RE: Showpiece of the Week: Lexus LFA
Discussion
I think the ‘rose coloured specs’ are coming out with some of these comments. Awesome engine, no doubt but I cannot forget the comments and reviews of its time were not class leading. For all the money and time invested it should have been better. A mid 8’s 0-100, ponderous single clutch gearbox, lack of torque. If it wasn’t such a rare old beast I wonder if we’d all be going so misty eyed? Just looks like a big old slab sided Celica to me.
garystoybox said:
I think the ‘rose coloured specs’ are coming out with some of these comments. Awesome engine, no doubt but I cannot forget the comments and reviews of its time were not class leading. For all the money and time invested it should have been better. A mid 8’s 0-100, ponderous single clutch gearbox, lack of torque. If it wasn’t such a rare old beast I wonder if we’d all be going so misty eyed? Just looks like a big old slab sided Celica to me.
The single clutch gearbox and all revs/no torque approach is something many here miss and that’s why we go misty eyed. It might have been “better” with a V6, two-turbos and a DSG but it would have been “duller” too ... for me anyway 
garystoybox said:
I think the ‘rose coloured specs’ are coming out with some of these comments. Awesome engine, no doubt but I cannot forget the comments and reviews of its time were not class leading. For all the money and time invested it should have been better. A mid 8’s 0-100, ponderous single clutch gearbox, lack of torque. If it wasn’t such a rare old beast I wonder if we’d all be going so misty eyed? Just looks like a big old slab sided Celica to me.
Compare the ring lap times from the time, despite the numbers it is a serious performance car and punched well above other cars of it's "class" (power level)garystoybox said:
I think the ‘rose coloured specs’ are coming out with some of these comments. Awesome engine, no doubt but I cannot forget the comments and reviews of its time were not class leading. For all the money and time invested it should have been better. A mid 8’s 0-100, ponderous single clutch gearbox, lack of torque. If it wasn’t such a rare old beast I wonder if we’d all be going so misty eyed? Just looks like a big old slab sided Celica to me.
Which reviews were those? The review I remember was the Evo twin test with a Ferrari 599 GTO on proper (Scottish?) roads, which concluded with the immortal words 'Lexus beats Ferrari'. The other one was Chris Harris, who also seemed to get it.Mark-C said:
garystoybox said:
I think the ‘rose coloured specs’ are coming out with some of these comments. Awesome engine, no doubt but I cannot forget the comments and reviews of its time were not class leading. For all the money and time invested it should have been better. A mid 8’s 0-100, ponderous single clutch gearbox, lack of torque. If it wasn’t such a rare old beast I wonder if we’d all be going so misty eyed? Just looks like a big old slab sided Celica to me.
The single clutch gearbox and all revs/no torque approach is something many here miss and that’s why we go misty eyed. It might have been “better” with a V6, two-turbos and a DSG but it would have been “duller” too ... for me anyway samoht said:
Which reviews were those? The review I remember was the Evo twin test with a Ferrari 599 GTO on proper (Scottish?) roads, which concluded with the immortal words 'Lexus beats Ferrari'. The other one was Chris Harris, who also seemed to get it.
To be honest, the only one I can remember is from the Autocar road test. Steve Sutcliffe wasn’t blown away by it. I agree with you that mostly everybody now seemingly looks back at it as a great car. garystoybox said:
I think the ‘rose coloured specs’ are coming out with some of these comments. Awesome engine, no doubt but I cannot forget the comments and reviews of its time were not class leading. For all the money and time invested it should have been better. A mid 8’s 0-100, ponderous single clutch gearbox, lack of torque. If it wasn’t such a rare old beast I wonder if we’d all be going so misty eyed? Just looks like a big old slab sided Celica to me.
Well,it was never that fast even when new and a vanilla 458 Italia had it beaten on paper.The ultra-responsive V10 revs to eternity and if i remember correctly,a spare one is 100 000 dollars,but the engine doesn't make huge power and especially,torque.The car is also not that beautiful too.The tests reported an atrocious ride and a single clutch automated manual that was unsurprisingly either slow or savage.Yet the LFA is a zeitgeist car and more desirable to me than any modern Ferrari or Lambo.No wonder that it was more praised than cars like the 599 GTO.What else is so rare,bespoke,distinctive and unique?It may be understated and not look like much at first sight,but the car is dripping with the engineering integrity and robustness of a cost-no-object execution.Only the Carrera GT comes close and offers manual too.Apparently only the Bugatis can match the build quality.The so-so badge guarantees that the car will be more reliable,understressed and overengineered than any rival.It monsters the Nurburgring better than its power to weight ratio and a not too exotic sillhoutte suggest,but can be driven as a daily by the likes of Paris Hilton.A modern classic that will never be understood and appreciated by everyone,mainly because of the lack of a prancing horse on the nose and the conservative power output.All IMO,of course.
It's taken me a few years to figure it out but I think I have it.
Car manufacturers usually have common DNA throughout their vehicles, BMW tend to be good to drive, Subaru/Audi 4WD, Toyota don't seem to have anything really apart from it should work( which is probably what most car manufacturers have anyway).
Instead from what I see is that Toyota seem to think of a car and figure out what it needs to do and build it to that specification. This is why we have cars like the gt86 and the auris being made by the same people. This car is one of those creations, they've looked at what a supercar is and then built one.
There's no other explanation behind Toyota's thinking imo.
Car manufacturers usually have common DNA throughout their vehicles, BMW tend to be good to drive, Subaru/Audi 4WD, Toyota don't seem to have anything really apart from it should work( which is probably what most car manufacturers have anyway).
Instead from what I see is that Toyota seem to think of a car and figure out what it needs to do and build it to that specification. This is why we have cars like the gt86 and the auris being made by the same people. This car is one of those creations, they've looked at what a supercar is and then built one.
There's no other explanation behind Toyota's thinking imo.
I don’t think Toyota were conventionally benchmarking opposition when they built it. Which is why the cold formal thoroughness of an Autocar roadtest isn’t the appropriate platform.
Even Gordon Murray admits he got “nervous about capacity” when the XJ220 and EB110 came out - his car couldn’t be less powerful than them. From what I’ve read the Mac F1 is magnificent, fastidious and exciting, powered by an extraordinary engine, and also scored headlines through numbers. But it seems to have some shortcomings as “an ultimate driver’s car”. Piestchrider and Atkinson both had high profile crashes, Martin bloody Brundle absolutely shat himself when it twitched on while ambling along a wet road.
I’ve just watched the National Geogrpahic program on the LFA (you tube). They built the LFA because they wanted to. It had a 4.8 litre V10 rather than a 6+ litre V12 because that was what they could package in their front mid layout chosen for optimal driver enjoyment. Then they built the carbon factory and the loom to weave the roof pillars. The Yamaha engineer compares crafting the engine noise for a driver as crafting the noise of one of their instruments for a musician - not making a nice noise for marketeers. The people building it regularly hoovered their own uniforms and quality checks covered 7000 points and took over a week. When they wanted to confirm progress of their development, they raced it - it won at the second go which is when they were satisfied.
They didn’t build it to accelerate faster than a GTR or 599, to make a profit, beat anything else in conventional terms, or succeed an older model. They went to a decade’s worth of discipline, effort and expense to build something they wanted to build. Completely extraordinary, on this scale and budget might be unique in purity of purpose. Watching the build reminded me of reading about Bloodhound.
The Oriental sense of purpose in it might be different to that adopted further West, but there is nothing purer. Perhaps a little belatedly we are realising it’s true depth of value.
The Mac F1 is a car i’ve wanted from a safe distance. Not this. It is quality, reliable, durable, driveable, useable and completely pure. I really want one. I will never be able to afford one, so instead I aspire to own something of the same principles that built it.
Even Gordon Murray admits he got “nervous about capacity” when the XJ220 and EB110 came out - his car couldn’t be less powerful than them. From what I’ve read the Mac F1 is magnificent, fastidious and exciting, powered by an extraordinary engine, and also scored headlines through numbers. But it seems to have some shortcomings as “an ultimate driver’s car”. Piestchrider and Atkinson both had high profile crashes, Martin bloody Brundle absolutely shat himself when it twitched on while ambling along a wet road.
I’ve just watched the National Geogrpahic program on the LFA (you tube). They built the LFA because they wanted to. It had a 4.8 litre V10 rather than a 6+ litre V12 because that was what they could package in their front mid layout chosen for optimal driver enjoyment. Then they built the carbon factory and the loom to weave the roof pillars. The Yamaha engineer compares crafting the engine noise for a driver as crafting the noise of one of their instruments for a musician - not making a nice noise for marketeers. The people building it regularly hoovered their own uniforms and quality checks covered 7000 points and took over a week. When they wanted to confirm progress of their development, they raced it - it won at the second go which is when they were satisfied.
They didn’t build it to accelerate faster than a GTR or 599, to make a profit, beat anything else in conventional terms, or succeed an older model. They went to a decade’s worth of discipline, effort and expense to build something they wanted to build. Completely extraordinary, on this scale and budget might be unique in purity of purpose. Watching the build reminded me of reading about Bloodhound.
The Oriental sense of purpose in it might be different to that adopted further West, but there is nothing purer. Perhaps a little belatedly we are realising it’s true depth of value.
The Mac F1 is a car i’ve wanted from a safe distance. Not this. It is quality, reliable, durable, driveable, useable and completely pure. I really want one. I will never be able to afford one, so instead I aspire to own something of the same principles that built it.
Edited by Baddie on Thursday 26th April 21:25
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff