Lexus LFA by Tamiya soon !!!

[512BB]

Originally Posted by mattbacon

I guess you've not been reading the GT-R reviews, then... I've got no brief for the GT-R - I think it's ugly. But the numbers speak for themselves...

It's just under £60 K for 500+ BHP and 0-60 in significantly sub 4 seconds. You have to get a £105K GT3RS to get a 911 that's even close, £108K for a slightly slower R8 V10, and £170K of DBS isn't as fast, never mind the Vantage. Not only that, but the GT-R is a functional four seater (as long as the back two are teenagers at most!) with room for two bags of golf clubs in the boot - try that in a GT3RS.

I quite agree with you about the LFA - if ONLY it was as competitive (read "trumps") vs the European alternatives as the GT-R is, it might be worth paying £300K for. However, when you can get a 599 GTO for the same price, forget it.

But don't lump the GT-R in the same bracket - it'll match any of your big boys at twice the price, and leave anything else that costs £60K in the dust...

;-P

bestest,
M.

I agree with your view of the GTR! In my place. the GTR sells less than half the price of 911 and DBR, but they had similar performance (I believe it is even faster). So. it is a matter of reputation or value for money! I have also learned that the coming new GTR will deliver 550bhp, that means it will be out-perform the 911 turbo again!

[star21]

Even though its still a prototype and its future is in question, I wouldn't mind a scale model of the FT86 concept if Toyota were trying to push the issue on me.

[F1Tommy]

Tamiya will have a large domestic market for this car kit. Thats what they look for. What an ugly car. Atleast it sounds alot better than the GT-R wich sounds like a turbo charged lawn mower.

[willimo]

Oh, I am positive we'll get an FT86. Probably from Aoshima or Fujimi, though, as they tend to do models of smaller, more fun, more accessible cars. Since it's the successor of the AE86 (at least spiritually), there will probably be a huge market for the 1:1, and I am sure also for the 1:24. Everyone will want one stock, one mild tuner, and four mega tuned up. Let's just hope we get a motor so we can stick aftermarket parts all in there, too!!

[xpeed]

Originally Posted by indy_231

Such an ugly car.

In reality, who is going to pay £300 + K for a Toyota?


The brand just isn't "special enough"


Just think what your other options would be for the same price.

Well, since you put it that way, all LFAs are already spoken for and sold.

Toyota will sell the FT-86 in the states, but it will be sold as a Scion. =O

[F1Tommy]

[quote=xpeed;6828392]Well, since you put it that way, all LFAs are already spoken for and sold.

So what. I bet they don't keep their value half as good as a limited production Ferrari. To many great cars in this price range for an overpriced Toyota to do very well.

[BVC500]

yeah, all the Enzos were spoken for prior to sale, and go for twice the asking price now!

[leafs004]

[quote=F1Tommy;6828398]

Originally Posted by xpeed

Well, since you put it that way, all LFAs are already spoken for and sold.

So what. I bet they don't keep their value half as good as a limited production Ferrari. To many great cars in this price range for an overpriced Toyota to do very well.

Toyota 2000GT still holds its value. You may not like the LFA, but a lot of us do. Anyone who buys these cars as an investment will probably be disappointed with their returns. Yes, some limited Ferrari's do appreciate, but then you also have to consider the cost of maintenance, insurance, etc. Except for the extremely limited and very rare, you'll be lucky to break even. Cars are made for driving. You want to invest, I would suggest looking elsewhere, like Apple or Goldman Sachs.

[xpeed]

You'd be surprised. Only 500 LFAs will be built and the value will go up in the years. Like Ferrari did with their Enzo. People that bought the LFA bought it for a reason. Plus, there's another reason why this Toyota supercar will do well. It's Toyota's first supercar and the cost of it will go up in the future. Similar to Porsche's 550 Spyder. Same concept. You might not like it and bash Toyota for it, but there are people that will buy it and probably drive it what it was meant for. On the track.

Bash all you want, this is clearly Toyota's biggest achievement and so far, they're doing well. They're also losing money on each car but Toyota's risking it for people to enjoy after 10 years of R & D.

[jano11]

Originally Posted by xpeed

It's Toyota's first supercar and the cost of it will go up in the future. Similar to Porsche's 550 Spyder. .

Let's not get carried away and making impossible comparisons.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by xpeed

You'd be surprised. Only 500 LFAs will be built and the value will go up in the years.

This is speculation which is what some buyers of the car will be doing.
Just because it being a limited production car does not mean it's value will go up.
Not all limited production cars appreciate.

Originally Posted by xpeed

Like Ferrari did with their Enzo.

Toyota/Lexus is not Ferrari.
These days, not even Ferrari are what they used to be in terms of resale and the ones you will be able to cite as examples of the car holding their value and even appreciating are going to be extreme models and that just goes back to the original point: Toyota are not Ferrari.
Sure you can argue about the silliness of badge snobbery but like it not, that factors in whether or not a car will appreciate.

Originally Posted by xpeed

Plus, there's another reason why this Toyota supercar will do well. It's Toyota's first supercar and the cost of it will go up in the future. Similar to Porsche's 550 Spyder.

Again, irrelevent.
By all accounts, the Mercedes McLaren SLR should be a runaway success that has a presence on the secondhand/speculative market.
These days, it behaves just like any regular car on the second hand market.
The 550 Spyder comparison is also just plain wrong.
The value of the Spyder comes from many factors including the designed as a race car birth, the race winning reputation and the James Dean connection.

Originally Posted by xpeed

You might not like it and bash Toyota for it, but there are people that will buy it and probably drive it what it was meant for. On the track.

And this is part of where it sort of fails.
The Nissan GTR is a car you can buy off the shelf and take on the track and take racing even and it is a competitive car out of the box but it is way less than half the cost of the LF-A.
The point is, is the LFA really worth all that money more than the GTR?
Sure you can ask the same thing of the GTR versus a Ferrari but going back to my earlier point, Toyota/Lexus isn't Ferrari but in the real world where brands matter, Nissan is seen to be on the same proverbial playing field as Toyota/Lexus.

Originally Posted by xpeed

Bash all you want, this is clearly Toyota's biggest achievement and so far, they're doing well. They're also losing money on each car but Toyota's risking it for people to enjoy after 10 years of R & D.

Biggest achievement?
I still think the MKIV Supra still stands as their high point when taken into proper context (even though of that generation, in my mind the NSX is still king).
This one on the other hand I can't see why it is priced as it is compared to its sort of competitors.
Them losing money on each car is another irrelevent point and it is also not really a risk. In case you missed it, Toyota is probably the only car manufacturer bar Porsche that has continued growth in their profits year on year despite the whole economy freefall and they have long been the most profitable car manufacturer out there (again with the possible exception of Porsche but I don't have the proper numbers handy).
Toyota losing money on the 400 LFA is irrelevent when they more than make it up with the other 180,000 cars that they sell.

[xpeed]

I see your point but I was in no way comparing Toyota with Ferrari. I'm merely comparing the limited numbers of production Ferrari did with their Enzo like Toyota is doing with their LFA. Did I ever mentioned that Toyota is like Ferrari? No. You just assumed.
The GT-R is in a different class therefore it's not comparable to the LFA. It's like saying that the Corvette ZR1 is a better car than a $300K Ferrari or Lamborghini and way cheaper, almost similarly priced with the GT-R. Is the GT-R a better bang for the buck. Yes. Same class as the LFA. No. You won't get the same experience driving a GT-R as you would with a LFA. It's a totally different class of car.

Although what I don't understand is how is it irrelevant that a company is losing money on a car they researched and developed for ten years? Even if they are making profit from selling other cars, it still would hurt them losing money over each LFA they sold. It doesn't make up the amount of money they spent on the development of the LFA so therefore, they still lost money.

Lost profits is still lost profits.

IMO, the LFA is a technological and engineering achievement for Toyota. Compared to its competitors like a Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc, it has its own ups and downs. At least give Toyota some credit for having the balls to get into the supercar territory for the first time.

But yes, I do see your point and I will not get in a further pointless debate and flaming about this. Therefore, I stand with my opinion and continue on being friends here.

[lovegt40]

..surely a nice model of another ugly japanese car.
We all miss a decent european Le mans, GT or Tourism racing car...

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by xpeed

Although what I don't understand is how is it irrelevant that a company is losing money on a car they researched and developed for ten years? Even if they are making profit from selling other cars, it still would hurt them losing money over each LFA they sold. It doesn't make up the amount of money they spent on the development of the LFA so therefore, they still lost money.

Lost profits is still lost profits.

Toyota is a global company that makes plans that look way more than 10 years into the future. The 10 year to develop thing is also not really much of a headline as that is almost typical for developing a brand new car from scratch that has no carry over from other cars in their portfolio and as such has no infrastructure for development. Bear in the mind the chassis redevelopment halfway through.
For reference, the Honda NSX took about 6 years from inception to production but for that, they didn't go through the whole nightmare of re-developing the chassis that Toyota did with the LFA. But then again, if you look into the actual history and context of the NSX, you'd see that it was by far more of a technological/engineering achievement than the LFA is right now. If anything, the fact that it took Honda less time is probably an indication of just how good Honda engineers are more than anything.
The very first replacement for the RX7 appeared in 1995 with the first official announcement in 2001 and sale of the RX8 didn't begin until around 2003 and this is a "regular" car.


Regarding the non-profit of the LFA.
It is irrelevent because it isn't the only car that they sell. Once again, it doesn't matter that they lose money from the 400 LFA that they sell because in this in March this year, they recorded their 180,000 sales figure. Every one of those cars make a profit. How does this not make sense?
If the only car that Toyota make is the LFA then that is a different story but it isn't.
If Toyota were a supermarket, you could consider the LFA to be their loss leader (albeit for different purposes).
How did Sony get away with selling the PS3 at a loss for such a long time? Because everything else they sold made up the loss.
Sort of the same thing. In the long run, if the public buy into the idea of the LFA and it becomes a hit, it paves the way forward for the next car which, because of the then existing infrastructure set in place for the LFA, would take less time and cost them less money.
Don't think for one second that this is a big risk for Toyota.
Again, for reference, Toyota were so good at the running of their company, some other car manufacturers have hired them as consultants to look at and restructure their company practices. The most famous example of this is Porsche, which if I recall correctly, recently overtook Toyota as the most profitable car manufacturer. Possibly coincidence but most probably not.

The one real risk they took was their participation in F1. I seem to recall that several industry guys saw them operating and remarked that they entered not knowing how F1 actually works. That was a risk. Making a supercar, in limited numbers, isn't.

Originally Posted by xpeed

I do see your point and I will not get in a further pointless debate and flaming about this.

How is this flaming?
You hold an opinion that I see to be uninformed and I am trying to tell you why it isn't as you say. You then agree with what I am saying, stating that you see my point so why do you say this is flaming? If you do not agree or understand what I am trying to tell you then please ask or explain why you disagree. Is it pointless to find out why something you think may be incorrect?

Perhaps I am wrong to think that people would like to be told when they are mistaken about things.

[xpeed]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

How is this flaming?
You hold an opinion that I see to be uninformed and I am trying to tell you why it isn't as you say. You then agree with what I am saying, stating that you see my point so why do you say this is flaming? If you do not agree or understand what I am trying to tell you then please ask or explain why you disagree. Is it pointless to find out why something you think may be incorrect?

Perhaps I am wrong to think that people would like to be told when they are mistaken about things.

No, I don't disagree with you and I'm not saying you're flaming. I'm just saying I don't want this to turn into a flaming debate. I know my facts as much as you do. I just think them differently and I do know my share of the LFA history as much as I do with the NSX and RX-7 as you pointed out (I've written thesis papers on these.)

Apparently I can't seem to get my point across through typing on here because people seem to read them differently as I do. Maybe if we had a face to face talk, it'll be different but in no way am I disagreeing with you.

I do on other hand, agree that Toyota butchered up their F1 team. If they hired better engineers and staff that are veterans maybe Toyota could of won some races. It's pointless to have a big F1 team that has an unlimited checkbook if you can't win any races compared to Ferrari who has a small, tight budget team but manages to win championships. I'm surprised Toyota tries so hard every year, then again, F1 is a very complicated race series.