Quote:
Originally Posted by Guibo
Forget about sports cars. That's not going to sustain Toyota in the long term. If lower-end mass-market cars like the iQ, Yaris, Corolla, Camry, etc. benefit from low-cost CF manufacturing, then we can't write off this project as a loser.
The LFA was meant to be a halo car, one that (along with the IS-F) would help change Lexus's reputation as a maker of competent, but ultimately dull, driving appliances. Lexus has been noted for build quality, features & amenities, smoothness, impeccable dealer service, yes. But passion? No. Now that they have more buyers than supply in a $400k market, can even stipulate lease-only terms in a major automotive market, have writers the globe over singing praises of quality, sound, responses and Scuderia-levels of involvement, not to mention countless interweb debates...did they not succeed in building a halo car that raises the brand's awareness?
Based on the various iterations of this car (some with considerably different styling details), mid-engined variants, V8 experiments as well as the original aluminum construction, I'd say Toyota probably did not have this in mind when they started the project.
You do realize that the GT-R is a money-loser too, don't you? And taking your logic to its conclusion, the F430, Porsche Turbo/GT3, Zonda F, Gallardo/Murcielago, R8, V12 Vantage, are all not worth the money when the cheaper, faster alternatives like the ZR1 and ACR exist.
|
I don't believe the GTR is a money loser but I'll research that. Ghosn's goal was to make it a profitable car and the price has crept up because they wanted to keep it in the black.
As far as the LFA is concerned let's just agree that its a nice car. I just don't think its worth that kind of money whereas you do. Which is fine. I think if they would have ramped production to put it in the $200-250 range they'd have a winner but not limited production $400k price point.