My point exactly, my take on it is this. From early on in its development there had been talk about it being a Toyota and then it being a Lexus. Than they switched over to a carbon fiber chassis. In my humble opinion I think they were conflicted on if the car should be a hyper GT in the mold of the 599 or a pure, lightweight sports car like the 430 Scud. Based on its curb weight and performance its like this car was the halfway point.

But you have to understand after 10 years, and millions of dollars in cost overruns there had to be a point where Toyota had to stop development especially with the company and the economy taking such a beating. There is a point in every project where you have to consider to keep forging ahead or to cut bait and finish up.

No company wants to release a clean sheet car that is supposed to define their brand values and move a brand to a new cost ceiling that is slower, and uglier and pricier than its competition. Because Toyota decided to only make 500 ( artificial rarity) as this isn't a homologation build which is why so many of the great cars were built. Does not make up for its utter failings in other parts.

None of us have driven the car so we can't comment on subjective things like how it drives because we don't personally know. But we can comment on what the car does to move the establishment forward and how sad we are that Toyota could not or would not bring us a car that truly carries its legacy forward. For a company that has been losing their way in the performance world for years now you would think that they would have brought a better car to the table.

 

I said it's possible that it would be faster over 100 than the Z06. Meaning the trap speed doesn't guarantee anything, as exemplified by the Z06 getting beaten by the GT2 at higher speeds despite the advantage in the 1/4 mi trap speed. ZR1? I wasn't aware that anyone said the LFA isn't slower than a ZR1 at higher speeds, so the Jedi "mind trick" seems to have worked as intended.
Exactly, using my argument (which is actually yours, if you didn't get the clue), only a dash-stroking non-car guy would pass up all of these cars for a GT2 RS. Seriously, you could buy all kinds of things that are "better" than a GT2 RS, which should make you think what Porsche are thinking by pricing it that way. No serious car guy would be dumb enough to fall for it, right? By the same token, who would be dumb enough to fall for a brand new ZR1 when a used C5 Z06 can be made just as fast (a lot faster, problably) for a fraction of the price?
Are you sure you want to stand behind that position?

 

The Supra sold poorly in its final years (as did its rivals the 300ZX and RX-7 Turbo). I'm not sure Toyota would want to repeat that experience. Cars in that price bracket are more susceptible to fluctuations in the economy, while the ultra-exotic high priced segment tends to be more resilient. Additionally, the Supra offered really nothing that could be used of benefit to the rest of the lineup. The techniques and materials used in the LFA can definitely improve the emissions and safety of future Toyota products. And instead of joining with CF partners like BMW have done, or working with the University of Washington (which helped Boeing for the 787) for CF technology like Lamborghini have done, Toyota may find itself in a position to be a supplier of CF components, based on work started with the LFA.
The LFA doesn't bring anything revolutionary technically, but it doesn't have to. The Enzo wasn't all that revolutionary, considering the F1 had already beaten its performance figures years before (and could seat 3 people inside, no less). There's not much revolutionary about the SLR, Black Series, Z8, or Ford GT. When Pagani started, it didn't offer anything revolutionary either. Is the Aston One-77 revolutionary? Doesn't seem like it. Yet Aston Martin took plenty of deposits on this car from customers who hadn't even driven it, hadn't even been told of its performance figures (because there aren't really any yet). All of these cars appealed to some niche market, and that's all that the manufacturer could ever really hope for.
The only revolutionary thing the LFA seems to have acheived is raising a Toyota product into the same realm of discussion of legitimate super-exotic cars in the areas that differentiate them from the usual objective performancy-only suspects (ZR1, ACR, etc): build quality, attention to detail, throttle response, handling, braking, composure over real-world surfaces, sound, the overall driving experience which doesn't require a stopwatch or lap timer. Which is to say, something that will be experienced day in and day out. The fact that we're even discussing a Lexus against a Z06 or Murci SV or Scuderia is in itself quite revolutionary, as is the fact that a Japanese manufacturer has sold 500 units of any car at prices above Ferraris/Lambos, and can dictate lease-only terms in a major automotive market.

 

Let me ask you a rhetorical question, is 124 and 127 mph over 100 mph? Don't you think a car that has an automated gearbox and less torque should possibly be at an advantage 0 to the end of the 1/4 mile?

Again your attempts to put words in my mouth are funny, you are telling me that performance isn't important when buying a performance car. I am simply saying that there are other areas where the LFA fails in comparison to its competition and despite those also asks for more money to perform worse. You never said at higher speeds or when the 4th to 5th shift occurs or when unicorns fly you said you " think " over 100 mph the LFA could be faster. If simple math can be that confusing 127>124 perhaps we should not be having this conversation?

 

I am no business major but I would think that selling a non-competitive car at an exorbitant cost and still sustaining a loss while still not being considered a super car quality automaker would not be things to be proud of? The LFA faction was the ones saying the car was revolutionary, and accomplished all of these amazing things.

 

I never said performance isn't important. Show me where I said that.
Does not the Corvette's 4th-5th shift occur at over 100 mph?

EDIT: And like I said, the Z06 showed a higher trap speed than the GT2 in same-day testing. Yet the GT2 has shown that it can be as fast or faster than even a ZR1 at higher speeds. Are you telling me a Z06 will pass up a ZR1 at higher speeds?

 

Did they? Tell me the things that this faction said was revolutionary. Better yet, link me to the posts.
"Non-competitive"...you still haven't defined for me the class that the LFA belongs to. Do you often compare cars that cost 2x's as much and are built in 1/20th the volume? Do you often compare a bottom-rung C-Class to a BMW M3? If not, why not?

 

If you want to split hairs on what you said that is fine, but the fact remains that 124 and 127 mph are over 100 mph! Also I will save this one for last but did you just not want to visit both cars 0-150 times? 18.3 vs ??? you tell me but wait is 150 not over 100 mph?

You like to argue, I like to talk cars that is where our fundamental differences lie. But never despite how much you read will you truly have the knowledge or feel of driving high performance cars unless you can open your eyes, leave your house and experience cars just not on paper.

I think my point has been made, and anyone watching can look through my posts and realize that I am not the same kind of enthusiast that you are. So from now on in this thread I will only be responding to those other than yourself. I can't communicate well enough with you to establish that 2 plus 2 is 4. So either its a failure on my part or yours, but I do give up attempting to.

Does anyone else have anything else to add?

 

There is no splitting of hairs. Either a 4-5 shift is over 100 mph or it's not. 150 mph? That's still only 75% of what these cars are capable of.
The simple fact is, you can't point to a single post of mine where I said performance doesn't matter. That is because you made that up. At this point, one should wonder whether you are bothering to read posts for content and context and making an effort to contemplate before posting. The fact that you can't even define the LFA's class is also quite telling.
Here's AMG boss Tobias Moers, talking to Motor Trend about whether he thinks the LFA is a competitor to the SLS (both being front-engined 2-seat luxury GT's with similar NA power and available only with paddle-shifters):



Oh, the irony...

 

Does anyone else have anything to add?

 

I think its pretty cool that I received -90 rep points for my opinion. I really cannot believe that someone could not add this comment to the debate:

"Sorry to hear you are disappointed. Don't buy one then. Vote with your dollars. Spend your 375k elsewhere."

Or even pm me. Looks like I am not going to win the popularity contest because I am not a fan of the LFA. Oh well life goes on.

I still think its overpriced and a underperformer. Hope no one is offended.

 

I am going to give you a positive rep, I too got neg repped in my own thread for my opinion!

 

From what I heard as well:

"If interested in purchasing a Lexus LFA, the buyer would have to be placed on a lengthy waiting list as this car is being offered worldwide and not exclusively in the United States. Once approved for the Lexus, a two-year lease contract will be issued."

 

They are doing that to prevent speculators, its limited production may grant it that kind of status. But in my eyes it will never be as iconic as cars like the upcoming GT2 RS, F430 Scuderia, and F40.

 

I am sure the vehicle has more interest in Japan & UAE...