It had all of the available performance options on it and that included lightweight carbon fiber seats, which probably shed some weight.

 

Thank you for that bolded part. That proves it wasn't even a fair lap time comparison to begin with! The 458 and LFA were driven at different levels. The 458 was pushed to the limit, and the LFA was not. They were holding back while driving the LFA.

Plus Ferrari engineers were there? So there is no way of knowing whether Ferrari was fair in this instance, or if they "tuned" the 458 specifically just for that test to make it a "ringer" model, a practice Chris Harris so famously exposed in regards to Ferrari, and their cheating ways in comparison tests.

That further deepens the discussion. If the 458 was specced-out with all available performance and weight-saving options, what was the customer's LFA specced-out to?

Did that customer's LFA have full luxury options, and none of the weight-saving options? If so then this makes the comparison further unfair and slanted.

 

Yes, you are right that is what I meant and they clearly write that they could have extracted more out of the LFA, if they did not have the psychological burden of adhering to the wishes of the owner. For example, in sector 2 LFA's time through the sector is in 6th or 7th place where they feel they had to go the easiest since things can get crazy very quickly.

Yes, Ferrari had its engineers on-site. They had a trailer where they did simulations on the track before the lap time so that is very much a possibility that they tuned the stability control system and torque vectoring diff to work the best on the track, but the option was available to all manufacturers, though. Not just Ferrari.


No Lexus did not provide anymore performance options. Heck, Lexus never bothered to fit LFA with proper sticky tires (which is what they blame the slightly slower speed of LFA than 458 Italia in every sector). Ferrari was fitted with much stickier Michelin Pilot Super Sport tires.

Still, LFA has always managed to put down comparable laptimes on Circuit de nevers, Laguna Seca, El Torro (The Stig), Nurburgring etc. so I would have expected this would be no different under similar circumstances.

Still, I would not take away anything from the 458. It put a great laptime down and many of the cars like ZR-1, LP570-4, Z06 etc. have laptimes in lightning lap (though, in a different year) that are in the 2:49 - 2:53 region. I believe, LFA should have been in the 2:50 - 2:51 region and 2:55 is a bit slow for a car like LFA.

 

How easy we forget
http://jalopnik.com/5760248

Not to take away from the 458...but it seems Ferrari likely tuned it specifically for this track for the best results whereas the other cars did not have that luxury. Which is what makes them Ferrari

 

very much a possibility? you can pretty much say for sure.

which in some way i feel very sad how instead of making a better car, ferrari is focusing so much on making the best press

 

Yeah, I know what you mean.

Unfortunately, that is what has become one of the most important aspect of a car's legacy these days. That is what is seen everywhere.

Still, when you analyze the end result. A 2:49.9 (almost a 2:50) is something you would expect a car like 458 Italia or LFA to be able to put down considering cars back in 2008 were putting down 2:51 - 2:53 such as, Gallardo LP570-4, 430 Scuderia, Z06 etc.

That is why C&D say a 2:55 for a car like LFA is a "tame" laptime and they expected it to put down a much better lap time. They did go into great details of why they could not do better (which I explained before).

No matter which way, the article is exceptionally well-written and C&D once again proves why it is bar none the best magazine in the US. It puts that hack job of a magazine called "Motor trend" to shame.

 

 

Wow thanks. I think C&D should be commended here. Results are results and there will always be what if's. Remember they are the same ones that dropped the IS F time to the current 3:05 when they tested the revised model.

C&D also picked the LfA over the 599 in the past. I don't think some here truly understand the 458 and what the critics and communities have said and know about this car. It performs better than just about anything.

 

You are welcome.

I don't think the issue is 458's time (inspite of them having a full blown team present there to oversee the test). I don't think still anyone expected LFA to beat the 458 Italia under any circumstances with the stock S001 tires atleast as the article explains the S001 tires have "much less sticky rubber underfoot than that of the Pilot SS 458 is wearing".

It is more that LFA's time as the article points out is "tame" as 5 seconds is a HUGE difference. However, I really do appreciate C&D going to great lengths to explain that the rules were different as it was privately owned car and they could not push it to the limits like they did for all other cars.

It is considered below par as 2:50 - 2:52 is what a car like LFA typically puts down, if you look at the past 5 year laptimes.

 

Wait, so C&D suddenly isn't a hack job because they made a long comparison? They still remain a hack job mag or rag mag, just like almost every other mag. This comparison changes nothing.

What's most frustrating is of course C&D allowed Ferrari to do it's "tuning" or cheating work on the 458, while the other cars had no such treatment. That automatically makes this a hack job comparison.

C&D also clearly admitted they could not and did not drive the LFA to the limit, like they drove the 458. This point as well should invalidate the comparison.

I don't see anything to praise here.

Also Blue, yeah the 458 is a great car, assuming you like the subjective styling, and the horrendous occurrences of fires on the 458. But it's not some sort of godly car. The LFA has been faster than the 458 at almost every other track, so this comparison makes zero sense. C&D at least had the honesty to show *several* reasons why the LFA was slower than it should of been. C&D basically implies with those reasons this was an invalid comparison, they just didn't have the ***** and integrity to call the comparison unfair.

 

^^ Agreed...

Mike, my post was stating to get "real drivers" to do the testing.. LoL..

In no way was I implying that "real drivers" DO not crash...

But I am pretty sure if some pro driver(s) were asked to take each car to the same limits (for the magazine testing)..
You wouldn't get silly sounding or comparing results..

1 - Ferrari engineers there had told C&D that it is OK for them to crash the 458 Italia as long as they get the quickest lap time. Roy Mallady however was very protective of his LFA (they mention it was the first in the US and that he intends to buy a second one) and they were very conscious of the fact that it is a customer owned LFA and they could have extracted more, if they had the crash waiver like Ferrari gave.

They should have one Pro-Driver testing each car exactly the same way with same skill sets...

Folks, let us all keep in mind that Magazine Articles are mostly for pure entertainment purposes..

~ Joe Z

 

Let Scott Pruett drives the LFA FTW , ask Joez he knows Scott pretty well

 

2:49.9 to the LFA's 2:55.1 is only 2% difference over a track of this length. That'd easily be solved with pushing the car harder, despite the tires. Give the LFA those Michelin's and drive it for real- it'll be in the 2:48's.

 

I did some more digging guys- low and behold, look what I found!

This is taken from FERRARICHAT.COM, don't get more 'ferrari love' than this;

 

surprise.... not