gengar

C+D has the 2000 M5 at 3978 tested and Motortrend has the 2016 GS-F at 4130 tested, so not quite the same weight. And the difference between E39 M5 and GS-F is not that much less than the GS-F to the current M5... that said, the E39 M5 is a lot heavier than I remembered - I thought it was closer to IS-F weight.

natnut

I've always thought that a lightly used GSF would be the deal of the century : the instant throttle and the steering reflexes of the E39 M5 with the famed Lexus reliability and with all the modern amenities/safety features.

Future Lexus GSF's and F cars may follow the cursed German propensity for turbocharging and overweightness.

The L10 GSF may be our last chance to get as close to a pure driver's luxury supersedan before the motor industry's bad habits reaches up to us driving enthusiasts.

Bogglo

This is a prove that we humans can never be satisfied. I remember when the GSF was released most people were complaining about the 467HP while its competitors had 500+. am glad people are finally understanding the idea of usable power and having fun.

blacksc400

iTrader: (4)

Almost here guys! Mark August 21st for the reveal!! Wooooooweeeeeee!

Johnhav430

In retrospect, today, we know and see how inadequate 500 is, funny that at the time 500 was better than 467.

In reality I think I would be satisfied at 400/400, but < 400 ft. lbs., not.

(I'm just poking fun, I never would have thought that I'd have a car with 300 HP and 300 ft. lbs.--yet, when I drive it today, it's just fine, nothing special, heck, even the LS430 comes in at 312 ft. lbs. [though an an rpm I don't usually reach]).

blacksc400

iTrader: (4)

I would like my tuned M have another 100hp since it feels slow at times :/
640hp sounds good, but when you used to it it's not that fast.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Interesting choice. The CTS-V puts out that much as well