From the front, the Lexus LFA looks like a bigger version of an FR-S

[Sideways&Smiling]

The LFA was junk. Poor handling, poor transmission, and way too high of a price for what it offers. There are many, many cars better than it for less $$$.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by kosoku

Toyota never intended to sell a lot of these things. In fact, supposedly they lost money on everyone they sold because of the amount of R&D behind it. What other company can afford to do something like that?

Lots of companies can, most don't see the point and do their best to make products that have more demand than supply, that's typically a wise business decision. I mean, Tesla is 'losing money' on their supercharging stations but there are benefits. To the layperson, Toyota has not reaped many benefits from the LFA. R&D is one thing, but bringing this awesome amazing hyped up supercar to market and 'ooh look it's limited' and 'we don't want this car to be a speculation piece so you must lease it and agree to our terms'.

19 "New" LFA's on cars.com

[Defuser]

LFA is cool, but I would definately take a 458 over an LFA!

hhnnnnnnggg

[Kiske]

I do remember hearing that they had a problem with people canceling their pre-orders on the LFA when the limited edtion (final hoo-rah) Nürburgring version was announced.

I don't remember if that was on the documentary/how its made dreamcars/ or just random forum talk.

[xuimod]

Originally Posted by Kiske

I do remember hearing that they had a problem with people canceling their pre-orders on the LFA when the limited edtion (final hoo-rah) Nürburgring version was announced.

I don't remember if that was on the documentary/how its made dreamcars/ or just random forum talk.

I just looked it up. It cost $12.4k a month to lease a damn LFA. Over 2 years that close to $300k in lease payments and you don't even own the damn car. That's a really sh--ty deal. Although the leasee could at the end of the lease pay $93k and own the vehicle outright (which I guess most people would have done).

The deposit to pre-order an LFA was an insane $60,000 (first $10k then another $50k once you pasted the credit checks).

And before you even allowed to get the LFA, you had to give Toyota a $237k check.

Smh, Supercar economics is freaking nuts.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/17/l...-due-at-signi/

[IDFWU 420]

Originally Posted by xuimod

I just looked it up. It cost $12.4k a month to lease a damn LFA. Over 2 years that close to $300k in lease payments and you don't even own the damn car. That's a really sh--ty deal. Although the leasee could at the end of the lease pay $93k and own the vehicle outright (which I guess most people would have done).

The deposit to pre-order an LFA was an insane $60,000 (first $10k then another $50k once you pasted the credit checks).

And before you even allowed to get the LFA, you had to give Toyota a $237k check.

Smh, Supercar economics is freaking nuts.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/17/l...-due-at-signi/

Didn't Toyota also required you have to a few certain vehicles too (from them), before you can buy their LFA?

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by IDFWU 420

Didn't Toyota also required you have to a few certain vehicles too (from them), before you can buy their LFA?

Not sure, but that wouldn't be unusual. Ferrari and some of the others do that.