I first heard this claim a few years ago on the Top Gear program from the BBC. Since then I keep hearing it whenever I hear the Lexus LFA discussed.

From [this February 2012 article](http://www.topspeed.com/cars/lexus/2011-lexus-lf-a-ar80592.html):

> 
> This necessitated the need for a digital rev counter, since an
>  analogue system simply could not keep pace with the engine’s
>  incredible ability to gain and lose revolutions.
> 
> 
> 

Given the almost exact wording of all of these quotes is the same (see [this google search](https://www.google.com.au/search?q=lfa%20digital%20speedometer&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla%3aen-US%3aofficial&client=firefox-a#q=%22since%20an%20analogue%20system%20simply%20could%20not%20keep%22&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=2Fa&rls=org.mozilla%3aen-US%3aofficial&prmd=imvns&filter=0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=22a3c0ce448c25ca&biw=1920&bih=923)), my guess is that this comes from a Lexus press release; although I cannot find it myself.

To me, this sounds like marketing fluff so that you can laugh at all the poor people who can only afford a BMW M3; but maybe not. From the same article:

> 
> So successful was this low-friction programme that the engine can rev
>  from idle to its 9,000rpm redline in just six-tenths of a second
> 
> 
> 

But is it possible that an analogue gauge can be too slow? Given that a lot of open-wheel racers can achieve massive acceleration with analogue gauges (although perhaps not in 6/10th of a second, but certainly sub-1.5 seconds), I don't see why the LFA would "require" a digital meter (although it is un-deniably cool).