Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

lfa-4-kopia-625x416.jpg

http://www.caradvice.com.au/71490/hiromu-n...-near-the-ring/

In a horrible and tragic twist of fate, the two-tone Lexus LFA Nurburgring Edition featured on CarAdvice yesterday has been involved in a fatal collision on roads outside the famous circuit, killing Toyota's chief test driver, 67-year-old Hiromu Naruse.

According to reports, the Lexus LFA driven by Naruse-san veered into oncoming traffic and had a head-on collision with two other test drivers in a BMW who are now in a critical condition.

Several sources have indicated that all occupants in both cars were wearing helmets at the time of the accident which underlines the severity of the crash.

Naruse-san had been with the Toyota Motor Corporation since 1963 and most recently had been chief of the Gazoo Racing teams which fielded the Lexus LFA entries in the Nurburgring 24-hour race.

Labelled the "Godfather of the LFA", Naruse-san was regarded as one of the most respected test drivers in Japan and is believed to have clocked more time on the Ring than any other Japanese driver.

Edited by PM-R33

More pics....

http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-news/supe...00624-z0e6.html

Another reason to buy a Euro over Jap, No one can beat them in passenger safety. The LFA was way way over on the wrong side of the road.

It is sad to hear :) I have to wonder why he died though and the people in the BMW did? Considering both occupants of the LF A were wearing helmets etc, it is a bit worrying.

In the quest for speed, sacrifices are made to weight reduction, most of the sacrifices reduce the strength and crumple zone of super cars. The Italians and Germans have done it right. By the looks of this car Toyota has forgotten about safety to build a stupidly quick car. In the end that is what you have to expect can happen when travelling high speeds in any car. A helmet can improve the chance of survival, but it doesn't mean you can survive big crashes...

In the quest for speed, sacrifices are made to weight reduction, most of the sacrifices reduce the strength and crumple zone of super cars. The Italians and Germans have done it right. By the looks of this car Toyota has forgotten about safety to build a stupidly quick car. In the end that is what you have to expect can happen when travelling high speeds in any car. A helmet can improve the chance of survival, but it doesn't mean you can survive big crashes...

Hmmmm.... By the looks of the car you can judge whether Toyota have made a safe car or not? BAHAHAHAHAhhahahahahahhaha. :)

More pics....

http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-news/supe...00624-z0e6.html

Another reason to buy a Euro over Jap, No one can beat them in passenger safety. The LFA was way way over on the wrong side of the road.

In the quest for speed, sacrifices are made to weight reduction, most of the sacrifices reduce the strength and crumple zone of super cars. The Italians and Germans have done it right. By the looks of this car Toyota has forgotten about safety to build a stupidly quick car. In the end that is what you have to expect can happen when travelling high speeds in any car. A helmet can improve the chance of survival, but it doesn't mean you can survive big crashes...

As exiting as it is for me to have someone on the forum who is awsum enough to apparently have a Ferrari, let me just say:

A) If you have such an issue with Nissans and Japanese cars in general, join a Ferrari Forum

B) Find me evidence of a Ferrari with a 5 star safety rating....

Interestingly, NCAP 2009 top five does have a Euro car on top

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf...A2576BA000EDCD8

Followed by 2 Japanese cars (2+3), then a Korean (4), with another Japanese and 2 Euros coming in equal 5th.. so of the 7 cars in the top 5, 3 are Japanese, 3 are European, and one is korean, making it 4 Asian cars all up... NO Italians, 1 German....

Further to that, suggesting that saving weight reduces crumple zones and strength... Crumple Zones are a designed weak spot, which is in actual fact a direct opposite to strenght.

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


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • @Haggerty you still haven't answered my question.  Many things you are saying do not make sense for someone who can tune, yet I would not expect someone who cannot tune to be playing with the things in the ECU that you are.  This process would be a lot quicker to figure out if we can remove user error from the equation. 
    • If as it's stalling, the fuel pressure rises, it's saying there's less vacuum in the intake manifold. This is pretty typical of an engine that is slowing down.   While typically is agree it sounds fuel related, it really sounds fuel/air mixture related. Since the whole system has been refurbished, including injectors, pump, etc, it's likely we've altered how well the system is delivering fuel. If someone before you has messed with the IACV because it needed fiddling with as the fuel system was dieing out, we need to readjust it back. Getting things back to factory spec everywhere, is what's going to help the entire system. So if it idles at 400rpm with no IACV, that needs raising. Getting factory air flow back to normal will help us get everything back in spec, and likely help chase down any other issues. Back on IACV, if the base idle (no IACV plugged in) is too far out, it's a lot harder for the ECU to control idle. The IACV duty cycle causes non linear variations in reality. When I've tuned the idle valves in the past, you need to keep it in a relatively narrow window on aftermarket ecus to stop them doing wild dances. It also means if your base idle is too low, the valve needs to open too much, and then the smallest % change ends up being a huge variation.
    • I guess one thing that might be wrong is the manifold pressure.  It is a constant -5.9 and never moves even under 100% throttle and load.  I would expect it to atleast go to 0 correct?  It's doing this with the OEM MAP as well as the ECU vacuum sensor. When trying to tune the base map under load the crosshairs only climb vertically with RPM, but always in the -5.9 column.
    • AHHHH gotchaa, I'll do that once I am home again. I tried doing the harness with the multimeter but it seems the car needed a jump, there was no power when it was in the "ON" position. Not sure if I should use car battery jump starter or if its because the stuff that has been disconnect the car just does send power.
    • As far as I can tell I have everything properly set in the Haltech software for engine size, injector data, all sensors seem to be reporting proper numbers.  If I change any injector details it doesnt run right.    Changing the base map is having the biggest change in response, im not sure how people are saying it doesnt really matter.  I'm guessing under normal conditions the ECU is able to self adjust and keep everything smooth.   Right now my best performance is happening by lowering the base map just enough to where the ECU us doing short term cut of about 45% to reach the target Lambda of 14.7.  That way when I start putting load on it still has high enough fuel map to not be so lean.  After 2500 rpm I raised the base map to what would be really rich at no load, but still helps with the lean spots on load.  I figure I don't have much reason to be above 2500rpm with no load.  When watching other videos it seems their target is reached much faster than mine.  Mine takes forever to adjust and reach the target. My next few days will be spent making sure timing is good, it was running fine before doing the ECU and DBW swap, but want to verify.  I'll also probably swap in the new injectors I bought as well as a walbro 255 pump.  
×
×
  • Create New...