Lexus IS-F with test results (looks pretty threatening!)

[enigma]

Originally Posted by swamp2

If we remember that the the critical inputs to such a software tool are the power or torque curve, redline, weight, gearing (including tire size) and transmission losses we can do some pretty good absolute simulation and even better RELATIVE simulation without a tremendous effort and without tremendous uncertainly.

PS: The TRS-80 comment was not directed at you in anyway!

I know but my first efforts to simulate a car were on a TRS-80 and then a IIc.

The point I am trying to make is when you know what you don't know. Its often best to not attempt to simulate those variable but rather just estimate them from real world data. The what often happens is you simplify the whole thing to the following.

Look at the dyno, notice the M3 makes ~93% of its power in the range the engine operates in within each gear. Then a very good estimation of all 2nd and higher gear acceleration simply becomes A ~= HP * 0.94 * (derived drivetrain losses) / (weight * speed) * (unit conversion factor)

In first gear you just use the max G force you think the rear tires can put to the ground.

Thats probably 95%+ as accurate as us trying to factor in information about other components when we don't yet have access to the cars to get such information.

If you have a rear wheel dyno graph for the car then you can probably do much better since drivetrain loss is mostly coverd at that point. Differences will still exist for gears other than the one tested. Also no simulation (we have) covers the ram air effect on engine output.

[swamp2]

Getting back OT. Just read the new in print article about the IS-F in C&D. The online verision of the article is here, but is not identical to the print version with the print version being longer, more thorough, better pics, etc.

Highlights:

• "The ride-and-handling balance is perhaps the IS F’s biggest achievement."
• "The muted interior, the slightly watery controls, the heavy price tag; the IS F is at core a Lexus with extra muscle, not as raw as the BMW M3 or Mercedes C63 AMG."
• Editorial thoughts (not online, only in print). A very commendable first try for Lexus in the segment of the M3/RS4/C63 but not nearly as engaging, capable nor rewarding as the M3
• Again from the in print editorial: If Lexus keeps up the development the car will very soon be a serious M3 challenger
• Should go on sale around March at an expected price of $59k. No wonder BMW is waiting to announce its pricing!
• Poor on street mgp of 16
• Lexus seriously trying to capture some new demographics with the car

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by enigma

I know but my first efforts to simulate a car were on a TRS-80 and then a IIc.

I was an Apple II owner back in the day as well. And although I liked cars a lot back then, I was not sophisticated enough to be doing simulation.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Talk about hyperbole, pot meet kettle...

Bruce, ever heard of apples to apples? That is simply what this is about. What you (or your buddy as it sounds like) did and how you did it, although using basically the same method (physics/numerics) is very different that what I am doing and how I am doing it. Here is why:

You may be correct in terms of apples to oranges, but see below.

Originally Posted by swamp2

You are using a very controlled and small set of data points. You are controlling the set of cars, the driver, the tires, the technique, the track, as well as likely controlling more variables than that. Then, as I understand it, you tweak the simulation to match the measured results. You even admit some subjective factors such as quality of hook up and traction, etc. CarTest by the way offers no such qualitative inputs, all of them have a close or directly quanifiable meaning/interpretation and tests are then possible to determine these input parameters. How does that quality of hookup adjustment work exactly? Is it just a lookup table that adds or subtracts some number of tenths to the simulation based on asking the driver was it "excellent", "good", "fair" or "poor". Or maybe you have an "exotic" curve fit for corrections for these inputs that use langauge to translate to numbers. Bruce this is called HEURISTICS, not simulation. . Once you have enough repeatable runs this type of "tweaking" of a simulation (be it with quantitative or qualitative factors) is what most in the business call at best simply curve fitting, or at worst cheating. How good would your infamous method work if all of a sudden you changed the trans, tires, driver, removed 300lb from the vehicle and hopped it up with 15% more power and a 1k rpm higher redline ON THE FIRST RUN? This is a KEY question as the the capability of the tool and of the operator of such a tool.

Let me get this straight. You invent our methods out of thin air, lecture me about your invented methods, and call it at best simply curve fitting, or cheating? Huh.

You've got balls, I'll give you that.

As far as traction, goes, we did the obvious and only thing that anyone could and would do when addressing such an issue: We adjusted frictional coefficients based on a simple numeric input, best to worst.

I don't think I'm giving away anything Eric (the gentleman who wrote all of the code) would consider to be proprietary in that context. since the devil is in the details of varying coefficients based on slip rates and type of tire used.

Originally Posted by swamp2

So on top of how you did this, which I addressed above, there is also what you did. I still contend that it is not possible to match within hundredths of a second, time to distance nor time to speeds ALL the way along the strip. I think you are simply losing sight of reality and orders of magnitude. I'd be suprised if you got within tenths the entire way down, let alone TEN TIMES BETTER than that. Do you realize how much a simple factor like a transmission loss affects 1/4 mi times? A mere 1% error in this crucial input parameter (from either a bad estimate or test with not enough fidelity) results in about FIVE hundredths difference in the 1/4 mi time (in a MT car in something like the E92 M3). Perhaps you can explain how you obtained your transmission losses to less than a 0.2% . What about friction as a function of temperature, tire growth with rpm, or any of the dozen inputs I have shown that CarTest uses: YOU WOULD HAVE TO KNOW THESE FACTORS MORE PRECISELY THAN YOU CAN ACTUALLY MEASURE MOST OF THEM. Christ we did not even mention rounding. To be withing a hundredths (or was it only hundredths) you really have to be within five thousandths. Starting to see the point ... yet...? Doubtful, but many others here will.

This appears to be a paragraph almost completely without merit. As an example, transmission loss is a term almost without meaning, since it would be a useless item in this context. What one could actually make use of is transmission losses by gear, since it's a fairly significant variable.

We did that by using models from SAE papers, Gillespie's "Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics" and other such tomes, and allowing user intervention.

We addressed everything you've mentioned and of course much more. However, the ONE thing you've mentioned in this paragraph that we considered to be a significant issue and possible shortfall was friction as a function of temperature. We did the best we could with simple things like reading SAE papers from various tire manufacturers, dragging tires around at various temperatures whilst measuring the force it took, pulling various cars over the same surface at varying temperatures and measuring the results (trying to get somewhere on temperature-variable rolling resistance), etc., but neither of us was fully confident that we had universally applicable reults.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Now back again to what I am doing. Your serious misunderstaning of my last reply, which you dismiss as simply "defensive hyperbole", again shows just how ignorant and confused you are about this whole simulation thing. What I am doing is predicting tests that are known to vary widely from a variety of uncontrolled factors including, driver, tires, track, temperature, age of car, car to car variations, etc. I am using purely analytical techniques and some combination of tuning or better yet using an enveloping process to determine drive train loss parameters. What is the bloody spread of 0-60 times or 1/4 mi times reported by a group of magazines for a typical car? Multiple tenths of seconds is the answer. So what is THE real time? THERE IS NO REAL TIME nor "best" time or whatever you want to call it, all of the times are valid data points and predicting somewhere in the middle is again the hallmark of a REASONABLE and accurate simulation.

Do you see yet why you are making an apples to oranges comparison?

Gee, when you say "in the middle" of various test times, how does that jibe with your assertion that essentially being one range away from the testing range is still OK?

Originally Posted by swamp2

Why did I bring up old car vs. new car results? Because you brought it up first as evidence that my simulations were so incapable of accuracy. Again, measure the hp, input it to the sim, voila you can easily show the difference between the two cars. Better yet look at some dyno results for a similar car, new vs. well broken in and then you could probably establish a reasonable hp gain.

Uh. OK. I don't remember ever getting into something regarding old and new cars, but perhaps my memory is failing, and in any event, I didn't disagree with anything in that paragraph.

Originally Posted by swamp2

With your harsh criticisms of my lack of ability, my hideous and systematically (do you even know what that means...) incorrect results, I think there is only one way to settle this. Dust of that old TRS-80, all of those valuable old time slips and track down your buddy (who probably did most of the work) and BRING THE EVIDENCE. It is so easy for you to sit in front of your computer now, reference the magic of the glory days and how terrible of a job someone else is doing. First you can prove your claim on the hundredths of a second issue. Then you can show me how you can better hit a constantly variable and moving target such as results from magazines. You can't really do it, almost by definition. I am definitely not one to say I am a leading expert on this topic, I also do not claim my results are perfect and I readily admit that a lot of the input parameters need to be known more accurately. But again given what we all have access to, these simulations are in my opinion, and in the opinion of quite a few folks here, reasonable and accurate.

Really, Bruce, put up or shut up.

Swamp, I am not at your beck and call.

However, having said that, I admit it makes sense at this point.

Here's where I am: I don't have any current software at the moment, but the one thing I did find in this old electronic box was output from a tool done by Racing Systems Analysis called "Quarter, Jr.". It's not the good one (called "Quarter"), but when I opened it up, lo and behold I had an E46 M3 model from probably around 2001 or 2002, done before we had one in our garage in an effort to see what such a car could do. I hadn't realized that I had done anything in this regard since around 10 years ago at least, but there it was.

Here are the results:

60' 2.03
330' 5.55
660' 8.48
MPH 84.1
1000' 10.98
1320' 13.10
MPH 106.2

I know it was done as a straight model before 2004, because it shows the ambient weather conditions as an SAE (gross) Standard Day. This model was a little off my actual times from around 2005. I was a couple-three hundredths higher if memory serves, but more importantly, I'm quite sure my actual trap speed was at just over 107.

However, if I understand Car & Driver's techniques, it's spot on with that previous note submitted to you earlier in this string!

If someone will give me a clue as to how to do it, I'll be glad to post the input sheet and results.

Now here's the semi embarrassing part. I've downloaded ShiftMaster from the net, but can't in fact run it. I think it has to do with DOS vs windows, but can anybody give me a clue about that, as well?

Thanks.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Finally, I do think I know our differences about the importance of hp, tq, gearing and redline as well and how they relate to acceleration. Folks like lucid and myself take a sort of reductionist view of the systems of a vehicle where everything can change independently. You look at vehicles as they actually exist where they are mostly already optimized in that the transmission, redline and torque curve all are chosed to maximize acceleration. If you took a vehicle so optimized and drastically altered its gearing or redline of course it's performance would change in a correspondingly predictable way. So your POV is when a vehicle is totally optimized for its engine, redline and gearing do not predict how fast that car is in the 1/4 (right?). My POV is that power to weight is indeed the critical factor but that all systems must be matched carefully to an engines characterisitics. Then of course to the extent that you can adjust and engines tq/hp/redline independently, if you made such changes the gearing would then be critical to get right. Sound about right?

Sounds about right. I'd only take minor exception to including lucid in this, and I blame his parents. He lacks the necessary genes to be a world class pain in the ass, and of course you and I are gifted in that regard.

Bruce

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Let me get this straight. You invent our methods out of thin air, lecture me about your invented methods, and call it at best simply curve fitting, or cheating?

Wrong I simply stated that qualitative inputs to a software tool as well as incessant tuning of a deterministic simulation to match one data set is heuristic at best and cheating at worst, please read. I did not bring up that laundry list of possible simulation considerations to point out the tool you worked on was poor, I only brought them up to point them out as fairly untestable, not accurately quanitifiable, but real variables that will vex anyone shooting for or claiming the kind of accuracy you claim.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

...transmission loss is a term almost without meaning, since it would be a useless item in this context. What one could actually make use of is transmission losses by gear, since it's a fairly significant variable.

TL is absolutely not without meaning. You can test it and adjust the parameter to match tests. CarTest uses a rpm dependent loss but at a fixed %. Allowing a fixed percentage by gear may be a useful option but I doubt it would matter that much. Frictional rotational losses just like linear sliding friction do scale with speed.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Swamp, I am not at your beck and call.

Sure you are not, but I think anyone would agree at some point it is time to put up or shut up.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Here are the results:

60' 2.03
330' 5.55
660' 8.48
MPH 84.1
1000' 10.98
1320' 13.10
MPH 106.2

However, if I understand Car & Driver's techniques, it's spot on with that previous note submitted to you earlier in this string!

Excellent work Bruce (sarcasm)! You have matched a SINGLE TEST case of the E46 M3 1/4 mi time within 1/100th of a seconds for the 1/4 mi time. That is great, but like I keep saying fairly meaningless. The range of times reported by different magazines probably looks something like this (13.0, 13.2, 13.5, 12.9, 13.3). Actually I totally made that up, but I'd bet digging through the data it would be very similar. NOW AGAIN, FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, WHY IS 13.10 vs. 13.1 A BETTER COMPARISON THAN 13.10 vs. 13.5 (OR WHATEVER THE WORST REPORTED MAG TIME WAS). IT ISN'T! YOU HAVE CHERRY PICKED YOUR SINGLE TEST DATA POINT VS. THIS SIMULATION.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Sounds about right. I'd only take minor exception to including lucid in this, and I blame his parents. He lacks the necessary genes to be a world class pain in the ass, and of course you and I are gifted in that regard.

Although I definitely appreciate your humor about being a pain in the ass, I'd also say resorting to insulting someone parents and genes (sarcastic or not) is stooping pretty low and grasping at straws.

[lucid]

I'm too "swamped" to be involved in this at the moment, but when I get the time to consider the responses in detail, I will pitch in.

[UltimateBMW]

tl;dr

[gbb357]

Originally Posted by Swamp

NOW AGAIN, FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, WHY IS 13.10 vs. 13.1 A BETTER COMPARISON THAN 13.10 vs. 13.5 (OR WHATEVER THE WORST REPORTED MAG TIME WAS). IT ISN'T! YOU HAVE CHERRY PICKED YOUR SINGLE TEST DATA POINT VS. THIS SIMULATION.

Because 0.4sec is a huge difference. The same reason that i argued with you about the 5.1 secs to 60 simulation time that you got for the IS-F in comparison to the 4.5 average that the magazines test are getting. Although this is a bigger difference of 0.6, and also in the 1/4 mile, 0.4 is about a car lenght difference. So yes it is a tremendous difference. But realisticly, a regular everyday driver like myself will never see those numbers, so it's useless. But for the die-hard enthusiast and for the automakers themselves, it's a big deal. It's bragging rights and a great sales pitch for a company to say our car is quicker than the competition.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by gbb357

Because 0.4sec is a huge difference. The same reason that i argued with you about the 5.1 secs to 60 simulation time that you got for the IS-F in comparison to the 4.5 average that the magazines test are getting. Although this is a bigger difference of 0.6, and also in the 1/4 mile, 0.4 is about a car lenght difference. So yes it is a tremendous difference. But realisticly, a regular everyday driver like myself will never see those numbers, so it's useless. But for the die-hard enthusiast and for the automakers themselves, it's a big deal. It's bragging rights and a great sales pitch for a company to say our car is quicker than the competition.

Dude, once again you have TOTALLY missed the point (what a surprise) in a long multi-page, multi-faceted argument between me and Bruce. Kindly butt out of this one. If Bruce wants your "help" lets let him decide that.

[gadget]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Highlights:

• Should go on sale around March at an expected price of $59k. No wonder BMW is waiting to announce its pricing!
  

Hopefully BMW will price the car lower than 59K. Who would buy an IS-F if it cost more than the M3- only a few dozen i'd guess. Blocking another competitor from gaining market share will be crucial in maintaining the M3 as the leader in the category. That said, I think the IS-F will need to be at least 5-10K less than a similarly equipped M3 to sell.

[footie]

Why is everyone under the impression that the IS-F isn't really much of a threat to this disillusioned belief of BMW's all conquering supremacy. Guys the day that you could always count on the M3 winning are long gone, the others, Mercedes, Audi, Lexus etc are all up there with BMW.

I wouldn't count my chickens on the Lexus being a walk over on either out-right performance or handling.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by gadget

Hopefully BMW will price the car lower than 59K. Who would buy an IS-F if it cost more than the M3- only a few dozen i'd guess. Blocking another competitor from gaining market share will be crucial in maintaining the M3 as the leader in the category. That said, I think the IS-F will need to be at least 5-10K less than a similarly equipped M3 to sell.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by footie

Why is everyone under the impression that the IS-F isn't really much of a threat to this disillusioned belief of BMW's all conquering supremacy. Guys the day that you could always count on the M3 winning are long gone, the others, Mercedes, Audi, Lexus etc are all up there with BMW.

I wouldn't count my chickens on the Lexus being a walk over on either out-right performance or handling.

The reason Lexus will have to be priced better to sell anything close to the M3 is simple. Even if the Lexus outperformed the M3 all around the M3 has the name, heritage and reputation. Of course that is not why I would buy any car, but that is the simple reason.

We all really know the story it has been covered by the mags already. The IS-F is a bit faster in a straight line but still drives and feels like "a Lexus". That is not bad until you realize that and IS-F when competing against an M3 should feel more like an M3. Want to place any bets about track time performance rankings between the M3 and IS-F (or any other handling metrics)?

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Agreed.



The reason Lexus will have to be priced better to sell anything close to the M3 is simple. Even if the Lexus outperformed the M3 all around the M3 has the name, heritage and reputation. Of course that is not why I would buy any car, but that is the simple reason.

We all really know the story it has been covered by the mags already. The IS-F is a bit faster in a straight line but still drives and feels like "a Lexus". That is not bad until you realize that and IS-F when competing against an M3 should feel more like an M3. Want to place any bets about track time performance rankings between the M3 and IS-F (or any other handling metrics)?

swamp,

I don't doubt the M3 will out-sell the Lexus, the same was true on the RS4 yet it was regarded the better car. That was not my point, people here just assume that BMW will continue to beat all comers and that is a very silly belief to have, especially against a company the size of Toyota. If the IS-F isn't quite as good as the M3 at everything they won't just pack their bags and go home, they will fine-tune it until it is as good if not better and by this I don't mean when a new model is launched.

Who would have given odds on Audi producing a world beating rival to the supercars and a car based on the dull-witted A4 then would not only beat the old M3 as a driver's car but win it's fair share on duels with the new one as well. I wouldn't have and I have been driving the bloody things for years.

All I am saying is don't count your chicken that the IS-F would be on top sooner than you think.

[InJapan]

I might as well chime in here.

I think people are getting too excited about the simulations... Pro or Con. I will reserve judgement until someone does head to head testing. I personally think that the M3 will be slightly faster.

The IS-F will have trouble gaining market share if it is priced higher than the M3. Their image and reputation has always been based on being slightly cheaper than their BMW counterparts.. it is what their customers expect.

I personally think that the creation of the IS-F is BMW Japan's fault for overpricing their cars, especially the M models in Japan. I don't think that Lexus would have ever built the IS-F if not for this price gap. BMW Japan left a niche open and Lexus built a car based on local market conditions and extrapolated it to the world wide market.

The IS-F is overpriced, especially in Japan. Almost all Japanese cars are similar in price to US prices except for the IS-F. It is only $1K less than the GT-R. I for one will not pay $65-67K for a Japanese IS-F. If BMW Japan didn't sell the M3 at $90K and the M5 at $128K, there would be zero market incentive for Lexus to build the IS-F or to even consider selling it at such a rediculous price. They can get away with it here but Lexus realizes that they must reduce their price to sell the IS-F in the US market.

I'm sure Lexus and BMW realize the implications of their pricing for the IS-F and M3 and I'm hoping for a PRICEWAR.

[gbb357]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Dude, once again you have TOTALLY missed the point (what a surprise) in a long multi-page, multi-faceted argument between me and Bruce. Kindly butt out of this one. If Bruce wants your "help" lets let him decide that.

Now i was being civil about this, but you have to be your typical arrogant ass and tell me to butt out. Nice job. Anyway, i simply answered your statement, and i'm not helping Bruce because i'm sure he does'nt need my help with you. And the last time i checked, this is a public forum where anybody can respond to any comment as long as it is not to innappropriate. BTW, arrogant ass was very appropriate.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by gbb357

Now i was being civil about this, but you have to be your typical arrogant ass and tell me to butt out. Nice job. Anyway, i simply answered your statement, and i'm not helping Bruce because i'm sure he does'nt need my help with you. And the last time i checked, this is a public forum where anybody can respond to any comment as long as it is not to innappropriate. BTW, arrogant ass was very appropriate.

I understand your frustration but understand mine as well. How many times have I and many others here (even right here on this thread!!!) accused you of COMPLETELY MISSING a crucial or THE MAIN point of a post or of a thread? These accusations would not happen randomly for no reason if there was not some truth to it. Accept that. Sure it is a public forum and you can comment all you want I suppose, but jumping in to the middle of a fairly "warm" debate and then again missing the point entirely (again) is very frustrating.

How did you miss the point you may ask? My last reply to Bruce on this was that his simulation that matched one metric from one test result is not all that significant (no more significant than any of my results be them right on or within a few tenths) when there are a variety of equally valid tests that are around .5 seconds different. You chimed in with,

Originally Posted by gbb357

Because 0.4sec is a huge difference. The same reason that i argued with you about the 5.1 secs to 60 simulation time that you got for the IS-F in comparison to the 4.5 average that the magazines test are getting. Although this is a bigger difference of 0.6, and also in the 1/4 mile, 0.4 is about a car lenght difference. So yes it is a tremendous difference. But realisticly, a regular everyday driver like myself will never see those numbers, so it's useless. But for the die-hard enthusiast and for the automakers themselves, it's a big deal. It's bragging rights and a great sales pitch for a company to say our car is quicker than the competition.

So it is quite irrelevant whether you consider .4 seconds a big deal or not. Furthermore we are not talking about the differences between two competitve cars and their reported differences under carefully controlled testing. My point was that you can not hit a moving target with sumulation when a half second or so of variation in the tests for a single car without a ton more information about each case and the differences from test to test. Do you see the difference? Please say "yes".

Finally, note that my two results for 0-60 for the IS-F once the final drive was corrected were 4.5 s and 4.3 s, the spread accounting for a reasonable amount of unknown in the drivetrain losses or shift times. Those numbers compare very well to the fastest and slowest times from the magazines don't they (although probably not for the exact right reasons!).

[gbb357]

^^I understand your frustration as well and believe it or not i do see your point. I simply made a general statement that 0.4 is a huge difference and made an example out of it, nothing more and nothing less. I do apologize for having to retort in a rude manner, but you kinda left me with no other choice. I know it's not easy as i have proven it myself, but try to be more level headed. Not everyone is going to agree with you no matter how technical you're going to be.

[enigma]

Originally Posted by footie

swamp,

I don't doubt the M3 will out-sell the Lexus, the same was true on the RS4 yet it was regarded the better car.

Um, who thought the RS4 was a better car? A lot of people didn't want an RS4 because its AWD which takes away a lot of the drivers experience.

[gbb357]

Originally Posted by enigma

Um, who thought the RS4 was a better car? A lot of people didn't want an RS4 because its AWD which takes away a lot of the drivers experience.

In comparison with the e46 M3, the RS4 won in C&D, MT, and R&T. In comparison with the e92 M3 which i've only seen one in a video from Europe, performance wise it was very close but the M3 won. But then again the RS4 is a 3yr old model that pretty much set the new standard 3yrs ago when it came out.

[enigma]

Originally Posted by gbb357

In comparison with the e46 M3, the RS4 won in C&D, MT, and R&T. In comparison with the e92 M3 which i've only seen one from a video in Europe, performance wise it was very close but the M3 won. But then again the RS4 is a 3yr old model that pretty much set the new standard 3yrs ago when it came out.

I once met some of the MT people in person. I was not impressed.

I learned a long time ago that Best Car is not the same as Fastest car. Rather to me it means, car I would enjoy most. To me AWD dumbs down the driving experience. Great if you need to go in the snow or race in the rain, otherwise, not much value.

For drivers that need a car that hides their mistakes and makes them look more skilled than they are, I am sure the RS4 is a good choice.

[gbb357]

Originally Posted by enigma

I once met some of the MT people in person. I was not impressed.

I learned a long time ago that Best Car is not the same as Fastest car. Rather to me it means, car I would enjoy most. To me AWD dumbs down the driving experience. Great if you need to go in the snow or race in the rain, otherwise, not much value.

For drivers that need a car that hides their mistakes and makes them look more skilled than they are, I am sure the RS4 is a good choice.

I agree, drivers that don't have much skills or don't have experience when it comes to racing or just driving hard and fast, a car like the RS4 would be more appropriate. The M3 in the other hand, you gotta have skills. The same goes with Porsches and other true hard core sports cars.

[Keto]

Lexus will have to get somebody 50 or under into their dealership before they can sell a lot of cars. When the average age of your drivers is "retired," you've got issues.