2016 GS F Product Information & Base Price $85,380 **
10-15-15, 01:36 PM
#92
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: California
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think no one is disagreeing this is priced way too high for a car that's slightly worse performer than RCF. It's a shame really I was looking to buy this car to replace my aging SC430.
I don't mind paying a premium for GSF that has some serious performance to boot. Even my 16 M3 is topping 80k pre tax and it's got everything but the $8k CCB option, but it will smoke GSF in every way possible. Unfortunately we get this 4 door RCF at 90k + out the door.
I don't mind paying a premium for GSF that has some serious performance to boot. Even my 16 M3 is topping 80k pre tax and it's got everything but the $8k CCB option, but it will smoke GSF in every way possible. Unfortunately we get this 4 door RCF at 90k + out the door.
10-15-15, 02:07 PM
#95
Driver
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So someone help me out here. If I wanted to upgrade my '13-'15 GS350 FSport, I can either go with a base GS350 or if I wanted the F version, I have to get the GS F? They phased out the GS350 F?
10-15-15, 02:09 PM
#97
Lexus Champion
Originally Posted by jhontelj
Quit your blood clot crying. You're getting a high performance car from the most reliable manufacturer on the planet. People are buying Dodge cars for 70k these days.
10-15-15, 02:36 PM
#98
[QUOTE=lawdoc79;9217709]
your logic is flawed. just because gsf is the only f sedan made in the lexus lineup and it should automatically be compared to the m3 head to head in every aspect? how is that making any sense?
does that mean back when lexus only had the isf, it was a freaking bargain because it's only a fraction of the cost of a s63?
your point on m3 in mid 60s is exactly my point (and problem) on the gsf pricing, people need to read my posts entirely to get all the points. a mid 60s m3 is relatively barebone ad doesn't have a lot of options. similarly if lexus had released the gsf with base price of 75k and relatively barebone, but optioned out touching 85-88k, it would have worked out so much better with the market. it's exactly what you are saying here, you are repeating my concern.
if you are really trying to compare between a m3 and ls f sport, i think you are so off base there isn't really much to say.
but you do bring out a lot of points which are exactly my problems with the gsf (and i posted this like a year ago when they announced the car). they slotted the car badly with its size and the drive train, it's in the middle of nowhere. the F badge makes it a big problem, should it be real F or should it be gs500?
all these are creating tons of confusions (and arguments?), and this pricing scheme doesn't help matter one bit either.
and to be exactly, i am not in disagreement with your last sentence at all. i don't think the gsf is of exceptional value. in fact, that's a point i made before too, lexus is still of good value but it's no longer the value that they were once
it wouldn't be the first time that higher performance cars have less "gadges". the isf didn't have ventilated seats either compared to regular IS (and same with my m3).
define higher? a fully loaded rcf is in the 80s. a fully loaded gsf is probably around 88k? where is it "so much higher"?
if people are so stuck with the "base" prices to make their points, to me that shows how careless people are in making fair comparisons, and also re-iterate my point that lexus made a very poor choice on gsf packaging / pricing
again you are just looking at performance and ignore everything else. in that regard then there is no point for discussion. like i said, doesn't matter how you slice it, the gs is in mid-size segment and 3 is in compact size segment, there is a difference in the design, materials, features, and space. you can't deny those
That's not true, but even if it was, isn't the draw of the GSF to consumers its performance? If I was in the market for a performance sedan and was looking at Lexus for what they have to offer in this arena, the only option is the GSF. In light of the fact that it underperforms against the M3, I would expect that the price to be competitively priced against the M3. Not saying that it should be the same price or cheaper, but at least in the same ball park. You can get a well equipped M3 for mid to high $60s. The cheapest the GSF goes for is mid $80s. A $20k or ~30% difference in price is a big difference; especially when you take into account the pedigree of the M brand. People pay a premium for performance versions of a vehicle everyday, as you yourself know. For example, your decked out M3 is priced in the same ballpark as the LS F Sport. So, just because the GSF is in a higher class than the M3, it does not follow that it necessarily has to be more expensive, and in this case, much more.
i am definitely not saying the gsf is ok, i have a lot of problems with the car. i have said it many times that lexus is creating a lot of trouble for themselves with this car slotting it between two segments. it's really like in the middle of nowhere.
agreed.
but saying the gsf should be priced the same as rcf or even lower is simply a very silly thing to remotely think
As stated earlier by another member, the M3 has the same motor as the M4 and is priced similarly. If we follow the same logic with Lexus, it's not very silly to expect that the GSF to be priced similarly to an RCF. There is only a $6k difference between their standard counterparts, so what's the justification for the $20k premium over the RCF, which itself is overpriced?
The bottom line is that I, and apparently many of our colleagues on this forum, believe that the GSF is priced too high for what you are getting.
That's not true, but even if it was, isn't the draw of the GSF to consumers its performance? If I was in the market for a performance sedan and was looking at Lexus for what they have to offer in this arena, the only option is the GSF. In light of the fact that it underperforms against the M3, I would expect that the price to be competitively priced against the M3. Not saying that it should be the same price or cheaper, but at least in the same ball park. You can get a well equipped M3 for mid to high $60s. The cheapest the GSF goes for is mid $80s. A $20k or ~30% difference in price is a big difference; especially when you take into account the pedigree of the M brand. People pay a premium for performance versions of a vehicle everyday, as you yourself know. For example, your decked out M3 is priced in the same ballpark as the LS F Sport. So, just because the GSF is in a higher class than the M3, it does not follow that it necessarily has to be more expensive, and in this case, much more.
i am definitely not saying the gsf is ok, i have a lot of problems with the car. i have said it many times that lexus is creating a lot of trouble for themselves with this car slotting it between two segments. it's really like in the middle of nowhere.
agreed.
but saying the gsf should be priced the same as rcf or even lower is simply a very silly thing to remotely think
As stated earlier by another member, the M3 has the same motor as the M4 and is priced similarly. If we follow the same logic with Lexus, it's not very silly to expect that the GSF to be priced similarly to an RCF. There is only a $6k difference between their standard counterparts, so what's the justification for the $20k premium over the RCF, which itself is overpriced?
The bottom line is that I, and apparently many of our colleagues on this forum, believe that the GSF is priced too high for what you are getting.
does that mean back when lexus only had the isf, it was a freaking bargain because it's only a fraction of the cost of a s63?
your point on m3 in mid 60s is exactly my point (and problem) on the gsf pricing, people need to read my posts entirely to get all the points. a mid 60s m3 is relatively barebone ad doesn't have a lot of options. similarly if lexus had released the gsf with base price of 75k and relatively barebone, but optioned out touching 85-88k, it would have worked out so much better with the market. it's exactly what you are saying here, you are repeating my concern.
if you are really trying to compare between a m3 and ls f sport, i think you are so off base there isn't really much to say.
but you do bring out a lot of points which are exactly my problems with the gsf (and i posted this like a year ago when they announced the car). they slotted the car badly with its size and the drive train, it's in the middle of nowhere. the F badge makes it a big problem, should it be real F or should it be gs500?
all these are creating tons of confusions (and arguments?), and this pricing scheme doesn't help matter one bit either.
and to be exactly, i am not in disagreement with your last sentence at all. i don't think the gsf is of exceptional value. in fact, that's a point i made before too, lexus is still of good value but it's no longer the value that they were once
Lexus has changed the GSF position in the marketplace by putting the same engine/performance thats in the RCF into the new GSF.
The engineering costs were shared between GSF and RCF - same engine, same transmission, same brakes, same TVD, same seats even. RCF uses parts of the GSF chassis. Therefore why is the GSF priced so much higher???
M3 and M4 share just as many parts between them as GSF / RCF and they are priced almost identically
Now if the GSF had a unique engine and other bits superior to RCF like M5 has over M3 then i can see why the price is higher.
The engineering costs were shared between GSF and RCF - same engine, same transmission, same brakes, same TVD, same seats even. RCF uses parts of the GSF chassis. Therefore why is the GSF priced so much higher???
M3 and M4 share just as many parts between them as GSF / RCF and they are priced almost identically
Now if the GSF had a unique engine and other bits superior to RCF like M5 has over M3 then i can see why the price is higher.
if people are so stuck with the "base" prices to make their points, to me that shows how careless people are in making fair comparisons, and also re-iterate my point that lexus made a very poor choice on gsf packaging / pricing
10-15-15, 02:49 PM
#99
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: California
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=rominl;9217929]
your logic is flawed. just because gsf is the only f sedan made in the lexus lineup and it should automatically be compared to the m3 head to head in every aspect? how is that making any sense?
does that mean back when lexus only had the isf, it was a freaking bargain because it's only a fraction of the cost of a s63?
your point on m3 in mid 60s is exactly my point (and problem) on the gsf pricing, people need to read my posts entirely to get all the points. a mid 60s m3 is relatively barebone ad doesn't have a lot of options. similarly if lexus had released the gsf with base price of 75k and relatively barebone, but optioned out touching 85-88k, it would have worked out so much better with the market. it's exactly what you are saying here, you are repeating my concern.
if you are really trying to compare between a m3 and ls f sport, i think you are so off base there isn't really much to say.
but you do bring out a lot of points which are exactly my problems with the gsf (and i posted this like a year ago when they announced the car). they slotted the car badly with its size and the drive train, it's in the middle of nowhere. the F badge makes it a big problem, should it be real F or should it be gs500?
all these are creating tons of confusions (and arguments?), and this pricing scheme doesn't help matter one bit either.
and to be exactly, i am not in disagreement with your last sentence at all. i don't think the gsf is of exceptional value. in fact, that's a point i made before too, lexus is still of good value but it's no longer the value that they were once
it wouldn't be the first time that higher performance cars have less "gadges". the isf didn't have ventilated seats either compared to regular IS (and same with my m3).
define higher? a fully loaded rcf is in the 80s. a fully loaded gsf is probably around 88k? where is it "so much higher"?
if people are so stuck with the "base" prices to make their points, to me that shows how careless people are in making fair comparisons, and also re-iterate my point that lexus made a very poor choice on gsf packaging / pricing
Hey Henry that's really on point. In fact I think 70k starting price with a stripped GSF will generate so much more interest. The fact that almost no one buys M3/M4 under $70k ( no back up camera haha) further indicates how starting price is name of the game.
The illusion of choice is important lol..
your logic is flawed. just because gsf is the only f sedan made in the lexus lineup and it should automatically be compared to the m3 head to head in every aspect? how is that making any sense?
does that mean back when lexus only had the isf, it was a freaking bargain because it's only a fraction of the cost of a s63?
your point on m3 in mid 60s is exactly my point (and problem) on the gsf pricing, people need to read my posts entirely to get all the points. a mid 60s m3 is relatively barebone ad doesn't have a lot of options. similarly if lexus had released the gsf with base price of 75k and relatively barebone, but optioned out touching 85-88k, it would have worked out so much better with the market. it's exactly what you are saying here, you are repeating my concern.
if you are really trying to compare between a m3 and ls f sport, i think you are so off base there isn't really much to say.
but you do bring out a lot of points which are exactly my problems with the gsf (and i posted this like a year ago when they announced the car). they slotted the car badly with its size and the drive train, it's in the middle of nowhere. the F badge makes it a big problem, should it be real F or should it be gs500?
all these are creating tons of confusions (and arguments?), and this pricing scheme doesn't help matter one bit either.
and to be exactly, i am not in disagreement with your last sentence at all. i don't think the gsf is of exceptional value. in fact, that's a point i made before too, lexus is still of good value but it's no longer the value that they were once
it wouldn't be the first time that higher performance cars have less "gadges". the isf didn't have ventilated seats either compared to regular IS (and same with my m3).
define higher? a fully loaded rcf is in the 80s. a fully loaded gsf is probably around 88k? where is it "so much higher"?
if people are so stuck with the "base" prices to make their points, to me that shows how careless people are in making fair comparisons, and also re-iterate my point that lexus made a very poor choice on gsf packaging / pricing
The illusion of choice is important lol..
10-15-15, 02:54 PM
#100
Lexus Test Driver
No, u can still buy the V6 GS350 FSport. The GSF is a V8 and it's in a different world than the 350.
10-15-15, 03:06 PM
#101
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Under an IS F since 2008
Posts: 13,446
Received 1,058 Likes
on
586 Posts
.. It lives in the dark shadows of "F Sport"
Coming from a 7 year veteran IS F owner.!!
~ Joe Z
10-15-15, 03:15 PM
#103
Lexus Test Driver
10-15-15, 03:15 PM
#104
Driver
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-15-15, 03:17 PM
#105
Lexus Test Driver