Talk:Lexus LFA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Links[edit]

couple official source materials:

Dabbaman (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LFA[edit]

Technically the LF-A and LFA are separate vehicles, one is a concept the other a road going vehicle. do they deserve separate sections? Dabbaman (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially the same vehicles it's just that the LFA has finally arrived a production stage. We need a new picture now. Blay.tenshi (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All concept LF-A stuff is moved now to the development section, and a new pic added, the overview section is all about the actual production model. MTan355 (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, nice work. Dabbaman (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering what the letters in the name break down into. Does the A have something to do with the Supra (A-chassis, JZA80)? Space Turbo (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LFA: Lexus Fuji Apex. Question solved.

AWD/FWD/RWD?[edit]

It says nowhere if the LFA is AWD, FWD, or RWD. According to supercars.net, however, the LFA is a RWD with Torsen Limited Slip Differential, Traction Control and Stability Control (VSC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alguemimportante (talk • contribs) 02:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LFA lap time at the Nürburgring Nordschleife[edit]

Offhand remark by Toyota employee, though at the time the production model was announced, does not mention the specifications of the car; i.e. whether it was a production model, race prototype. Not much about anything, really and more specifically does not meet the wiki standard for verifibility. One user thinks the context of production means he can INTERPRET the words of the guy to mean he is talking about the production model (whihc by the way is not even in production yet). Users here: Talk:Nürburgring lap times have noted the unbelievable lap time of "less than 7:20" is exactly the same as the non-production racecar prototype "LFA".
Discuss.
03:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How is "less than 7:20", being a range of time, exactly the same as anything? The LF-A (with a hyphen) race car, which lapped the Nordschleife in 7:13 [1], was only minimally modified from the production trim just to meet the regulations of the Le Mans 24-hour endurance race, since Lexus's goal of the race entry, unlike any other participants, was not to win, but to gather test data to better the development of the production car [2], which means that it would've been meaningless for Lexus to make the LF-A race car better than the production LFA in any significant way. While the race car does have a more aggressive aero package that helps its cornering speed, it also loses speed in the straight line as a result. Over the course these two factors even out, as demonstrated by the Ferrari Enzo sharing a nearly identical lap time with its track-only, aero-enhanced twin, the Maserati MC12. So just because you don't believe the lap time it doesn't mean the lap time is objectively "unbelievable". Read the quote again. The racetrack connection is one reason why the LFA is revealed to the world's press at the Nurburgring in Germany, where Tanahashi admits reluctantly that it has lapped in "better than 7 minutes 20 seconds". The it of the sentence, according to English grammar, is representing the subject of the sentence, the LFA, which, without a hyphen, refers to the production car, as is the whole subject of the InsideLine article. -- Blhsing (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put simply there is zero confirmation of whether he was talking about the race spec car with huge rear wing for which the time tallies well or indeed if he was speaking about the road car and whether or not it was in road legal trim. Its an offhand remark, nothing more. --LiamE (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entire InsideLine article is about the production car. Period. Reread the quote above and replace the pronoun it with the subject it is representing and you get an even clearer message: The racetrack connection is one reason why the LFA is revealed to the world's press at the Nurburgring in Germany, where Tanahashi admits reluctantly that the LFA has lapped in "better than 7 minutes 20 seconds". What's next? That the car creator himself is a lousy source? Or that InsideLine is a bogus publication? -- Blhsing (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to take a step back from this. The article might be about bananas for all I care. In spoken language you cant diffentiate easily between the LFA and the LF-A and even if it was specific to the LFA there is no mention of what trim it was in. As I have seen a number of articles of journalists having a go in a race specced LFA that is also a possiblilty as to what the engineer was talking about. So with 3 distinct possibilties and no clarification how can you honestly say the engineer was talking about a LFA in road trim? I'm affraid you are reading between the lines and seeing what you want to see. For the record given the race specced car time of 7-13 or 14 or whatever it was it is very unlikely that a road trim car would get with 10 seconds of it. --LiamE (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The quote specifically says the chief engineer talks about the LFA's lap time at the European debut of the production car. The racetrack connection is one reason why the LFA is revealed to the world's press at the Nurburgring in Germany, where Tanahashi admits reluctantly that it has lapped in "better than 7 minutes 20 seconds". It would just be your own bias if you insist on twisting this clear message into different meanings. -- Blhsing (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the road car had done sub 7-20 it would be on a proper press release and made known to everyone and his mother with great fanfare. I didnt realise the pronoun it can only refer to LFA production cars in road trim these days. My mistake. --LiamE (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you are in the Toyota management to make such decisions as to when to issue what press releases? Unlike the many brass and loud competitors, Toyota has a very conservative corporate culture. They took their time on the track to perfect the car, not to brag about numbers. Of course, that's too bad for us fans because fans like to brag about numbers, but that doesn't make the chief engineer's words any less true. And yes, the it in the quote does clearly refer to the subject of the sentence and of the article, the production car in road trim that made its debut in Germany on that day. -- Blhsing (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just got a personal e-mail response to my inquiry regarding this particular matter from Scott Brownlee, the PR head of Lexus Europe, who explains to me that, although he was not aware of the lap time mentioned by the chief engineer, it is not in Lexus's interest to publish the LFA's lap time after witnessing the "rather unseemly public slating match a while back which did neither brand any favours" between Nissan and Porsche. That explains why the chief engineer was described as being reluctant to mention the lap time in the InsideLine article. -- Blhsing (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and the "only minimally modified" version you mention was a full blown race conversion. Heres some pictures of it in the flesh. Based on the date of that car and driver article I strongly suspect the "sub 7-20" was attributed to that car. --LiamE (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The roll cage was installed per safety rules of the race. It actually makes the race car heavier than the production car (the race car weighs 3,300lbs [3] versus the production car's 3,263lbs [4]). The rest of the race car interior does not have the cosmetic decorations of the production car. Obvious enough. -- Blhsing (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And they just happened to lose all the sound deadening, the passenger seat, the dash, the airbags, the parking brake etc etc. Of course I forgot all production car times are set with stripped out cars. Doesnt change anything no siree. I'm sure they put all those bit in the boot for the timed lap. My mistake again. --LiamE (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the result is a race car heavier than the production car. -- Blhsing (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And as a further result its times cant be taken for the production car. For heaven sake it loks like the fuel tank is where the passenger seat was. --LiamE (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the LF-A race car's lap time is relevant to that of the production LFA or not, it has no bearing on the truthfulness of the production LFA's lap time mentioned by the LFA chief engineer. -- Blhsing (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This pic of the car looks suspiciously like slicks to me too. --LiamE (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job finding a picture with tires fully in shadow. Here's a picture where tires are actually seen under light [5]. -- Blhsing (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didnt realise tyres on cars couldnt be changed. My mistake AGAIN. And I thought the word "dry" being clearly written on the slick tyres might suggest it had run on er slicks at some stage. Of course your explanation fully covers the fact that the engineer was difinatively talking about the production on road tyres. And they deffo took off those extra aero bits too I'm sure. --LiamE (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't notice the other picture with a close-up shot at the tire as you linked to the shot of the car's rear instead. Now that you mentioned the tire picture, look at the bottom right of the tire and you can clearly see that the tire is grooved and not slick. -- Blhsing (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol as IF they are going to let the press guys tool around on race slicks...can you say immediate crash? i don't think buddy realizes even how much real race tires help a car. it is THE single biggest factor in handling. CJ DUB (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the track is dry then how do slicks cause immediate crash? If anything slicks would help avoid crash. And you know the LF-A ran the endurance race on slicks because? -- Blhsing (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.....because the link you helpfully provided above from Toyota themselves says it was weaing Bridgestone racing tyres maybe? --LiamE (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when are racing tires automatically slicks? -- Blhsing (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
..because slicks are not for a bunch of press clowns tooling around a course; in fact they'd be dangerous when not heated properly. Learn sum CJ DUB (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More contact surface on a smooth track = more traction = better control. I don't see the point in arguing with you over this off-topic subject. Why don't you try to address my original point above by proving that either InsideLine or the chief engineer was lying? -- Blhsing (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man..hashahah...you are so wrong. The burden of PROOF is on YOU to show that citation is VERIFIABLE in accordance with wikipedia standards. Maybe you want to invent a toyotapedia? This site is not for interpretation of citations Get it through your head CJ DUB (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha what? All that's included in the LFA's Wiki page is the fact that the chief engineer has mentioned the lap time to the media. It's included because both InsideLine and the car creator himself are considered reliable sources. If you can't even agree with that, I don't see why you aren't picking on a million other citations quoting from other publications' articles. -- Blhsing (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen! Please sort out your differences on this talk page before EITHER of you change the article page again. This constant flip-flopping between your two interpretations of a rather minor point is annoying to the rest of us and gets in the way of other changes. Or if you like, I will call in an administrator who will probably block both of you for a short time. I don't care which of you win the discussion - but keep it on the talk page until resolved.  Stepho  (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the edit warring is getting silly. Keep it on here till there is a resolution. Blhsing please state clearly and concisely how you can be SURE the engineer was talking about a production LFA when the same engineer is known to have been testing a race prepped LFA just prior to the remark and that race prepped cars time agrees with the sub 7-20 time he quoted. Are we really to believe that the production car is only a few seconds slower per lap that the stripped out race car with significant aero mods, racing tyres, different brakes and so on? I concede it is possible but it is also unlikey. That would put it about as fast as a Gumpert Apollo which is both significantly lighter and significantly more powerful. Wiki policy dictates that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. A sub 7-20 lap for a production car is an exceptional claim, an of hand remark from an engineer who might have been talking about something else is not an exceptional source. --LiamE (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I wouldn't even go that far. Wiki citations simply must be verifiable, not interpretatations, and cannot come from someone who would be doing self promotion (such as a Toyota employee talking up a toyota car). As per WP:F this is basically a garbage reference; and the user Blhsing or whatever is interpreting to suit his own desire for the car to be the fastest on the planet. He just doesn't get that toyota can't be their own reference for something like that. He also called be a "pushrod fanboi" whatever that means. CJ DUB (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole lap time section is written like an ad or a fan's web page. Even if the information is accurate and/or relevant (?), this whole section needs a rewrite so it stops reading like a fanboy showing off his toy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.159.186 (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Test Driver Killed[edit]

Probably notable information: Lexus LF-A test driver killed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.104.207 (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

Can someone explain to me what the difference is (if any) between a powerslide and a 'power oversteer' (the latter of which I have read here for the forst time?)--Cancun771 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Power oversteer is when so much power is applied to the rear tyres that the tyre can not supply enough grip any more (similar to spinning the rear tyres when the vehicle is stationary). Since the rear tyres no longer provide grip, the rear of the vehicle is free to drift in any direction. If the car is going a round a bend, the rear will drift further out around the corner. If the driver is talented enough, he can control the amount of slip at the rear (the loss of grip can be graduated by applying slight less or slightly more power) so that effectively he can control how far the rear turns. A power slide is just a power oversteer done at a large angle for a few seconds. Practically all race car drivers will use mild power oversteer to control the car in long, fast corners. But power slides are slow (rear tyres are not pushing the car), so they are only for show or for emergency use only.  Stepho  (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LFA acronym[edit]

So if anybody didn't know or didn't read one of the discussions above, LFA stands for Lexus Fuji Apex. I was wondering if we should note that in the article? Myominane (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was stated but no reference or proof was provide. They could equally well have said "Little Funny Automobile".  Stepho  talk  01:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, nice one. Googling "Lexus Fuji Apex", I was wondering what constituted an 'official' source I could've used as a ref. Here is a source from supercars.net: [6] which is probably not official enough haha. Luckily, I also have this article from Lexus: [7] that states LFA stands for "Lexus Fuji Apex" in the first sentence! I think this is enough proof to go ahead and add it in the article. If someone could do it for me, that would be nice, but I wouldn't mind doing it myself if I could get the go ahead from the editors that watch this page. Myominane (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure of the supercar reference either. But the lexus.com reference is right from the horse's mouth, so yeah, go for it.  Stepho  talk  01:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this interview with Chief Engineer Tanahashi he states it is all nonsense and doesn't stand for anything. The above sounds like a backronym invented by the the Lexus.com marketing department. -Oosh (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tires properly[edit]

Slicks, by definition, are "a type of tire that has no tread or a smooth tread". Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tires have a wet-styled inner tread and semi-slick styled outer tread, they are neither "slick" nor "semi-slick". The multi-surface Michelin Pilot Sport Cups do not fall into this category and cannot be defined as "slick", "semi-slick" or "super-slick" without redefining the words. Michelin markets the tire as a "Streetable Track & Competition radial", which "uses racing-inspired tread pattern and compound to deliver powerful wet and dry performance" and "are not intended to be driven in near-freezing temperatures, through snow or on ice". Hope this clears things up. Picture for reference - http://imgur.com/IFaYKYg Philonetic (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in contention is "The LFA Nurburgring Package is the only car ever to have lapped Nurburgring in less than 7:20 without racing compound super-slick competition tires such as Michelin Pilot Cup tires or Pirelli P Zero Corsa tires." It explicitly says that it was not using slicks. The sentence agrees with you, so it makes no sense to remove that sentence.  Stepho  talk  21:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to maintain consistency across articles. To be unbiased and truthful, this is a necessary edit. Please have a look at the comparison and make an honest judgement - http://imgur.com/IFaYKYg Philonetic (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of us is reading that sentence wrong. The sentence says that it did not use slicks. And I agree that that the tyres are not slicks. Since we are all agreed that the tyres are not slicks, why are you trying to delete that sentence? In case I'm missing something, could you point out the part that says slicks were used?  Stepho  talk  22:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the statement in question, in reference to the bias against tires utilized by other recorded vehicles on the Ring. "The LFA Nurburgring Package is the only car ever to have lapped Nurburgring in less than 7:20 without racing compound super-slick competition tires such as Michelin Pilot Cup tires or Pirelli P Zero Corsa tires". In endeavoring to maintain a truthful and unbiased article, this statement should be removed, no? Philonetic (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to explain your reasoning a bit further. Do you mean:
The sentence explicitly says it was not using slicks or semi slicks (giving examples of semi slick tyres used by other cars). The images show tyres that look semi-slick to me. I am having trouble seeing which part of the sentence is untruthful or biased. Possibly the example tyres could be deleted as they are only tangential to the point the sentence is making and complicate the grammar (ie delete everything from 'such as' onwards).  Stepho  talk  23:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not clarifying, it's a slow day. My meaning is that the Michelin Pilot Sport Cup and Pirelli P Zero Corsa are not slick or semi-slick. I'm just trying to conform to brand standards as at least Michelin does not market their tire as such. The Corsa may very well be semi-slick as it does not have a multi-tread surface, though the Pilot Sport Cup being neither slick nor semi-slick invalidates the statement that the LFA NP is the only car to have lapped the Ring in less than 7:20 without "racing compound super-slick competition tires". Just trying to have fair use of brand descriptions. The Pirelli P Zero Corsa is irrelevant considering that there is no vehicle with a better time than the LFA NP in the road-legal production category that equips them. Philonetic (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. The article already says that Bridgestone Potenza RE070 street tyres were used and that they were not slicks. The references do not even mention the Michelin or Pirelli tyres at all. So I propose that the sentence gets cut down to "The LFA Nurburgring Package is the only car ever to have lapped Nurburgring in less than 7:20 without racing compound super-slick competition tires". This is what is supported by the references and avoids the problem of whether those other tyres are slick, semi slicks or not.  Stepho  talk  01:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether Bridgestone Potenza RE070 are or aren't slicks. The removed comment claims that Michelin Pilot Sport Cups are super-slick when they cannot be categorized as semi-slick, slick or super-slick. The statement that "The LFA Nurburgring Package is the only car ever to have lapped Nurburgring in less than 7:20 without racing compound super-slick competition tires" is incorrect in stating that the Michelin Pilot Sport Cups are slicks of any type. With this in mind, the Lexus LFA NP is in fact not the only production vehicle to have lapped Nurburgring in less than 7:20 without slicks, semi-slicks or super-slicks. When comparing - http://imgur.com/IFaYKYg - it is clear that the Michelin Pilot Sport Cups cannot be defined as slick, super-slick or semi-slick. Both the Pilot Sport Cups and Potenza RE070 are multi-tread streetable competition tires with wet-styled inner tread and a semi-slick outer tread. If one is to say that the Michelin Pilot Sport Cup is a slick, semi-slick or super-slick, then one must also concede that the same is true for the Bridgestone Potenza RE070, though neither manufacturer markets the tire as being a "slick" of any sort. Philonetic (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify further, your real complaint is about the word "only", i.e. you think other cars have done similar lap times with street tyres?  Stepho  talk  02:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gumpert Apollo Sport and Dodge Viper ACR both employ Michelin Pilot Sport Cups and have lap times less than 7:20. As the Michelin Pilot Sport Cup is a multi-tread radial and not a semi-slick, slick or super-slick, the statement of the Lexus LFA being the only car to have lapped Nurburgring in less than 7:20 without racing compound super-slick tires is a fallacy, it's biased and untrue to the policies of WP and "brand" advocation. Philonetic (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think understand you now. You are saying that other cars have also complete laps in under 7:20 minutes with street tyres. Looking at List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times#Production, street-legal vehicles, I would have to agree with you. So how about "The LFA Nurburgring Package is one of the few cars to have lapped Nurburgring in less than 7:20 using street tires instead of racing compound super-slick competition tires."  Stepho  talk  23:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, you can add that it's the only AWD vehicle to do so as well if I'm not mistaken. Philonetic (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too many mentions of Top Gear[edit]

Is there any reason why Top Gear (with Hammond and Clarkson) gets multiple long mentions of its lavish praise? The article has:

  • in 'Television' a paragraph with the opinions of Hammond and Clarkson,
  • in 'Top Gear: Greatest 5 supercars of 2010' a paragraph with the opinion of The Stig,
  • in 'Jeremy Clarkson's Lexus LFA Sunday Times Review' a long winded amount of praise from Clarkson,
  • in the incredibly long titled section 'Jeremy Clarkson: "the best car I have ever driven" - Top Gear US Road Trip with Viper SRT-10 vs Lexus LFA vs Aston Martin Vanquish' another paragraph from Hammond and Clarkson,
  • in 'Subscriber's poll of top 50 greatest cars' a short paragraph saying it came 10th but the editors didn't really like it,
  • in 'Awards'
    • LFA chief engineer Haruhiko Tanahashi is named one of 'Men of the year'
    • the car is in the list of 'Sexiest supercars of all time' (but not the top)
    • the car is in the list of '5 greatest supercars of the year' (but not the top)

A few mentions is okay but this is really out of proportion to the qualifications of Hammond and Clarkson (although the Stig is easily qualified) and is just riding on the back of the popularity of the TV show rather than their qualifications.  Stepho  talk  05:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lexus LFA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Lexus LFA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lexus LFA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lexus LFA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Lexus LFA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Lexus LFA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Lexus LFA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sales[edit]

Heated Hater@ has added a paragraph to the lede (actually, he added it under the table of contents) that says "In 2019 Lexus is still trying to sell unsold LFA cars even though the car's production had ended 8 years ago now". I'm not disputing that the LFA is still available for sale. But I am disputing the wording that makes it seem like Toyota is desperately trying to sell a slow shifting lemon. The 2019 reference given is https://carbuzz.com/news/4-lexus-lfa-supercars-are-still-for-sale-in-america . But that reference also points to a 2017 article that explains how some dealers have deliberately held onto some of them in anticipation of much increased values. See https://carbuzz.com/news/there-are-still-12-brand-new-unsold-lexus-lfas-left-in-the-us . So, rather than dealers desperately trying to sell them, we have dealers hoarding them.  Stepho  talk  13:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sesameball[edit]

I just revert a pile of changes by Sesameball@. However, some of the changes may have merit. Do you have supporting evidence for all LFA's being for the 2012 model year?  Stepho  talk  12:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure to ping correctly. Also, please specify precisely why you thought all my edits were worthy of a mass revert. As it stands, the lead currently contains several sections that aren't even in the main article. Part of the lead (which is included in the parts that aren't even in the main article) even straddles the table of contents! Those changes were not what I consider at all controversial. If you feel like you own this article, then fine, I won't touch it anymore - that's not worth wasting my time over. --SesameballTalk 20:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's twice this week I've been accused of ownership. Must be the latest knee-jerk response by snowflakes when they get reverted - along with with the take my bat and ball and go home attitude. I revert when something looks not particularly helpful but I also leave the majority of edits alone (ie I play well with others). I'm also quite happy to discuss the differences. One or both of us may learn something and the article will then be adjusted accordingly. If I was trying to own the article then I wouldn't have opened this discussion. As you can see in the model year section below, I don't have a problem listening to what others say. Anyway, enough ranting by me - I'm happy to hear more about your edits.  Stepho  talk  01:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion - perhaps contributors will react better when they don't get mass reverted with no explanation and get called snowflakes. I won't waste time on this, enjoy yourself. --SesameballTalk 07:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All 500 LFAs are MY2012[edit]

Apparently it is disputed that all 500 LFAs were officially designated MY2012 by TMC (e.g., @Stepho-wrs:); figured I'd make a separate section on this. It is the truth that all LFAs are MY2012; anyone who has access to TMC's VIN database can verify this. Even the very first LFAs that rolled off the line in 2010 are designated MY2012. I first learned of the designation from an LFA information kit sent to owners that was posted online, but I've just scoured google and cannot find any references to this (may have been an forum post, in any case). Unfortunately, this is one of those truths that may fall victim to the need for "verifiable fact" especially with all the circular references that now exist 10 years on. But it remains that no one will ever be able to prove that a MY2011 Lexus LFA exists. --SesameballTalk 21:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the TMC VIN database but I bounced around the web for a bit. Nobody explicitly says that they are all 2012 model years but neither can I find anything that says 2011 model years existed (except for some Australian sites but we equate calendar years and model years, so that's different). In particular, http://lfa-registry.com/registry.php lists many VINs and all the N.American VINs are indeed model year 2012. Other markets don't record the model year in the VIN. So I'm quite happy to back down on that one.  Stepho  talk  01:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you found out where much of the data on that website came from (hint: it's from a snowflake), you'd dismiss it as you dismissed my edits. So again, let's just say verifiable fact over truth and leave it at that. --SesameballTalk 07:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with other vehicles and brands.[edit]

It's seems some sections of this page are irrelevant because of comparing the LFA with its competition. Also seems like an advertisement page, (WP isn't for that right?). Similar page's like these (e.g Nissan GT-R) faced the same situation and editors agreed to remove comparison test's information and other comparable informations. So I'm requesting to remove all these unnecessary informations from this page. Game for Game (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. You have done a good job.  Stepho  talk  10:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Game for Game (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LFA or LF-A?[edit]

This is a pretty straightforward question, but I've seen it both ways where LF-A has a hyphen and where LFA does not. Does the acronym mean anything to where the A needs to be separated, or should I just continue to use LFA without the hyphen? Invis356 (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LF-A is the concept car, LFA is the production car. According to https://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/75years/data/automotive_business/products_technology/vehicle_lineage_chart/origin/index.html the A stands for Apex.  Stepho  talk  17:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Successor?[edit]

Hope you guys know about the new LFA successor concept car, made it's debut at Goodwood this year, I was wondering why there is nothing about it in this article. If you haven't heard about it, just take a look at this–this XT RedZone (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Looks like a cross between the original Toyota 2000GT (side profile) and a Bugatti (around the doors and rear wheel arches) but too many gaping holes and cutaways for my rather old-style taste. At https://www.lexus.com/concept/electrified-future , Lexus are calling it the Lexus Electrified Sport and say that is is the spiritual successor of the LFA. But beware that this is a concept car that may or may not become a product car and may or may not be known as the LFA (probably not).  Stepho  talk  10:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, that's why I didn't add it to the article straight away, I need your help, should we add this? XT RedZone (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My choice would be to put a single sentence at the end of the intro saying that Lexus is calling the Lexus Electrified Sport concept car (with link) as the spiritiual successor to the LFA. And to provide both of the above references. The link can be a redirect to Lexus LF or similar where there will be a new section for the Electrified Sport.  Stepho  talk  23:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, but I cannot see anything on the internet, regarding the connection between this concept and Lexus LF, all I can see is that spiritual successor connection between this and LFA. Also, I think a separate article would also be suitable (eg: Lexus 2054), but the problem is the lack of information about this concept car, but if they keep updating it, it won't be a problem. I would like to hear your thoughts about this. XT RedZone (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"or similar". The LF page is a list of Lexus concept cars. I can't think of another article with Lexus concept cars but if there's another one then I'm happy to use that instead. Small pages tend to get blown away by deletionists but aggregate pages tend to survive. But like I said, I'm not too fussed about it.  Stepho  talk  05:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, as you said, let's add something like "LFA's spiritual successor is the new Electrified Sports concept" to the lede of this article, but before it, we should add information under a subtitle of this concept car in the LF article. I'll wait for your confirmation. XT RedZone (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lexus_LFA&oldid=1207444712"