[M3_WC]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

Ok so a cheaper, more mainstream car is out there that will out-perform the LFA....

Like has been mentioned before, if you have the money to buy something like this, there's probably a lot more in consideration than the three stats you put up there (HP/TQ/$). At that price range, you're looking at people who may put much greater stock in the exclusivity of the vehicle.

Price really has nothing to do with my argument. Zero. Thats why I said even if the LFA was $200,000, its doesn't matter.

I don't car how much any of these cars cost.

The LFA does nothing to change the supercar game. Nothing.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by M3_WC

The LFA does nothing to change the supercar game. Nothing.

Was it supposed to?

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by lyndon_h

anyone who can afford to pay 300k for a sports car can easily pay 400k. This car is for millionaires with and not for 100thousand-aires who have a great income. The extra 50k over the Zonda is nothing for people with that type of income.

Stop dodging the question. WHY would you pay it?

What does this car bring to the table over a Zonda? It's no more exclusive (because if you're going to argue that $100k is nothing, I'm going to say that the difference between selling 300 cars worldwide and selling 500 cars worldwide is also nothing), it doesn't perform any better, and it damn sure not going to turn heads any faster.

I simply do not see ANYTHING that this car brings to the table to justify the asking price. The notion that people who are this wealth have no concern for price is also bunk. If that were true they'd all just buy Veyrons and be done with it.

[M3_WC]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

Was it supposed to?

I guess you were not aware of the massive amount of internet marketing Toyota did for years, while testing this vehicle. This car was hyped beyond belief, as was the GTR. But as much as it pains me to say it, the GTR lived up to the hype.

This only backs my original argument, the LFA will just be another supercar lost in supercar history, 20 years from now. It does nothing to change the game, like the GTR. This is what will make the GTR an icon 20 years from now. Just because a car is limited production now, does not mean it will be an icon down the road. There are certain cars in history that rewritten the way things are done, I believe the GTR did this.

[ARMAN]

Wouldn't buy one or the other.

[lyndon_h]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

Stop dodging the question. WHY would you pay it?

What does this car bring to the table over a Zonda? It's no more exclusive (because if you're going to argue that $100k is nothing, I'm going to say that the difference between selling 300 cars worldwide and selling 500 cars worldwide is also nothing), it doesn't perform any better, and it damn sure not going to turn heads any faster.

I simply do not see ANYTHING that this car brings to the table to justify the asking price. The notion that people who are this wealth have no concern for price is also bunk. If that were true they'd all just buy Veyrons and be done with it.

Relax...

there are lots of different types of cars for a reason. People want different things. Why would someone want to pay extra for an F430 when a 997.2TT does the job better? One reason to purchase an F430 over a Zonda might be that the the Lexus might have better reliabilty than the AMG engine in the Zonda. Maybe the owner has always purchased Lexus's and wanted another. Maybe the owner wants prefers the sound of the V10 to a V12. I know I do. There are tons of things that people spend their money on that i can't rationalize. But my inability to see the value doesn't stop people from purchasing these items.

I never said or even alluded to rich people not caring about the price of things. What i said is that the price different of 50k is a very small percentage of 400k. Its like 12%. Thats the same percentage difference in a base 335 vs one with a premium package, sports package and navigation. If you can afford one, you can probably afford the other. The percentages mean even less when you have millions.

Now, if you want to get personal about it; I wouldn't pay for a LF-A, but i wouldn't buy a Zonda either. Personally, i'd get a 997TT and a nice SUV for the wife and put 200k in the bank. But i'm not the target market for this vehicle.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by M3_WC

There are certain cars in history that rewritten the way things are done, I believe the GTR did this.

The GT-R has changed the way things are done? I'm not sure I see that. Sure it's head-and-shoulders above anything in its price range, but I'm not sure every company in the world is going to now build front-engined 2+2 AWD rockets with such involved electronics that NASA would blush....

I'm not really sure I see the game changing a lot, but maybe that's just me.

[rubber_ducky]

I think the GT-R have a greater game-changing impact 5 years from now. When they're even more more affordable. And already tuned by the original owner to make even more power. You'll see every donkey whose parents have decent incomes wrapping them around telephone poles.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by rubber_ducky

I think the GT-R have a greater game-changing impact 5 years from now. When they're even more more affordable. And already tuned by the original owner to make even more power. You'll see every donkey whose parents have decent incomes wrapping them around telephone poles.

Yeah well I never really thought of it that way.... Maybe the GT-R is a gift to humanity in the Darwinian sense....

[M3_WC]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

The GT-R has changed the way things are done? I'm not sure I see that. Sure it's head-and-shoulders above anything in its price range, but I'm not sure every company in the world is going to now build front-engined 2+2 AWD rockets with such involved electronics that NASA would blush....

I'm not really sure I see the game changing a lot, but maybe that's just me.

Not saying everyone is going to build front engine 2+2 awd cars. That is great thing about cars. There is just so many ways to make an iconic car. Yes LFA is a nice car, but I don't see it being an icon 20 years from now.
You would have a hard time convincing others, the GTR didn't rewrite the rule book. It will go down in history.

McLaren F1 rewrote the rule book for supercars in the 90's. It didn't mean everyone was going to go out and build 240mph 3-seat monocoque chassis NA V12 sport scars. Bugatti finally made an epic classic with the Veyron. A rival to the iconic McLaren F1. But yet it is a totally different car, 2-seat very heavy turbocharged W16.

[Sylon]

The GT-R has history, the LFA doesn't. The GT-R doesnt have supercar history, but its racing heritage is unmistakable. Its able to manhandle supercars around the Nürburgring, but yet costs half as much. I'd rather spend $87k on a GT-R than spend $375k on a car that barely beat it on the track. And I sure as hell wouldn't spend $375k on a LEXUS!

I'd rather buy a Zonda, Ferrari 458, Ferrari 599, F430 Scuderia, and actually own these cars instead of slapping down $375k on a LEASE for a Lexus. Screw that.

[ragingclue]

Well it's definitely pointless to argue about whether the LFA is a success or not.... I doubt there's one person in this thread who is even part of the target market, and the market will determine whether it's a success or not.

Basically, our opinions really don't mean shit in the grand scheme of things.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by 997GT3

So basically you want to quote magazine journalists when it fits your narrative but when they question the price tag you'll discount them and fall back on what a billionaire feels its worth. Sheez.
I'm am glad you're coming around to see the car the way I do: a nice car that's a trophy for the mega wealthy.

It doesn't just fit the narrative. It falls precisely in line with simple supply vs demand economics. Do you have a problem with capitalism? And yes, what a billionaire feels about the LFA is entirely relevant to whether the car is worth what Lexus are charging. Lexus only have to convince 500 of them that the car is worth it. So far, it seems they have done exactly that, and then some.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by M3_WC

Please? Ferrari throw in the towel?

Ferrari already trumps the LFA with its "entry lever car".


Look at the 458 italia V8 specs compared to the V10 in the LFA:

Ferrari 458 - 4.5-liter V8 570 horsepower at 9,000 rpm and 398 pound-feet of torque at 6,000 rpm.

Lexus LFA - 4.8-liter V10 552 horsepower and 352 pound-feet of torque at 9000 rpm.


There is honestly nothing that the LFA does, that is special. Even for $200,000 is does nothing special.


And to the Toyota Fanboys that keep stating the LFA ring time. The ring time that is "unofficial", the ring time done by a non-production car, the ring time that has been taken down by almost all websites. That time is a joke.

How does the California trump the LFA?
On-paper specs mean very little. The 458 may rev as high, but who's to say its engine feels as responsive? Just because two cars may have the same redline doesn't mean they both get there in the same fashion.

Go ahead and try to refute the words of journalists who have driven the car. You can't. Neither can 997GT3.

Eurocar fanboys on a BMW site banging on about performance/$...oh the irony!

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

It is absolutely overpriced....absurdly overpriced. Why in the world would anyone buy this car instead of a Zonda for $50k less? This car is this expensive for no good reason whatsoever. It's not doing anything that the other $300k supercars aren't doing that makes it even remotely worth an additional 25% upcharge.

Has the Zonda been described as producing Scuderia-levels of driving involvement? I don't think it has. The LFA has been described as being better built than anything Italian. And I'm guessing that includes the Zonda. If you look at the Zonda's interior, it's an interesting mix of quality materials, but the precision is not up to the level of the LFA.

I think the fact that 500+ people have put their names down on the LFA, while far less have bought Zondas, tells us the LFA isn't overpriced.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by M3_WC

I guess you were not aware of the massive amount of internet marketing Toyota did for years, while testing this vehicle. This car was hyped beyond belief, as was the GTR. But as much as it pains me to say it, the GTR lived up to the hype.

This only backs my original argument, the LFA will just be another supercar lost in supercar history, 20 years from now. It does nothing to change the game, like the GTR. This is what will make the GTR an icon 20 years from now. Just because a car is limited production now, does not mean it will be an icon down the road. There are certain cars in history that rewritten the way things are done, I believe the GTR did this.

Please provide evidence of this hype. Links/sources please.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by Sylon

The GT-R has history, the LFA doesn't.

Welcome to Pagani, circa 1999.
Welcome to Lamborghini, circa 1962.
Welcome to the United States and Lexus, circa 1990.

The history argument is rubbish. Back in the late 90's, Pagani were offering a completely brand new car with zero history, an unmodified Mercedes lump of an engine, that was no faster than a 550 Maranello, yet it cost quite a bit more than the Ferrari.

[SantaPimp27]

I got sick of reading the thread cause guys are just arguing the same points over and over again. The consensus of the crowd seems to be "why the hell would you buy the LFA when you could buy a Gallardo, Murci, 458, 599, Zonda, ect..."

Let me ask you this, what if you already own a Murci, a 599, a Zonda, ect.. then what?

This car is not targeted at people like us. There are people out there who own 10+ exotics and need something different. They don't care about the price, they just want one. They woulda sold out even if the car cost $1 million dollars.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by SantaPimp27

Let me ask you this, what if you already own a Murci, a 599, a Zonda, ect.. then what?

Precisely. People here are talking about cars costing 1/2 as much and being built in 20x's the volume as competitors when common sense tells us such cars are not competitors. Who the hell here compares a BMW M3 to the bottom-of-the-line Mercedes? Who compares a 599/612 against a Scuderia and says the V12 Ferraris are overpriced simply because the Scuderia is faster on a circuit?

And just as there are people who like to buy a Lambo or Aston because it's not the obvious supercar choice (Ferrari), there are people will buy the Lexus for other reasons. This was posted up by Autocar, when talking to the European LFA sales manager:
"Some of the customers ordering the LFA are doing so 'just because it’s a Lexus', according to Varsani.
'People like the Lexus product and have owned our products in the past and therefore are getting an LFA as they know what to expect from the brand,' he said. 'There’s been strong interest from day one genuine interest and most people aren’t being put off by the price.'”

For example, an emerging CEO who bought Lexus products as his company came to prominence may be in a position to buy a supercar. But what if he's put off by iffy Italian build quality, iffy service, iffy reliability? Lexus stands behind its powertrain 2-3 times longer than these Italian brands.
And not everyone wants to drive around in a "Hey, look at meeeee!!!" mid-engined Italian exotic. For some, the mid-engine layout is a deal breaker.

[991GT3]

Originally Posted by Guibo

It doesn't just fit the narrative. It falls precisely in line with simple supply vs demand economics. Do you have a problem with capitalism? And yes, what a billionaire feels about the LFA is entirely relevant to whether the car is worth what Lexus are charging. Lexus only have to convince 500 of them that the car is worth it. So far, it seems they have done exactly that, and then some.

Huh?? What does the criticism of this vehicle have to with capitalism in general? This has little to do with supply and demand. Toyota is losing money on this project. They're just trying to recoup some of their sizeable investment. IMO, the car is a day late and a dollar short. The gestation was too long and the economy tanked. Like a lot of ambitious projects they didn't deliver up to expectations. It should have been a clear performance leader or a great performance value. It ended up doing neither. Is it a really nice vehicle? Yes. But that’s not too compelling at $400k.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by 997GT3

Huh?? What does the criticism of this vehicle have to with capitalism in general? This has little to do with supply and demand. Toyota is losing money on this project. They're just trying to recoup some of their sizeable investment. IMO, the car is a day late and a dollar short. The gestation was too long and the economy tanked. Like a lot of ambitious projects they didn't deliver up to expectations. It should have been a clear performance leader or a great performance value. It ended up doing neither. Is it a really nice vehicle? Yes. But that’s not too compelling at $400k.

It has everything to do with supply and demand, which supports the notion that something is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. You are saying the car is not worth $400k, Lexus's asking price for this car. Well, if Lexus are only supplying 500 @ $400k a pop, and they sell (and then some), then doesn't that refute your notion that the car isn't worth $400k? Your definition of "worth" clearly is in contradiction to free-market concepts of supply and demand. But we could predict as much, because your definition hinges on performance/$ when the simple fact is, not everyone looking at a $400k car is going to be taking it to the track or dragstrip. Hell, there are entire car markets in the $400k segment that don't give a rat's ass about 1/4 mile or laptimes. So long as performance is sufficient, people in this segment don't care if Car A is faster by 0.xyz seconds than Car B on Track 020b.
The implication you're also making is that Lexus are somehow being greedy in trying to recoup some development costs on the project. Based on the relatively paltry revenue raised by this project, do you honestly think they're being greedy?

[M3_WC]

Originally Posted by Guibo

How does the California trump the LFA?
On-paper specs mean very little. The 458 may rev as high, but who's to say its engine feels as responsive? Just because two cars may have the same redline doesn't mean they both get there in the same fashion.

Go ahead and try to refute the words of journalists who have driven the car. You can't. Neither can 997GT3.

Eurocar fanboys on a BMW site banging on about performance/$...oh the irony!

Not talking about the California.

Simply put the 458 italia, produces more hp and tq, with 2 less cylinders and less displacement. Just the facts. It happens to out accelerate the LFA too.

I am not refuting any words of journalists. LFA is a great car. If you want to watch a couple reviews of the 458, I will point you to them. Both cars are fantastic.

Simply put the LFA is not a game changer.

Originally Posted by Guibo

Please provide evidence of this hype. Links/sources please.

Guess you haven't read publications or been on internet the last few years.

You think this car just came out of no where. This car has been hyped for a long time.

Originally Posted by SantaPimp27

I got sick of reading the thread cause guys are just arguing the same points over and over again. The consensus of the crowd seems to be "why the hell would you buy the LFA when you could buy a Gallardo, Murci, 458, 599, Zonda, ect..."

Let me ask you this, what if you already own a Murci, a 599, a Zonda, ect.. then what?

This car is not targeted at people like us. There are people out there who own 10+ exotics and need something different. They don't care about the price, they just want one. They woulda sold out even if the car cost $1 million dollars.

Agree, about who is purchasing the LFA. They already have every car possible. If Toyota wants to sell them for $400k and have customers, more power to them.