Kubbz

Met with Lexus Chief Engineer for the F division Mr Tsurumoto San a few months back and can confirm the rumors for the LCF is happening which we all know by now. He didnt confirm powerplant, but smiled when I asked will it be the TT 3.5 V6 or TT 4.0 V8. I told him please do the 4.0 TT he nodded and said ok I will take seriously (well that's what his translator indicated) lol.

Regarding, the LC500 I wouldn't worry about depreciation in the long term, perhaps in the short term depending on the price point of the LCF. This is not a McLaren! This is a Toyota. I say this because people who buy Lexus/Toyota are looking for these cars for much different reasons, with the core focus around reliability. I suspect like with the ISF, SC430, Supra, RX7 the masses that always dreamed of owning these cars, were priced out of the market in their younger years. Now they are older and have made more money are willing to shell out money for the cars they dreamed that would be more in their reach someday. The same will happen to the LC500 in time

Madmax0609

I've been reading this thread and I'm hearing people concerned with the current LC losing its value because an LC-F is around the corner. What most people here probably don't realize is anyone who owns an LC currently has the "F" version of the car. Same engine as RC-F and GS-F. If and when Lexus finally unveils the LC-F It's probably going to be 150K, easy.. No way is Lexus going to drop a 4.0 litre V-8 with twin screws, put carbon fiber everywhere (because lets face it, the current LC is a pig) and ONLY charge 25-30K extra for the car.

As for the value of our cars, I'm thinking (hoping) that because it's a totally new body style, (no previous generation) it will keep interest with the public. I don't know about you guys, but I live in Orlando, Florida and I've only seen 3 LC's on the road. Every time I take mine out of the garage I get asked questions about it wherever I go. For that reason, I don't see the car losing 50% of it's value in 3 years. It's a very special automobile. Even my BMW "M" friends acknowledge its beauty... and the sound, oh the sound.

Time will tell, but remember that the second generation SC 430 held its value for a looong time, probably because there was nothing else like it on the road.

nanos

yea honestly don't see why they wouldn't put out an F version of the LC. Even when LC first came out there were rumors of an F version especially since they were going to release the GSF and RCF.

flowrider

iTrader: (9)

^^^^Of course they are, or they wouldn't have called the LC 500 an LC 500, they would have called it LCF right off. Now, for me, I will NEVER own a turbo car, if I can possible help it. I hate the darn things. For me, an NA V8 is the ONLY way to go. But, that's just me. Look what they have done to the LS 500, it's not really an LS 500 at all, it's an LS 350T. But it seems the numbers after the model designation mean nothing these days. In 2017 the 4 cyl IS was the IS 250T now, wave a magic wand, and it becomes an IS 300. Same darn car, but with a different model designation.

There are many reasons for my preference, most of them are mentioned in the attachment.

Lou

theman

can't agree with you on one of those points Lou... LC500 was actually named appropriately considering the 5.0L v8 in it. I totes agree with you on the NA motor preference, but I've had fun in my day with the turbo cars in my performance shop playing around... it's just when you get into the 500hp range on an NA motor for spirited&roadcourse driving, there's no longer need to stick turbos on top of it.

theman

I can get on board with most of this Mad, but frankly 40% loss over the first 3 years is common for stuff in this price category, even on lexus... in fact I banked on that getting my RCF used. 3 years coming off leases is an excellent time to grab deals on high end stuff with low miles still getting a warranty easily with it...

flowrider

iTrader: (9)

Then the ISF, RCF, GSF should have been called IS500, RC500 and GS500. And again, the LS500 is really not an LS500 at all.

Lou

theman

Aaaah, I gotcha, now I'm on board... I skimmed the post too quick and thought you were saying LC500, but you said LS500, which you are exactly right, it is misnamed!

Kubbz

NA engines are fading away, which is why they will be highly sought after in time. I'm betting on Toyota's history of quality and reliability, when it comes to building turbocharged engines. Case and point: Supra & MR2. Both iconic and still kicking butt to this very day. Infact Toyota did it so well, BMW followed suit years later and based a lot of their cars on the Inline 6 turbocharged variant. (BMW's reliability is a whole other subject). In the end, I'm hoping Lexus TT V8 will be a solid powerplant, given all the improvements in technology and lessons learned from other car manufacturers.

theman

totally agree Kubbz... toyota has a track record for implementing great engines in their production vehicles, their higher end Direct Injection motors from the 3.5 v6 on up to the F v8s all went to market with both port and DI to alleviate carbon buildup issues most of the European make implementations still haven't addressed on a whole a decade after the issues were well documented(Audi only uses the better method in their top v10 architecture shared with Lambo). And yes, they definitely do turbo-charging right... It's amazing that the 2JZs I've plaid with since the 90s are still one of the top motors of all time. Their exhaust note alone is leagues above what the BMW 6 tone gives us years later in a very similar/copied configuration... and it's a shame that the BMW/Toyota mashup is putting the BMW powerplant into the toyota chassis program. Toyota has such excellent track record with Yamaha engine design, I see no reason not to continue that with one of their most well known halo coupes. Even Ford's latest DI usage in their coyote 5.0, Raptor & GT Supercar 3.5TT goes along with the best dual method proven in Lexus production motors for over a decade now.

Madmax0609

This is why I leased my LC, because the car is totally new line for Lexus I don't know what the value is going to be after my 36 month lease is up. My residual is 53K, so if the car is worth more than that I'm going to buy it. If it isn't then I'll hand the keys over to the dealer and move on to my next venture.

As for the RC-F, that vehicle met with lots of controversy when it was released. Numerous reviewers didn't like the styling or the way it handled. I remember one reviewer commenting about how the car looked like a bloated porpoise. Personally, I like the way the car looks, but if Lexus had just built the RC-F and not the RC 350 / 300, RC-F Sport, etc., I think the car would've held its value better. If Lexus builds an LC 350 the LC 500's value is going to take a hit. On the other hand, when the LC-F comes out the LC 500's depreciation should stabilize for a while.

situman

I can see Lexus shoving the V6TT in there as the base model LC450 or 500 as a mid cycle refresh. If they are smart, the would offer a 525hp or so TTV8 as the mid tier model and then the LCF at 650hp. Let's face it, anything under 650hp is considered amateur by the time this thing comes out.

05RollaXRS

There was a lot of bias against the RCF when it came out since it was following the LFA. Expectations were sky high and people expected RCF to be an "LFA lite", which it was not. By the time GSF came out, the same reviewers struck a different tone. The whole weight issue got blown out of proportion considering Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Chevy have been making 3900 lbs performance cars for many years, yet it was never an issues. It was putting down very respectable lap times and competitive in the segment. However, the fixation on weight was overly exaggerated. I wrote RCF off in favor of an E90 M3 sedan, but then when I get to test drive an RCF being sold by a track driver, he truly showed me what it was capable of. I ended up committing to buying it before I went back home. That is the RCF I have.

For example, the CLK63 AMG black series was a hardcore track car stripped out of the rear seats and lots of carbon fiber that came out in 2008 and it was exactly the same weight as the RCF. It had racing slick Corsa tires and RCF with MPSS tires put down better handling numbers it 7 years after that. Nowadays, even a mid-tier sporty car like the Kia Stinger weighs close to 4000 lbs, but there is rarely ever any mention of that. I can understand the segment is dominated by M4, which is 400 lbs lighter than the RCF, but still it was hugely undercut considering how capable it is, as a car for what this segment is all about which is grand touring capabilities of balance between luxury, practicality and performance.

My prediction is, the media and general public will be very harsh on the upcoming Supra simply because the expectations are so high.