Why the LFA's 7:14 really is THAT impressive..
Discussion
Take a look at the stats of the Lexus as quoted from a recent Autocar article (if you could call it that) ....
"Kerb weight: 1480kg; Engine: V10, 4805cc, petrol; Power: 562bhp at 8700rpm; Torque: 353lb ft at 7000rpm"
This car is significantly heavier than its peers AND indeed here is the BIG AND, it has no huge displacement (like the record setting giant cars do) or turbo's (like Porsche's do) and therefore it has the torque figure of a freakin Mustang- just 353lb ft! And yet, this car can lap faster than lighter far more powerful Skyline or 911.
And if you do some figuring..like if they went to any of the trouble that makers like Zonda or Ferrari did (using massive aero packages and engines) heck even if they put a damn Turbo on this thing it might very well hit 7 minutes or under. It could very easily top the Ferrari Fxx.
This chassis is very very good, its got very good weight distribution, its masses are very intelligently placed and moreover it appears to be a benign handler on limit (according to those who have driven it so far)- maybe people like Mark Hales are right in saying there is much to be said for driver confidence buy placing the engine up front. Very interesting car. I wonder what the folks at Lotus would say? j
"Kerb weight: 1480kg; Engine: V10, 4805cc, petrol; Power: 562bhp at 8700rpm; Torque: 353lb ft at 7000rpm"
This car is significantly heavier than its peers AND indeed here is the BIG AND, it has no huge displacement (like the record setting giant cars do) or turbo's (like Porsche's do) and therefore it has the torque figure of a freakin Mustang- just 353lb ft! And yet, this car can lap faster than lighter far more powerful Skyline or 911.
And if you do some figuring..like if they went to any of the trouble that makers like Zonda or Ferrari did (using massive aero packages and engines) heck even if they put a damn Turbo on this thing it might very well hit 7 minutes or under. It could very easily top the Ferrari Fxx.
This chassis is very very good, its got very good weight distribution, its masses are very intelligently placed and moreover it appears to be a benign handler on limit (according to those who have driven it so far)- maybe people like Mark Hales are right in saying there is much to be said for driver confidence buy placing the engine up front. Very interesting car. I wonder what the folks at Lotus would say? j
Amazing car. The more I see, hear, and read about it the more I like it. Which is a shame. As I was hoping they'd plummet like a stone and be dirt cheap in 5 years time. 
You say it has no huge displacement, but it is a 4.8litre v10.
It's torque is fairly immaterial as it is designed to spin to far higher revs.
I like it, it is a great looking and sounding thing, but favourable comparison to mass produced far cheaper competition doesn't make it "impressive". It's impressive, just because of what it is!
I suspect a BTCC car would lap quicker than them all with less than 300hp.
It's torque is fairly immaterial as it is designed to spin to far higher revs.
I like it, it is a great looking and sounding thing, but favourable comparison to mass produced far cheaper competition doesn't make it "impressive". It's impressive, just because of what it is!
I suspect a BTCC car would lap quicker than them all with less than 300hp.
s3fella said:
You say it has no huge displacement, but it is a 4.8litre v10.
It's torque is fairly immaterial as it is designed to spin to far higher revs.
I like it, it is a great looking and sounding thing, but favorable comparison to mass produced far cheaper competition doesn't make it "impressive". It's impressive, just because of what it is!
I suspect a BTCC car would lap quicker than them all with less than 300hp.
On the longer straights and uphill sections the torque of an engine in something like a GT2 is what gives it its speed. The LFA cannot match such cars on straights and uphill sections. jIt's torque is fairly immaterial as it is designed to spin to far higher revs.
I like it, it is a great looking and sounding thing, but favorable comparison to mass produced far cheaper competition doesn't make it "impressive". It's impressive, just because of what it is!
I suspect a BTCC car would lap quicker than them all with less than 300hp.
j123 said:
s3fella said:
You say it has no huge displacement, but it is a 4.8litre v10.
It's torque is fairly immaterial as it is designed to spin to far higher revs.
I like it, it is a great looking and sounding thing, but favorable comparison to mass produced far cheaper competition doesn't make it "impressive". It's impressive, just because of what it is!
I suspect a BTCC car would lap quicker than them all with less than 300hp.
On the longer straights and uphill sections the torque of an engine in something like a GT2 is what gives it its speed. The LFA cannot match such cars on straights and uphill sections. jIt's torque is fairly immaterial as it is designed to spin to far higher revs.
I like it, it is a great looking and sounding thing, but favorable comparison to mass produced far cheaper competition doesn't make it "impressive". It's impressive, just because of what it is!
I suspect a BTCC car would lap quicker than them all with less than 300hp.
wikipedia said:
"The Nürburgring Edition LFA was tested at the Nürburgring in June 2011. Driven by Akira Iida, the LFA set a time of 7:22.85 (video confirmed),[68] the 10th-fastest time ever for a production vehicle....The LFA hit 292 km/h (181 mph)[68] on the last straight uphill climb, which is one of the highest speeds achieved by a stock exotic supercar on that segment of the track."
And the power to weight ratio is...Andy,
thanks for the driving impressions. So maybe its not so benign as the press write after all. Or maybe its just the fact that its going through corners at sickining speed?
Anyway question do you agree that if Lexus put a turbo or two on this or bore-d out the engine to say 6.5 liters with the associated cooling and extra aero bits that this too would break 7 minutes? thanks, j
thanks for the driving impressions. So maybe its not so benign as the press write after all. Or maybe its just the fact that its going through corners at sickining speed?
Anyway question do you agree that if Lexus put a turbo or two on this or bore-d out the engine to say 6.5 liters with the associated cooling and extra aero bits that this too would break 7 minutes? thanks, j
j123 said:
s3fella said:
You say it has no huge displacement, but it is a 4.8litre v10.
It's torque is fairly immaterial as it is designed to spin to far higher revs.
I like it, it is a great looking and sounding thing, but favorable comparison to mass produced far cheaper competition doesn't make it "impressive". It's impressive, just because of what it is!
I suspect a BTCC car would lap quicker than them all with less than 300hp.
On the longer straights and uphill sections the torque of an engine in something like a GT2 is what gives it its speed. The LFA cannot match such cars on straights and uphill sections. jIt's torque is fairly immaterial as it is designed to spin to far higher revs.
I like it, it is a great looking and sounding thing, but favorable comparison to mass produced far cheaper competition doesn't make it "impressive". It's impressive, just because of what it is!
I suspect a BTCC car would lap quicker than them all with less than 300hp.
j123 said:
On the longer straights and uphill sections the torque of an engine in something like a GT2 is what gives it its speed. The LFA cannot match such cars on straights and uphill sections. j
With respect, what rationale do you have for that? Do you know the relationship between torque and power?Standing on a standard bicycle crank, I can generate at least 100lbft of torque - probably a bit more. That's comparable to a small econobox engine. But I doubt I'd beat even a small car on an uphill race, despite a huge weight advantage.
Something like this article might help (with this a classic example of how not to explain torque) - remember, torque on it's own can't move anything - you need a source of power. The peak torque figure is useful when evaluating an engine, but secondary to the peak power figure - the power figure is the only single stat that will give you a good idea of how fast a car of a given weight can accelerate. The first one sums it up nicely - a torquey engine will feel faster, when booted in a single gear. But a powerful engine, kept close to peak power, will be faster.
Edited by paranoid airbag on Monday 5th September 00:19
KB_S1 said:
S3000 said:
LFA is massively overpriced.. just saying.
Compared to what?What should it cost?
Presumably our dissenter has an equally low opinion of the performance Vs cost argument involved when comparing, say, a Lambo Miura and a Focus RS, or a Mountuned ST. Overpriced Italian pony!
CalculatedRisk said:
S3000 said:
LFA is massively overpriced.. just saying.
its not overpriced at all. Expensive parts, development and not all manufacturers wish to make a loss.By doing that you'd add lots more power everywhere so of course it'd be faster. The torque curve is almost totally flat from 4000 to 9000 rpm, it's not a peaky engine like a Porsche turbo is. They tend to have a massive midrange torque spike that makes them feel quicker (high rate of change of acceleration or jerk) but also means they are probably making more power at those rpms that something na of similar peak output. It's torque at the wheels (I.e. after gearing) that governs acceleration and the area under the torque curve that's a good indication of "total" performance. It'd be interesting to see wheel torque plots of both cars.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff