Jump to content
SAU Community

Evo Mag. Lexus Lfa V Gtr


Amir
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've been on-and-off visiting this part of the forum for a while. I had my heart set on the R35, but Ive over-riden the emotions and gone for practicality. The e60 M5 was the best compromise. I didnt want to be one of those trying to sell the R35 after 12 months on carsales.

Anyway to the point, Im in the UK curently and picked up the EVO mag today.

Article was on the LFA. Here is a side-bar regarding it and the R35. Thought you owners would be interested in the comments.

If it's japanese and fast, does it have to face up to the GT-R? No it doesn't. I drove a GTR to meet the LFA and drove it away again from Mayfair. It's a staggering machine, but it's so different in concept and execution to the lexus that the two just can't be compared. believe me they can't.

Where the Nissan isolates the driver and extracts absurd speed from any given situation, the Leus is old-school- sow and reap. The GTR offers peerless on-demand action, but it's all-done by 6500rpm, just when the LFA goes ape and begins making very expensive noises.

I'd like to say that on anything less than dry, smooth asphalt the GTR is quicker, but given how freakishly fast it is everywhere, I dont doubt the Nissan would be faster just about anywhere. But that misses the point. The best supercars have an otherwordly quality of unobtanium about them; the LFA has it, the GTR doesn't.

And don't listen to people (tall ones who present TV shows) who counter with some rot about it not being worth six GTRs. I suspect that most people who buy and LFA will also have a GTR- making them both discerning and irritatingly fortunate.

Dont expect to see a twin test any time soon"[b][/b]

Edited by Amir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting to hear how different the two cars are but the journalist is a tool. Can't stand it when people say you can't compare two cars and then go on to do it, which he did. Then tells us that another journalist's opinion doesn't matter! Poor form journalist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting to hear how different the two cars are but the journalist is a tool. Can't stand it when people say you can't compare two cars and then go on to do it, which he did. Then tells us that another journalist's opinion doesn't matter! Poor form journalist.

+1

if they can't be compared it's a pretty pointless article then isn't it, mr journo man?

not a big LFA fan, esp cos of the price, which clearly IS a consideration

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Maybe SAUNSW could see howany members would do a motorkhana day if Schofield's is still available for a reasonable price...
    • Skip the concrete, we just need to smooth a field. Mark knows how to drive a grader Duncan   I reckon 100x100 flat area for skid pan style, and then some sort tracks for rally... Duncan's already got a rally car on the premises to...
    • Well, yeah, the RB26 is definitely that far off the mark. From a pure technology point of view it is closer to the engines of the 60s than it is to the engines of the last 10 years. There is absolutely nothing special about an RB26 that wasn't present in engines going all the way back to the 60s, except probably the four valve head. The bottom end is just bog standard Japanese stuff. The head is nothing special. Celicas in the 70s were the same thing, in 4cyl 2 valve form. The ITBs are nothing special when you consider that the same Celicas had twin Solexes on them, and so had throttle plates in the exact same place. There's no variable valve timing, no variable inlet manifold, which even other RBs had either before the 26 came out or shortly afterward. The ECU is pretty rude and crude. The only things it has going for it are that the physical structure was pretty bloody tough for a mass produced engine, the twin-turbos and ITBs made for a bit of uniqueness against the competition (and even Toyota were ahead on the twin turbs thing, weren't they?) and the electronic controls and measuring devices (ie, AFMs, CAS, etc) were good enough to make it run well. Oh, and it sounds better than almost anything else, ever. The VR38 is absolutely halfway between the RB generation and the current generation, so it definitely has a massive increase in the sophistication of the electronics, allowing for a lot more dynamic optimisation of mapping. Then there's things like metal treatments and other coatings on things, adoption of variable cam stuff, and a bunch of other little improvements that mean it has to be a better thing than the RB26. But I otherwise agree with you that it is approximately the same thing as a 26. But, skip forward another 10 years from that engine and then the things that I mentioned in previous post come out to play. High compression, massively sophisticated computers, direct injection, clever measuring sensors, etc etc. They are the real difference between trying to make big power with a 26 and trying to make big power with a S/B50/54 (or whatever the preferred BMW engine of the week is).
    • Is the RB26 actually that far off the mark? Honestly from where I'm sitting a VR38DETT is not actually that much more advanced than the RB26. Yes, there is a scavenge pump on the VR38, it's smarter in a number of ways but it's not actually jumping out to me as alien technology. Something like a B58 or V35A-FTS on the other hand has so many surprising little design features that add up to be something that just isn't comparable. 
×
×
  • Create New...