Edmunds' Inside Line quotes Lexus's corporate product planning manager as saying the price of the new Lexus LS-F price will "begin with a 2." We're guessing the V10 supercar won't be $29,995. In honor of this news, I've hit up the thesaurus: brainsick, off, daft, absurd and whack. See also: dismal failure, stillborn. Newsflash to Lexus. You're not Ferrari. This won't be a performance halo car (reference Acura's NSX and the amazing effects it had on making people think the RL was sporty). Also, people buying summer Sunday cars for $200k aren't motivated by factors like "reliability," especially when this hand built carbon fiber monster will likely not maintain the brand's hallmark reputation for non-breakage and low maintenance. And, because I especially don't care for this LF-A supercar, here's a list of cars that cost half as much with better looks (extrapolating), heritage or fun: Porsche 911 Turbo ($135k), Nissan GT-R ($70k + ?), Corvette Z06 ($77k), Corvette ZR1 (estimated $100k), Ford GT (slightly used, $150k), Ferrari F430 ($175k), Aston Martin DB9 ($175k), and BMW M6 ($100k).
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Might also be the first Lexus to depreciate like hell.
Pricing has been off a bit lately for them. The IS-F costs more than the M3, too.
BMW priced the M3 about $5K less than everyone expected.
I like this car more than anyone else it appears. Lexus and Toyota can’t just sit idly by as their customers get steadily older. They need something that will appeal to future buyers. This could very well do that. Still, I’m surprised that it’s going to be so high.
A couple questions though:
1) Didn’t the NSX sell well for a couple years, then drop off when Honda didn’t update it?
2) What makes you think that it won’t be reliable?
But what is the gas mileage??? VBG!
Justin,
You are totally missing the point of a car like this coming from a company like Toyota! This car is going to be Toyota’s “statement” to the automotive world. I do not think they care if it sells well or not, that is not the point. The point of vehicle like this is to simply serve as an engineering tour-de-force and a shot over the bow of the likes of Ferrari, Porsche and their so-called heritage.
While not competing with Ferrari’s prestige a “lowly” Toyota that can spank a Ferrari’s a$$ WILL generate a lot of attention and make the point that Toyota wants to make; “Ferrari is NO big deal outside of some red paint, a yellow badge, and a silver horse!”
By making the statement OUT LOUD Toyota is aiming at the regular consumer in a way that is maybe a bit more effective than a building a true race- car for a racing series that most people know nothing about. While you are mainly looking at the “prestige factor” Toyota is looking to gain recognition as the most technically advanced auto-maker in the world. Considering their hybrid program they do have a multi-pronged approach that appears to be working.
Sometimes it is really important to look for the forest though all those trees! Come on you know as well as I that Toyota does not expect the automotive world to move over-night because they have made a super-car. But they ARE the one automaker today that is in the position technically and more important FINANCIALLY to “play games” and have some fun today, hey if nothing else they can afford it!
whatdoIknow: You are totally missing the point of a car like this coming from a company like Toyota! This car is going to be Toyota’s “statement” to the automotive world. I do not think they care if it sells well or not, that is not the point. The point of vehicle like this is to simply serve as an engineering tour-de-force and a shot over the bow of the likes of Ferrari, Porsche and their so-called heritage. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Halo cars are a terrible idea. They dilute the brand and divert resources, which are always precious, no matter how wealthy the company. Toyota’s statement to the world is the Prius. Scratch that, the Corolla. Lexus’ statement to the world should be, at best, a large luxury car to rival Rolls Royce. But again, why bother? There’s one reason that mainstream manufacturers build cars like the LF-A and the Ford GT and yes the Chevrolet (Chevrolet?) Corvette: the car companies’ execs get bored. Cocaine and halo cars: God’’s way of telling you/a carmaker you’re making too much money.
I dunno. The $104,000+ Lexus LS 600h L reportedly sells better than expectations, even though it costs 32k more than the LS 460 L for little practical benefit. I think the status of the Lexus brand in general may be at the point where they might sell more if the price is higher than if it was lower (that is, owning one tells the world that you can afford to drop $200,000 on a car). If they intend to sell a dozen or two a month worldwide (probably accurate), they will be able to do so.
Geotpf:
If The Big 2.8’s demise has anything to teach us, it’s that raw sales are not adequate justification for squandering (as in pissing away) brand equity.
Robert Farago :
May 21st, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Halo cars are a terrible idea.
IMHO, yes-and no. If the goal is merely to get people into the dealership to gawk at the halo car and then to buy something more pedestrian while there, that won’t work.
However, if the goal is to actually make money, what’s the problem?
That is, I’m sure that Lexus makes money on the LS 600h L, and I’m sure they will make money on the LS-F. That’s good.
Ford lost millions on the Ford GT. That’s bad.
Now, if the LS-F doesn’t meet sales expectations, then Lexus might have a problem. However, I would think said expectations are low and reasonable.
In general, Toyota doesn’t do loss leaders. That’s why there hasn’t been a new Supra in a decade and probably never will be, because there’s no profit there at the prices it would sell at.
I have to assume they think they will make money on this vehicle, or else they wouldn’t have green-lit it. Now, I could be wrong, and they really are doing it just to thumb their nose at Ferrari and the world. They certainly make enough money on selling eighty bazillion Corollas and Camrys to be able to blow some of it on a money-losing supercar if they wish.
Robert Farago :
May 21st, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Geotpf:
If The Big 2.8’s demise has anything to teach us, it’s that raw sales are not adequate justification for squandering (as in pissing away) brand equity.
But how is building a supercar pissing away brand equity? Lexus is supposed to be the best car, period. Building a supercar certainly doesn’t hurt that image. Plus, if anything, Lexus is considered to be a bit bland-a supercar will help reverse that image a little.
Now, if the performance isn’t there, or the car is as unreliable as your typical supercar, then that could be a problem, image-wise. But I don’t think Lexus will allow that.
Geotpf:
However, if the goal is to actually make money, what’s the problem?
Branding. Lexus is not about supercars. Or sports sedans. It’s about luxury cars. Well-built, quiet, comfortable, prestigious, luxury cars. And remember: brands exist in the customers’ heads, not the suits’.
Lexus is supposed to be the best car, period. Building a supercar certainly doesn’t hurt that image.
Yes, it does. Anything that confuses the customer conception of your brand is bad. The Porsche Cayenne made Porsche fabulously wealthy. But it muddied the waters for the sports car maker.
Plus, if anything, Lexus is considered to be a bit bland-a supercar will help reverse that image a little.
And bland’s bad because…? You don’t like it?
Bottom line: just because you can hurt a brand doesn’t mean you should.
It’s gonna have one hell of an interior…
I’m all for it. I’m sure there are die-hard Toyota fans, particularly the guys with enough money to bring their Supras into the 1,000hp range, who would buy this over anything else in the price range. Or maybe not Supra guys, but wealthy businessmen who’ve owned Toyotas and Lexuses from the start. After all, the LS600h sells, and I bet that’s purely on halo factor.
I’d take an LF-A over a McLaren SLR. And no, that’s not a logical decision… I used to be a Toyota guy.
I guess we will have to disagree here. :)
I don’t think making sports cars hurts Lexus’s brand image. Nobody would not buy one of their standard luxury sedans because they also make a few sports cars. The naming convention of XX-F also tells the public they are seperate from Lexus’s standard products, which have a XX ### naming convention.
But, heck, I don’t even think the Cayenne hurts Porsche. The ultimate goal of any business is to make money. Porsche lost few to no sales of their standard sports cars when they started selling the profitable Cayenne, so it was clearly a good idea, from a business standpoint.
Porsche and Toyota are similar here, in the fact that both are very, very good at making money.
Robert,
In all honesty I think the long term goal of the entire Japanese Auto industry to gain control over the entire world market like the Japanese have done with consumer electronics. With that in mind I believe part of that long term goal is to eventually do away with the notion of “preceived prestige”. For Toyota, Nissan, and Honda to win this game they need cars to stand on there own merits and not some idea of brand history.
I must admit that so-far over the last 25 years they have been successfully making their point, in the USA at the very least. Just like they have landed in the USA and beat GM and Ford into a retreat that is now quickly turning into a route, they are going after the Europeans hard today. Now I know that those German appear to be loyal to their domestic brand but so were we once and a superior product will ALWAYS stand a chance in any market. More to the point loyal Germans alone will NOT be able to sustain their auto industry in our growing world.
IMO this Lexus Super car does have a legitimate purpose beyond making a few execs happy. Just like the 2000gt of 1969 this car is a statement that Toyota is ALWAYS CAPABLE of doing great things and not just a maker of appliances. It is a reminder and it is ironic that they are doing it now when the “excitement” value of their brand(s) is at an all time low.
Contrast this with the fact that GM, Ford, and Chysler did absolutely NOTHING like this when their brands were still holding on but quickly loosing their grip on the marketplace during the 70s and 80s until the first ZR1 arrived in about 1990. Witness the fact that GM had to go shopping at Lotus for the most important part of the ZR1, the multi-valve cyl heads while Toyota appears to be capable of doing it project totally in-house.
In other words project like this allow a company to maintain an engineering edge.
whatdoIknow:
With that in mind I believe part of that long term goal is to eventually do away with the notion of “preceived prestige”.
That’s creepy in an entirely disturbing not to say completely paranoid way. Besides, I don’t believe such a thing is possible. As long as there are humans, there will be “perceived” notions of prestige, often based on false reputation. Look at how Mercedes’ brand withstood their declining quality and drop into the lower end of the market.
For Toyota, Nissan, and Honda to win this game they need cars to stand on there own merits and not some idea of brand history.
Again, brands exist in the customers’ minds; all these brands already have a history. Or, if you prefer, a reputation. You can run, but you can’t hide from your brand. And in this case, why would you want to?
IMO this Lexus Super car does have a legitimate purpose beyond making a few execs happy. Just like the 2000gt of 1969 this car is a statement that Toyota is ALWAYS CAPABLE of doing great things and not just a maker of appliances.
Again, what’s wrong with making appliances? To whom does Toyota need to prove that they’re capable of building a supercar? Who asked them to do this? Anyone? Bueller?
Contrast this with the fact that GM, Ford, and Chysler did absolutely NOTHING like this when their brands were still holding on but quickly loosing their grip on the marketplace during the 70s and 80s until the first ZR1 arrived in about 1990.
And this would have helped them how? And do you really want to get me started on Detroit?
In other words project like this allow a company to maintain an engineering edge.
It is MUCH harder to make an affordable, reliable appliance than a hand-built carbon-fiber supercar. It’s just not as interesting.
Toyota is likely helping to relieve some of the anxiety of their success among their competition. I know a MB/BMW dealer that regrets passing on the Lexus franchise. It turned out to be like shooting fish in a barrel.
If I was in the market for a supercar and this beast had competitive performance and lived up to traditional Lexus reliability, I would take a serious look. The current prestige brands seem to be willing to accept mediocre reliability as part of a supercar’s cachet. I, on the other hand, am not.
I think that’s the kind of car that Barack Obama says other countries aren’t going to allow us to have.
I think the whole branding argument in this case might be a bit too harsh. The brand’s only been around for 20 years. Lexus is always changing and expanding. I don’t think it’s fair to put it in a box and say, “You’re stuck the way I perceive you to be! You can’t change!”
This would be different if it was Porsche we were talking about, with a heritage and long history of making just two-door sports cars. Lexus isn’t like Porsche or Lotus. It’s a full-fledged car brand with SUVs and Sedans and Coupes.
BMW is a sporty brand, but it has a huge luxobarge, the 7-series, too.
Lexus is the comfort brand, so why can’t it have a few sports cars?
romanjetfighter:
Lexus is the comfort brand, so why can’t it have a few sports cars?
Ipso facto.
Like we need another car at this price and from Lexus too. Gimme a break.
As I said before, 2 classes, rich and poor. There is no middle class. Another toy for the rich.
If Dodge can get away with making a supercar, dumpy interior and all (or so I’m told), and Volkswagen and stick two W8 blocks together and sell a million-dollar car under the resurrected badge of an automaker that we haven’t heard about since the days of the Red Baron, I see no reason to chastise Lexus for trying to get in on the action.
Like we need another car at this price and from Lexus too. Gimme a break.
As I said before, 2 classes, rich and poor. There is no middle class. Another toy for the rich.
Newsflash: Lexus makes cars for rich people. If you’re not rich, you can still buy a Camry (or a Corolla (or a Yaris))
@Cicero :
ROFL.
@Whatdoiknow1:
I have to agree with Robert here. Unless Lexus wants to redo its image, this is a mistake. And if they want to redo their image, why?
Among the many people I know with Lexuses, many are not car haters. Some even like to drive. But what they want is a car that will leave them alone and do its job. But they are not attracted to a sporty image car, or an AMG style car. It has to clearly be a Lexus, but it is an accessory for them, and just a means to an end.
Lexus will have zero problem continuing to get younger buyers into its vehicles as they get older; just look at who sits behind the wheel of an IS250 (young lawyers I know LOVE it) or rich moms in the RX350/GX470.
What does this LF-A say to potential shoppers – buy our RX350 because it is related to a high performance sports car? So what?
High priced halo cars that differ from the brand rarely work: reference the Corvette’s non-effect on GM, the Acura NSX’s non-effect on Acura or Honda, the failure of the Dodge Viper, the failure of the Supra to give Toyota a sporty image. Even the Mazda RX-8 has been a bad halo car for Mazda, ostensibly a sporty brand.
REAL halo cars are the ones that make everything else popular and sell, bring people into the dealer, and cast a positive light on the rest of the products.
Successful halo cars are the Subaru WRX and WRX STI, the Mitsubishi Evo, the Acura Integra and Legend, the original Lexus LS, the BMW M3, the original Ford Taurus, the Toyota Corolla and Prius, the 4DSC Nissan Maxima, the Range Rover, the Jeep Wrangler, the Mazda Miata, and the Mercedes S-Class.
It’s not a halo car, really. A halo car is this:
“This is an expensive, impractical car that will sell in such small numbers that we will never make any money off of it. But it’s really cool, and we hope that you will think our boring cars are cool too because they have the same brand as this on them, so you will buy one.”
This doesn’t work. This is why Ford lost millions off the Ford GT.
This is (I think) the following:
“This is a really expensive, impractical car that will sell in small numbers. However, the profit margin per car is enough that we will make money off of it alone. We don’t really care if it’s existance helps other vehicles we sell, since we will make a profit off of it alone in the first place.”
That’s not a halo car; that’s a profit center.
Now, Toyota doesn’t do loss leaders like halo cars, or we would have a new Toyota Supra, which would be a halo car. The LS-F (or whatever it will be called) isn’t a halo car; it’s is an expensive car that will make money for Toyota/Lexus.
High priced halo cars that differ from the brand rarely work: reference the Corvette’s non-effect on GM, the Acura NSX’s non-effect on Acura or Honda, the failure of the Dodge Viper, the failure of the Supra to give Toyota a sporty image. Even the Mazda RX-8 has been a bad halo car for Mazda, ostensibly a sporty brand.
Toyota doesn’t have a sporty image because they don’t promote it. The Supra, the MR2 (and MR-S spyder), Corolla GT-S, Celica All-Trac, all capable cars that hung tough, and in some cases surpassed their competition.
I don’t believe The RX-8 was ever intended to be a halo car; when one thinks of Mazda, they’re more likely to think of the Miata (and the RX-8 was anything but high-priced). The RX-8 was more of an excuse to hold on to the rotary crown.
Successful halo cars are the Subaru WRX and WRX STI, the Mitsubishi Evo, the Acura Integra and Legend, the original Lexus LS, the BMW M3, the original Ford Taurus, the Toyota Corolla and Prius, the 4DSC Nissan Maxima, the Range Rover, the Jeep Wrangler, the Mazda Miata, and the Mercedes S-Class.
Agreed, with one:
The Evo was successful, but not as a halo car. Folks who bought an Evo couldn’t give two hoots about anything else in Mitsubishi’s lineup, and nothing else they made was even remotely related to it—not even the base Lancer.
meh…doesnt really matter to me. its still a lexus. lexus = country club.
RF, Berkowitz:
Like the other commentators, I don’t really see the problem with the LF-A, except with the price, perhaps (120~150k, sure…)200+ seems too ambitious.
Lexus is supposed to be pure luxury, and I don’t see the problem with adding performance and handling chops to the current image of rock-solid reliability, build quality, and service. It doesn’t muddle the brand, it’s not distracting, it just enhances it. Do you really think the $200k/yr people who buy Lexi will suddenly suffer from brand confusion and stop buying Lexus? I really don’t see the problem.
The better argument is that it is a waste of time, and that the money could be spent on a different car line that would benefit Lexus more. Additionally, at 200k+, the LF-A better be phenomenal – my main concern is that they’ve set the bar so high that they’ll have to deliver perfection to match it. And the current IS series doesn’t give me much confidence.
While I won’t say “Toyota can do no wrong” (Scion tA,*cough*), I’d expect Toyota to do their homework on this one. The market exists. The average Silicon Valley millionaire would jump at the chance to buy an LF-A. Toyota has conquered the American market. They are considered the best car manufacturer, both in luxury and mainstream lines. They are making good progress in pickups. There are only two places left to go – small vehicles for emerging markets, and the exclusive world of European luxury and supercars.
Lexus has the cars to go head-to-head with the European labels, routinely beating them in the US. But they lack the prestige to dent the European market. The LF-A, by simply being the best supercar in the world, will be impossible to ignore. Jeremy Clarkson will sputter and bluster, but if the LF-A delivers, it will be the champagne-glass ad of Lexus Europe.
altoids : You said it yourself “Lexus is supposed to be pure luxury…” Note the word pure, bubbling-up from your subconscious. Pure luxury is not sporty luxury. Or high mileage luxury. Or even, dare I say it, reliable luxury. Do you really think the $200k/yr people who buy Lexi will suddenly suffer from brand confusion and stop buying Lexus? I really don’t see the problem. Who cares what the Lexus supercar buyers (all, what, 200 of them) think? The question is, what will the other current and potential Lexus buyers think? Sure, a supercar puts Lexus in the same league as Mercedes (SLR). But shouldn’t Lexus be defining itself against Mercedes? Speaking of which… If offering both luxury and high performance within the same upmarket brand is such a shit hot idea, why is Mercedes hiving-off AMG into a new brand?
Geez, Louise, such hand-wringing over “brand” — I just don’t buy any sense that there’s anything “wrong” with Lexus coming up with a competitive “supercar,” no matter what the cost.
You’d think that RF and JB would have scoffed at Toyota coming out with the Lexus brand in the first place. You’d think that they’d bemoan Toyota making anything other than stripper Corollas.
For Pete’s sake, I think you can just RELAX a bit about all of this! Gosh, I tend to think that the Cayenne was one of the best things Porsche ever did — how can setting a standard and dumping wheelbarrows full of cash into the corporate office be considered such a bad thing? Have you really, truly ever heard anyone say that they wouldn’t buy a Boxter or other Porsche model, just because of that “damn Cayenne?” I sure doubt it!
Toyota now makes everything from the barest Yaris to the big trucks and SUV’s that compete with the largest “light trucks” on the market. They make hybrids from the standard-bearing Prius to the competent midsize Camry to the ultra-exlusive LS 400H. Why on Earth would it hurt them to show that they can compete in the “supercar” segment? It’s just another segment to show some kind of engineering competence within.
As for the price, I think it’s perfect. There’s no reason to make an “Acura Integra of the supercar segment” — go ahead and make an exclusive few at an exclusive price.
Sheesh. You guys can’t resist using the “appliance” word, but then you can’t allow them to show that they can make a car that’ll compete with any Porsche or Ferrari or whatever out there, either. In the end, I expect the LF-A will absolutely help Lexus boost the new “F” series of performance vehicles that it’s starting to build. In other words, it’ll do “exactly what Lexus expects it’ll do.”
RF:
The question is, what will the other current and potential Lexus buyers think?
Exactly – and I think the answer is … about the same as before, except now Lexus has a supercar model too. You’ve got to give the consumers more credit – how will introducing the LF-A will somehow diminish the reputation of Lexus?
You’re worried about brand dilution, I don’t see it happening. Lexus already has a performance line, a luxury sedan line, and even SUVs. Lexus is the pursuit of perfection. They’ve delivered the ultimate luxury sedan, now they want to make the ultimate supercar. The core Lexus values don’t change, they’re just applying them to another market. Like thoots said, this is a lot of hand-wringing – I cannot imagine a single Lexus owner who will somehow be less inclined to buy a Lexus because of the LF-A.
They want to be considered by the ultra-rich, a very lucrative market, is what. That’s why they launched the LS600hL. The top execs said people who buy V12 Mercs and BMWs don’t even consider Lexus. Same thing here. Lexus wants to be considered as a competitor to Europe’s finest. Right now, it’s seen as a reliable luxo-chamber for aging dentists and cement salesmen. They’re trying to spice it up a bit, and change their image.
I don’t see where you’re coming from robert, SUVs have done more damage to the lexus brand than a kick-ass supercar could ever hope to.
hokuto:
I don’t see where you’re coming from robert, SUVs have done more damage to the lexus brand than a kick-ass supercar could ever hope to.
What’s wrong with a luxury SUV? Despite those hideous honey comb rear lights, the RX fits the luxury remit. A small car can also be luxurious (well-specced A3). A station wagon can be luxurious (Mercedes). A GT can be luxurious (Quattroporte). In fact, the only genre of automobile that can’t offer luxury as it’s prime characteristic is a sports car. Nobody jumps in a Porsche Turbo, Ferrari F430 or Audi R8 and say, gee, what a luxurious car! Even if it is.
For a sports car maker, SUVs are brand dilution. For a luxury car maker, supercars are, well, stupid.
What’s wrong with a luxury SUV? “Luxury SUV” is an oxymoron, sports *UTILITY* vehicle.
Owning a lexus _used_ to imply a certain level of intelligence and taste -until the SUVs and front wheel drives came along. Nowadays they’re just for anybodies with too much money, from people who can’t tell the difference between front and rear wheel drive to people who think buying an suv is a good idea.
First off, the price-tag is nothing more than a rumour. I won’t judge until I see the production car on sale.
Justin Berkowitz:
And, because I especially don’t care for this LF-A supercar,
Since you made that obviously clear, why go out of your way to make this news post slanted against the LF-A? The comparisons you made towards other vehicles are irrelevant at best, and meaningless at worst. The only competitors you mentioned that would actually compete with the LF-A would be the DB9 and F430.
Robert Farago:
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Halo cars are a terrible idea. They dilute the brand and divert resources, which are always precious, no matter how wealthy the company.
Toyota’s statement to the world is the Prius. Scratch that, the Corolla. Lexus’ statement to the world should be, at best, a large luxury car to rival Rolls Royce. But again, why bother?
I’ve argued this before, and I’ll argue it again. Halo cars are a GREAT idea when done correctly. Halo cars are a bad idea; go try telling that to BMW. After all, BMW’s M cars are such terrible ideas and they’ve diluted BMW’s image, right?
Why bother? Why bother to do anything then? Why did Toyota even bother to make the Lexus brand in the first place? Toyota bothers because they can and because they want to. Toyota’s long-standing goal is to be a FULL-line automaker and offer products to virtually ALL market segments of the automobile industry.
Toyota as a company, and Toyota/Lexus as brands are seen as being dull or bland. Most people out there are just not excited about Toyota. Yes, the Prius was a big statement from Toyota, but it doesn’t mean they can’t make another statement. The Prius doesn’t really interest enthusiasts nor has it made Toyota to be percieved as a more exciting company.
The LF-A as a statement will do several things. It will silence many of the critics who say Toyota’s participation in F1 has been a waste of time and money. It will also silence many of the criticism that says Toyota as a company is dull and offers nothing exciting. The IS-F is already starting to change perception of the Lexus brand, particularly in Europe. Thirdly, the LF-A will be a technological tour-de-force that cement Toyota’s reputation for technological excellence. With the LF-A, people and enthusiasts who previously never considered Toyota products or were interested in them will start to take notice. The LF-A will help bring in NEW customers to the Toyota and Lexus brand. When people see the LF-A they will think that if Toyota can build something like THAT, what else do they offer? The Toyota brand will soon have more sport offerings, as will the Lexus brand. The LF-A is also directly linked to the F-brand from Lexus.
When people see advertisements, or see the LF-A on the streets it will be impossible to ignore, if only because of the roaring V10 engine.
Robert Farago:
Branding. Lexus is not about supercars. Or sports sedans. It’s about luxury cars. Well-built, quiet, comfortable, prestigious, luxury cars. And remember: brands exist in the customers’ heads, not the suits’.
According to who? Lexus itself? Please show me directly where senior Toyota or Lexus officials talk about the Lexus brand being about only “luxury cars”.
Fact is, since the beginning of the Lexus brand, the Lexus brand has ALWAYS been about the “pursuit of perfection”. Bugatti is a luxury brand, and yet they offer the Veyron. Are you telling me Bugatti has been harmed with the Veyron?
The Lexus brand image of the “pursuit of perfection” can easily accomodate an exotic supercar.
Rboert Farago:
Again, what’s wrong with making appliances? To whom does Toyota need to prove that they’re capable of building a supercar? Who asked them to do this? Anyone? Bueller?
To the competition, to enthusiasts, and to European buyers.
Justin Berkowitz:
I have to agree with Robert here. Unless Lexus wants to redo its image, this is a mistake. And if they want to redo their image, why?
Why not? Lexus wants to attract new buyers who were never interested in the brand before. Toyota with Lexus wants to attract BOTH enthusiasts, as well as affluent luxury buyers.
Robert Farago:
Again, brands exist in the customers’ minds; all these brands already have a history. Or, if you prefer, a reputation. You can run, but you can’t hide from your brand. And in this case, why would you want to?
So you’re saying brand percpetion and reputation remains static and never changes? Toyota in the 1950s was known for unreliable, dubious automobiles. Toyota in the 1930s was known for sewing machines, not automobiles. Honda in the 1960s was known for motorcycles, not automobiles.
Fact is, things change (for better or for worse). It’s silly and naive to think otherwise.
Brand perception can change in the customer’s minds. Yes, brands have history and so what? Doesn’t mean the brands MUST stick to their historic roots. Some brands have unfavourable historic roots (BMW supplying engines for Hitler’s regime, Toyota making sewing machines).
A perfect recent example is hybrids. In the past 10 years, Toyota almost single-handedly has made hybrids commercially viable, as well as making hybrids into a full-fledged market segment. Toyota tremendously changed people’s perception, so now that when most people think “hybrid”, they think either Toyota or Prius.
The Prius was, and is an environmental halo car. Has it hurt or diluted Toyota’s reputation and perception? Of course not, it’s only strengthened and supplemented both. The LF-A will be an exotic performance halo car, and I simply do not see it doing harm to Toyota’s reputation or perception.
Justin Berkowitz:
What does this LF-A say to potential shoppers – buy our RX350 because it is related to a high performance sports car? So what?
High priced halo cars that differ from the brand rarely work: reference the Corvette’s non-effect on GM, the Acura NSX’s non-effect on Acura or Honda, the failure of the Dodge Viper, the failure of the Supra to give Toyota a sporty image. Even the Mazda RX-8 has been a bad halo car for Mazda, ostensibly a sporty brand.
The LF-A to potential shoppers will say buy the IS-F because it’s related to the LF-A, and buy an IS since that’s related to the IS-F. What does BMW’s M division say to shoppers? Most people either don’t care for, or can’t afford an M car but the M cars get a lot of people to buy regular BMWs. Ultimately, the LF-A will attract a whole new group of shoppers.
The NSX had a huge effect for Honda in some ways. For example, in the UK the NSX almost single-handedly made Honda popular with enthusiasts. The NSX forced people to take notice of Honda and it gathered a lot of respect and good will from enthusiasts in the UK.
The Supra didn’t do much to Toyota’s image because it wasn’t a big enough statement. The LF-A will be a much bigger statement than the Supra ever was.
?Robert Farago:
The question is, what will the other current and potential Lexus buyers think? Sure, a supercar puts Lexus in the same league as Mercedes (SLR). But shouldn’t Lexus be defining itself against Mercedes?
Current buyers won’t think much, because the LF-A won’t be of interest to them. Lexus currently has great offerings for their current buyers. The LF-A will aim to attract potential buyers, or those who have never considered Lexus before.
The LF-A will STILL be a Lexus, and that means the LF-A will still have the luxuries and reliability of a Lexus. Yet also it will offer world-class performance and exotic looks. No other supercar (apart from arguably the NSX) has ever offered world-class performance, comforting luxury, and great reliability in the same package. The NSX did not offer that much luxury, and it’s image as a supercar was muddied by the V6 engine and the fact that it was offered as a Honda in most parts of the world. Since Lexus is a worldwide brand, the LF-A will be strictly a Lexus in all parts of the world, not a Toyota.
Speaking of which, the LF-A will also help differentiate the Lexus brand from the Toyota brand.