wuyichao

no one hates the car. its always the car owner's attitude that people may like or dislike.

why would anyone hate a car lol

SebringSilver

Well you've obviously never driven the 1974 Plymouth Valiant.

blownS

From Edmunds:

C63 MSRP: $56,300
M3 (sedan) MSRP: $54,500

IS-F MSRP: $56,610

I'm not great at math, but it looks to me like the IS-F is definitively the priciest of the bunch.

e1000

what those prices don't indicate is that the IS-F only has 1 possible option at 4K, while the C63 and M3 can have 10K to 15K of options added on to those prices.

blownS

Which is why everybody compares car values by using base MSRP (not options).

CDNROCKIES

You are absolutely right.

It is only $4K for a fully loaded IS F. When I looked at the C63 and the M3 fully loaded the prices are not close. I'm guessing there are not many people buying base model super sedans.

iNOMAD

I don't know if it's true, but I heard Clarkson crashed the IS-F and they will have footage of it on Sunday's episode.

SebringSilver

Uh...if you can afford a $60,000 car, you can afford a $65,000 car (or whatever those numbers works out to be). I'd be willing to pay more for the C63 than the IS-F even if it had exactly the same list of features.

The Lexus should be priced lower, because they haven't proven themselves in terms of performance, either on the track or on the street. They really ought to be priced lower to make it a viable proposition for people to give them a chance. Someday, when their reputation for performance has been enhanced, they could adjust their pricing.

Interesting comparison is what Honda did with the NSX. Even in spite of all their success in Formula One, in spite of getting Ayrton Senna to do some of the testing for the car, relatively few people were prepared to pay top dollar for a Japanese exotic.

I'm not trying to take anything away from the IS-F. It seems like a pretty fast car (I've not yet driven one). But it'd be hard to justify a price premium over the established players in the segment at this time. Give it some time, and things might change.

norb

That's not a fair comparison with the NSX, it was a popular car when it first came out but it didn't change in 10 years and when the horsepower wars started, it just fell out of favor. Honda's uber conservatism is what killed the NSX. I mean in 2003, it had less than 250hp! In an age where Subarus had 300 and Mercedes sedans had 460!

Tri-State MB

I understand your thought process so I see why you would think that the lexus should be priced lower. On the other hand I think the lexus is priced very fair being that its optioned so well even at the base price. Although I don't think I'd buy either of the three, I'd get a pre-owned M5 for that money

crazeazn

the F in IS-F stands for circle F from the pre lexus era. Circle F is the project that became the lexus brand. also i think it means 'fast'?

passcheco

With all do respect why is this comms all about corollas, did we get burn out talking about our C63?

SebringSilver

I don't disagree with you. I guess my point was that even if the NSX had Ferrari-equalling performance back in the early '90s, they certainly couldn't justify pricing it like a Ferrari. The fact that the IS-F is, today, sold at a slightly lower price when fully-optioned compared to its German counterparts is entirely logical.

I'm not slagging off the IS-F. I'm just trying to make sense of its pricing.

Peace.

ultraseven

You couldn't be more wrong on this. When the NSX came out in 1990 practically people were lining up for it. It was the only production car on the market at the time that had an aluminum chassis and that was before the dollar to yen exchange rate shot up.

The problem that Honda ran into is the car had little changes over its next decade and charging a whopping 80+ K due to higher labor costs and no longer favorable exchange rates, while Porsche has made a significant list of improvements in its 911.

Comparing the base MSRP of all 3 cars means taking out leather, moonroof, and practically every luxury feature you can find in the C and M. So there's no price premium that the ISF have over its competitors. Based on the performance figures alone however, Lexus should charge about 10% less.

SebringSilver

No, no, I'm not talking about sales numbers. I bought two NSXs myself, so I know they're great cars and why people bought them. My point was that it would have been hard to justify a Ferrari-like price for that car back then even if it had Ferrari-like performance, and that's probably down to the fact that it (Honda/Acura) didn't have the prestige factor needed to warrant a much higher price.

e1000

you're probably 100% right about this, but am I the only one who thinks it still sounds stupid???

jherbias

This is 100% wrong. The 'F' or at least the outer parts of the letter are designed after the first curve at the Fuji International Speedway, which Toyota owns. This is according to the IS-F test drive at the California Speedway, or whatever it's called now, I did a couple of months ago.

I drove the car in the inner track and it isn't that bad. I haven't driven a C63 or M3. The car is very quiet unless you rev it hard. Obviously Lexus has to catch up just brand-name wise, but it isn't a POS.

I swear some of the people here just got their driver's license.