows that full tank is a standard. The guy writing for autozine describes cars as if he'd already driven them, when he hasn't. Even if that were the JIS standard, who's to say Toyota follows it? After all, Ferrari (which is located in an EU country) does not follow EU norms for weights.

Did they? From your memory, you said they criticized the rear end when they clearly did not. From now on, do us all a favor. Seeing as how you can't even remember the difference between GT2 and GT3, why don't you post up proof whenever you claim an article says something. For the layout, they actually mentioned a benefit of a front-engined car: high speed stability. Which the LFA has in loads.

Prove it?? WTF? Why would a mfr have a different weighing system for each genre of car as you are claiming? That makes absolutely no fricken sense whatsoever, unless you are lifetime subscriber to monaroLogic (which I'm starting to believe is the case).
You can't guess how much the relative differences will be, moron. That is as absurd as concluding 1200kg of downforce @ 300 kph based on cornering speed, vs 500kg or 1500kg. From preliminary data, these cars are so close in weights you can't say which will be lighter with any degree of accuracy or by what magnitude.

A little paranoid?? More like a lot paranoid. What other manufacturer contacts owners to persuade them to not submit their cars for independent testing? If you can name such a manufacturer, you'll probably find that they too list "dry weights" for their cars, LOL.

WTF is a ninja edit? Is that when you quote somebody, then change the "3" to a "2" and misspell a user's name in the process? And what does that have to do with me referencing precisely the GT3 in the link?

I said:
"Lap time = cornering speed? W-T-F...? Did you notice the Caterham R500 with a 1:20.20? According to your theory, the Caterham must be making 300+ kg of downforce."
To which you replied:
"The R500 is a vastly lighter car. If you read proper magazines you'd realise that Evo do v-t graphs and yes, the Scuderia is faster at every point in every corner."


Wait, before I post up the proof, you're saying the Caterham was faster because it could accelerate faster and not because it was faster in corners? And the peak speeds reached would be an indicator of this, yes?


There is a reason: it's called marketing. The same reason Saleen used it for the S7. It sounds impressive to the guy who doesn't know any better; it's a bonus selling point. I seriously doubt anyone would refuse to buy a car on the basis of it not living up to a downforce claim of being able to drive upside down at 300 kph.

All this terrible lift? Where did I say the Scuderia makes terrible lift? These cars aren't making enough downforce to draw meaningful conclusions. And again, I'm talking about the GT3 because neither of us has mentioned any downforce figures for the GT2.

The driver doesn't have to be a computer. In the last 1/3rd, he's not going in faster. The point is that in terms of actual cornering speeds, there's almost nothing between them that can't be explained by the Apollo being on more modern grippier rubber. If the Apollo makes 1200kg of downforce at 300 kph and it's going only marginally faster than the CGT, then I can just as well claim the Porsche makes 1000kg of downforce at 300 kph. Prove me wrong.

Says the guy who claims a car is accurately putting down 1200 kg of downforce @ 300 kph based on a few mph's worth over a 4/5-year old CGT.
Get back to us when you have formulated your iron-clad equation for deriving downforce based on cornering speed. This will be a laugh!!

If you agree that the GT-R is faster, then why are you even questioning the tires as used in the Evo test? That's retarded.
Don't suddenly start citing Sport Auto tests to prove anything; you've forfeited that right.
There's nothing paranoid about my comments on Ferrari. I'm stating factual information which no one can deny. And we can apparently add the 612 test to the case history of Ferrari personnel accompanying cars to Evo. Even you are admitting that Ferrari are paranoid, so I rest my case.
Of course the LFA wouldn't be lent out; it's still under development. There's only like 3 of these near-production cars in existence. Learn to think about that critically, please.

Have you even looked at the list of Porsche's they've driven in supertests? Quit being an idiot. It's very simple to understand why they'd be faster in Porsches. Also, some Scuderia drivers on rennteam who have taken their cars on the 'Ring indicate that the track is far too bumpy, that the Scuderia bottoms out too easily on rough sections with compressions.
And what makes you think I give a rat's *** about the 458 being a cheaper alternative to the LFA? At 10k+ units being built, and being priced below true market value anyway, I'd expect it to be cheaper. Too bad your pea-brain can't comprehend this.

Nitpick? I asked you for evidence that Evo Magazine personnel were the ones who manipulated the Scuderia's tire pressures. You posted up crap that was already on their website! It's pretty clear the Ferrari crew were the ones manipulating tire pressures. NOT Evo personnel, as Evo states explicitly that their standard procedure it to not mess with tire pressures.
Bringing this point full circle, the Ferrari is faster than the equivalent Gallardo, yet Lamborghini still sells a boatload of Gallardos in various forms. Just because Ferrari may be rated best or faster doesn't mean other cars can't co-exist in the market.

What's so strange about that? Auto Bild found the ZR1 slower than the GT-R. Does that make it a BS result? ZR1 has better power/wt than a Murcielago SV, yet the Lambo outpaced the ZR1 in Car's pCOTY.
Did you notice the Sport Auto's ZR1 result on Hockenheimring?

Right, because Anglesey is exactly like Hockenheim or the Nordschleife.
You forget that the GT2 is faster at:
Vairano
Balocco
Silverstone

Even within Evo Magazine, the GT-R tests show slightly different cornering speeds from one test to the next; both on Bridgestone tires. Their 997.1 GT3 times on the old circuit varied by 0.8s. You can't extrapolate this out to the 'Ring with any real reliable results.

No, you seem to be confused. I'm not talking about the here and now. In the here and now, Lexus are in a better position than Lambo and Pagani were back in the day.
Who gives a crap about Nissan or Suzuki? At least Toyota have even been in F1 and successfully campaigned in WRC. If Nissan built a limited edition car like the LFA, I wouldn't hold their lack of F1 history against them either. I'd consider it the same way I'm considering the LFA.

Sure have. That provides no basis for concluding that Ford GT is worth Ferrari money. Try again.

Neither the RS200 nor RS500 were build within 10 years of the Ford GT, were they? These were UK specials anyway, with next to zero presence in the mind of US buyers who made up the vast majority of Ford GT customers. If the Cosworth Escort and RS's were such legendary names in Europe, why didn't Europe ****** up many more Ford GT's? Only a small fraction went there. Didn't Ford want to make money?

Your claim is that California's get weighed to a different standard than the 458/Scuderia. That simply because they are a different genre of vehicle they get weighed differently. Well, where's your proof? Put up or shut up.
My point is that ALL of these cars have come in overweight. I've already mentioned Corvettes and if you want to really get ****, check out the Jaguar in the Evo pic I posted. Or the buggy, which has got crap for options. I could bring in Renault in Autocar road tests, if you like, but I think the point is clear: with so much discrepancy between mfr claims, you can't accurately claim the LFA is for sure heaviery by any meaningful margin than the 458.

Too bad you can't smell your own; guess it must smell like roses. Your sixth sense didn't even pick up on why Ferrari sends the redcoats and a special factory car for testing when the official UK press car is already being tested. LOL.

And neither does the ZR1/ACR which ****s on it for less, proving (by your definition) that the R8 is a waste of aluminum and only asshat suckers buy them.

Where's your proof that Sport Auto weighed the Scuderia at 1450+ kg, as you claimed?
Where's your proof that both Autocar and Evo complained about the LFA's rear end, as you claimed?
Where's your proof that the Scuderia corners faster than the 997.2 GT3, as you claimed?

just added a poll, please cast your votes....

Toyota does have a racing provenance. They have won the WRC title, Pikes Peak titles, raced in IMSA GTO, IMSA GTP, Formula One. Their GT One set the pace for Le Mans qualifying that year (beating the likes of Mercedes AMG and Porsche) and were on track to win were it not for a blown tire.
No, a ZR1 rebadged as a Cadillac XLR-R would not be considered exotic enough to command this kind of price tag.
This car's construction, based on reviews so far, has resulted in more agility and better handling than the Ferrari 599, which is seen by some as its closest competitor.
"Quantifiable" is a part of your problem of perspective. Many people who are in this market do not buy cars on the basis of what can be quantified. Except perhaps whether the car will be an investment, an appreciating asset. They buy what appeals to them on an emotional level. A $60k watch provides no tangible benefit over a $20 Casio (which probably tells time more accurately anyway), yet some people buy such watches as if they were choosing between McDonald's and Burger King.
Speaking of which, it's like buying a $15 burger from a nice restaurant vs buying a Big Mac. How do you measure the tangible benefit of a better-tasting burger? You can't. If you can't even afford a $20 burger, there's no point in trying to understand because you simply can't.

Your not getting it, unlike a hamburger some part of a cars performance, and superiority versus its competition can be quantified and given a value. Comparing the LFA vs a 3700 lb hyper GT is a bit of a reach wouldn't you think? You nor I have driven an LFA so we can't speak on the intangibles that make it worth $375k like the way it drives. For instance the comment about how big of a deal its 9,000 rpm redline is because its 300 cc bigger than the 458 Italia engine. Well arguably you could say that the 458 Italia producing more power, torque, and better performance is more important.

No, you're not getting it. People who buy $400k cars aren't necessarily making their purchasing decision on quantifiables. If they were, they wouldn't be buying Ferraris, Murcielagos, Spykers, etc when a $100k ZR1 or ACR does the same damn QUANTIFIABLE job (or better) for much less.
How is comparing the LFA vs a 3700lb hyper GT a bit of a reach? They're both front-engined, RWD cars with transaxles, non-DCT semi-automatic gearboxes, 48/52 weight distributions, both made in much smaller volumes than Ferrari's V8 mid-engined cars, and are much closer in price.
Neither you nor I have driven the LFA and 599, but C&D has. And their comment stands. So does Alistair Weaving's, writing for edmunds:
"The 2011 Lexus LFA is sharp, agile and feels much smaller on the road than, say, the Ferrari 599 GTB."
The 458 can rev as high, but can it rev to that rpm as fast? The LFA revs so fast that a conventional rev needle couldn't keep up. Thus, the multi-function readout that was developed for it, which is more advanced than what the 458 offers. Certain techno-geeks with loads of cash will appreciate this difference.
You could arguably say the peformance is more important, if all you value is performance. People with $400k to burn have proved more often than not that performance isn't their only concern; if they were, they'd all be buying the same exact car and nothing else. If performance was all they're after, Caparo would put Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Pagani out of business. Do you seriously think a $1.4M Reventon will outrun a Caparo T1?
How the hell do you quantify emotion? How do you objectively measure steering feedback? The brakes responding just precisely to the desired input from the pedal, the messages of impending lockup? The Formula One-like howl of a V10? Aren't these the traditional defenses of those who have tried to justify a Porsche's worth compared to a Corvette? Or a Ferrari against a Porsche?

Less so than the person who wrote this it would seem.

Whereas the LFA drive is a bit flawed.

LOL at Chickensh1t. Are you Alan Partridge?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_Lhn6CfPb8


So the F458 engine is inferior because it has 2 cyclinders less? Even though it spanks the LFA for power, torque, specific output and fuel consumption? That's a ricer argument.

Yes, they're official soures. You lose, good day.

I'm sure an F458 or MP4 would just shoot off the road at high speed, even with all that downforce. Lexus themself said that MR was fundamentally superior to FR but FR offered more high-speed stability. Funny how you only caught one part of that. Selective amnesia.

Might be different scales. We've already seen how mags using the same 'system' get different results, especially Sport Homo.

Funny how the CGT with it's 100kg of Sport Auto measured downforce couldn't match the Gumpert or the Scuderia in those corners. Good job they were still at a fairly low speed.

We've already discussed that 1350kg is a kerb weight. Are you seriously trying to tell me that fluids and a full tank weigh 24kg. Evo also measured a Veyron at 2025kg kerb in the GTR vs Veyron comparison, supposedly only 1888kg.

Nope, it's when you quickly alter a post just after posting. No record is made in the edits.

I never said that lap time equalled cornering speed in all conditions, only when you have 2 cars with similar PWR and straightline speed. Please get smarter.

Post up where it's faster in corner 7. In corner 8 you'll also be seeing the advantage of being able to change direction quicker, so it doesn't count. I'm already looking at the speed trace for a Caterham Levante in corner 7 and it's below 80mph, about 75mph, even though it does have a front splitter.

There is another reason. You are wrong.

You said Sport Homo's wind tunnel measurements were correct. According to these, the Scuderia has lift unlike the superb machines that are the GT2 and CGT, yet we can now see that this is a fact not borne out in cornering above 70mph.

You clearly don't understand the concept of combined accelerative and cornering work on tyres so I'm wasting my time. It's like trying to teach calculus to a stool sample. Back to the old tyre excuse, who'd have predicted it?

According to Sport Homo the CGT is making half the downforce of a Gumpert at 200kph. Now given that it's a v^2 relationship, at 80mph there whould be nothing in it, yet there is.

You really are good at strawmans though. Here we are in an LFA vs F458/MP4 discussion and you're talking about CGTs, R500s and Gumperts. That's some nice strawmanning.

The GTR was 1.4s faster than the 599 in the Evo test. So what's the problem with the Evo test again?


Don't worry I won't.

Well actually it will be 'lent' out to 500 people for 2 years. With your tin foil hat and the time of year, I'd stay aware from kitchens.

Yes, too bad my pea brain doesn't understand that something becomes 'good' because it's rare. Pink dog**** is also rare.

Evo let them do it either way and they were in charge, so essentially they do take responsibility for it, not that it matters. You're like an old woman.

The SV is an extremely fast car at 4s/min faster than an LP640. I have my suspicions that it's a lot more than 100kg lighter than an LP640. Besides that it just handles better than a ZR1, as probably does the 2010 GTR. Is this an attempt at another strawman diversion or something. Subject LFA remember?

The Balocco test is a load of bollox, hence why a Gallardo SE is as fast as LP560 and it was a 2008 GTR that was tested at Vairano and Balocco and it wasn't a same day/driver test. A 2009 GTR or a 2010 GTR is a faster car at a circuit like Hockenheim. Even the new GT3 beat the GTR in Sport Homo's test. That just isn't a real result. Look at the Goodwood test for comparison. Look at any other test.

http://www.fastestlaps.com/index.php...7_GT3_facelift

Have you ever heard of averaging? I would argue that you can.

Yeah, they've 'been' in F1. So have Minardi. What the hell has a C12 got to do with the LFA? Maybe the C12 was overpriced, maybe they only reached fame properly with the Zonda F. Doesn't make a case for the LFA.

Given how fast the GTR is, if Nissan built a $400k supercar it would probably lap the 'ring in under 7 minutes. That's why the LFA is a problem, it isn't as great as its price.


You seem to have deleted the other evidence. You know, that bit about powering 10 F1 constructor champions, winning WRC 3 times, powering almost every Champ Car winner, 4 Le Mans victories... etc. A good try but must do better.

Very difficult to get hold of, not many sent. I think you're not seeing the big picture. The last performance Toyota was a Supra, that wasn't too popular in the UK - seen as a very expensive Catherine Wheel. Toyota have nowhere near as much racing success as Ford, nor Ferrari, nor McLaren. Probably barely as much as Nissan (less in IMSA). The LFA is not the successor to a car that won Le Mans 4 times like the GT40. At least Ford have made some hot hatches like the Focus RS (both gens) and are generally renowned for good handling even in their Mundane models. They also had Jaguar and Aston you forget.

Well the Scuderia weight is accurate so they must get weighed differently. Ip so facto.

No thanks.

Yes I can.

Bull, bull, full of bull.

The ACR is about fit for comparison with an Ultima GTR, in fact the Ultima ride is probably less compromising. The ZR1 is made of plastic and has a suck interior. The same isn't true for either an R8 or an F458. The handling is also more consistent and accessible for the latter 2.

I guess it must have made 2s on the straights. with just an extra 70bhp.

Shouldn't the F458 and MP4-12C be on that poll?

BD, your right, you are very focused, i swear when i get my new car, i am coming to you for the comparison.... I feel like i should be paying for this info you and guibo are giving out. I'm mean you guys are going in, i had no idea it would have this many post. The main reason for this post was for 1. the price of the LFA. They came out about 2 years ago saying that the car was suppose to be the 150,000 super sport car competing against other cars in its price range, and 2. is the fact that they are targeting mainly Porsches, including the 997tt/Gt3/Gt2, now i do have a big problem with that........ Ok, now on how i feel about you and guibo stats on the car? Yes i think it is on a super car level, but not for a price of 375,000, especially when they arent even know in that realm for super car status. I know you guys are going to get deep with it again, more power to you, I have my popcorn ready....

There are COUNTLESS cars that aren't known in the realm of supercar status and command prices much higher than $375k, but no one ever says anything about them. Maybe there's a problem with big companies building supercars as opposed to a small team with limited resources charging that amount. I personally don't see a problem as I think the big company will build a better quality car.

You know what you are kind of right, but they dont need to keep the car price so high, they are the top, if not the top five car companies that are doing + numbers.....

LOL, I have already said that the LFA is worth $400k if you read my whole post you would see that. And its obviously worth that to those who will buy one I am simply asking if any of those gee whiz features translate to an actual performance breakthrough versus its competition. And with 354 lb ft of torque it needs to rev up as quickly as possible. 90% of your argument translates into a ricer argument.....well my car revs faster...even though you lapped me twice....LOL.

So let me rephrase my question. At the LFA's price range what tangible and quantifiable performance benefits does all of its rotary loomed chassis, and quick revving engine (that you have to pay a huge premium for) do in relation to its old fashioned and behind in technology competition?

IDK maybe in my mind the LP670 SV's pure sex looks, 10 second 1/4 mile and sub 3 second 0-60 coupled with its heritage and status make the LFA just seem so pedestrian. Yeah the LFA probably has better build quality but Lamborghini isn't exactly newbies at carbon fiber construction. I mean I own a Lexus but it just doesn't say I have made it like a Lamborghini does!