What do ISF owners think of RCF?
09-11-17, 09:22 AM
#32
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
Agree, the vast majority of cars are not an investment, they are a means to an end (most of the time), however some are more investment-worthy than others, such as a Lexus ISF who's depreciation rate has done far better the majority of most vehicles at the same price point. With that being said, in terms of losing as much money as you would with say a Camry, or IS250, its certainly an investment. There are very few things in the world that go up in value over time, and even those things are prone to market fluctuations, and at times could be considered a "depreciating asset" which actually be considered more of a liability with that rational, however investments don't ALWAYS mean you make money on it, just means you're getting something of value in return for your money, hopefully that value increases, but no guarantees ... i.e.: property, real estate, gold, stock market, etc etc. People in 2008 would say real estate, or playing on Wall Street wasn't an investment either, but overtime, it is clearly.
Clearly your Supra was an good investment, hence it being worth more then you paid. As well as many other cars out there that cost more now then they did when people bought them, Supra is definitely not unique in that regard, relatively unique for a Toyota yes, but definitely not unique from an investment standpoint. There could be 100s of car models named that would be considered good investments, some not nearly as rare as an ISF also, that have made people a lot of money over time.
I definitely don't think it was Fast and Furious that caused the Supra values to do what they have. It could be one factor, but I certainly think it would be a highly sought after car, with or with out the movie. Just like many many other cars out there.
The seats are subjective to you. For you the IS-F wins that battle, for some others maybe not. For me, i haven't sat in an RCF seat for very much time, but i cant tell you (subjectively) the RCF/GSF seats sure look a hell of a lot nicer then the ISF seats. You said it, in your opinion those cars are a disappointment, to some, the ISF is a disappointment. I'd venture to bet, 20-25 years ago some would find the Supra a disappointment. None of those things qualify it for not being a valuable, collectible, and sought after car for quite some time.
I do wonder why you haven't gotten rid of the GS-F, if its that bad? With all your industry knowledge, and technical ability, why did you buy it? Surely you knew that before you pulled the trigger, no? I don't mean that to be a smart ***, truly wonder what changed from when you purchased it?
Clearly your Supra was an good investment, hence it being worth more then you paid. As well as many other cars out there that cost more now then they did when people bought them, Supra is definitely not unique in that regard, relatively unique for a Toyota yes, but definitely not unique from an investment standpoint. There could be 100s of car models named that would be considered good investments, some not nearly as rare as an ISF also, that have made people a lot of money over time.
I definitely don't think it was Fast and Furious that caused the Supra values to do what they have. It could be one factor, but I certainly think it would be a highly sought after car, with or with out the movie. Just like many many other cars out there.
The seats are subjective to you. For you the IS-F wins that battle, for some others maybe not. For me, i haven't sat in an RCF seat for very much time, but i cant tell you (subjectively) the RCF/GSF seats sure look a hell of a lot nicer then the ISF seats. You said it, in your opinion those cars are a disappointment, to some, the ISF is a disappointment. I'd venture to bet, 20-25 years ago some would find the Supra a disappointment. None of those things qualify it for not being a valuable, collectible, and sought after car for quite some time.
I do wonder why you haven't gotten rid of the GS-F, if its that bad? With all your industry knowledge, and technical ability, why did you buy it? Surely you knew that before you pulled the trigger, no? I don't mean that to be a smart ***, truly wonder what changed from when you purchased it?
The GS F wasn't my purchase. The wife chose it pretty much without a discussion. I was all set to buy a Cayenne GTS, and she didn't like the price, so she decided she wanted the GS F. Trust me, I did not even suggest it to her. She is happy with the car, and especially happy with the deal she got. It does everything she wants, and it's not a Rav4 (her original first choice) so it's at least a decent drive. But I would not have bought it for myself.
The following users liked this post:
RJMacReady (08-04-23)
09-11-17, 09:37 AM
#33
Lexus had better be careful. As Lance pointed out, the new RCF and GSF are heavy and accordingly performance suffers. If Lexus wants to play in company that it prices itself with, it had better keep up in the horsepower. A similar comparison is how Honda found out with the Civic Si. After building a tuner following in the 90s they all but abandoned the crowd with the EP3 civic (and also egg-like RSX). Imagine expecting something NSX like to come after the incredible 99-00 Si and Integra Type-Rs and to be met with the EP3 civic and RSX.
I have a hunch that Honda made their choice based on market factors and simply had no desire to put out higher horsepower cars with lower reliability/higher mechanical complexity and hurt their reputation for dependability/reliability. Just as Honda was caught off guard in bringing forced induction to their line-up then, so is Lexus now. With the new Civic Type-R, Honda feels that they can provide a 300hp engine and win the war with chassis dynamics while still steering clear of AWD. To be clear, they make a compelling case. However, it is a case they should have made 10 years ago without losing market share.
Lexus is simply playing catch-up now. It is my guess that they too want to offer forced induction and AWD to their platforms and have been testing the waters with cars outside of the F line-up. Once Lexus feels they can offer these levels of horsepower and reliability in the F brand, you will see them. I imagine that the TT V-6 in the LS platform will soon appear in tuned form in the F lineup. Personally, I think it would be great to see Lexus offer something like the Mercedes AMG E63s.
For now though, of the two, the ISF offers the same/more performance for a lower price with proven reliability. Coupled with an aftermarket warranty and some DIY tech upgrades, the ISF is a clear winner in my book. This is precisely why I chose to extend my warranty rather than look at the new "F" models in the CPO market.
I have a hunch that Honda made their choice based on market factors and simply had no desire to put out higher horsepower cars with lower reliability/higher mechanical complexity and hurt their reputation for dependability/reliability. Just as Honda was caught off guard in bringing forced induction to their line-up then, so is Lexus now. With the new Civic Type-R, Honda feels that they can provide a 300hp engine and win the war with chassis dynamics while still steering clear of AWD. To be clear, they make a compelling case. However, it is a case they should have made 10 years ago without losing market share.
Lexus is simply playing catch-up now. It is my guess that they too want to offer forced induction and AWD to their platforms and have been testing the waters with cars outside of the F line-up. Once Lexus feels they can offer these levels of horsepower and reliability in the F brand, you will see them. I imagine that the TT V-6 in the LS platform will soon appear in tuned form in the F lineup. Personally, I think it would be great to see Lexus offer something like the Mercedes AMG E63s.
For now though, of the two, the ISF offers the same/more performance for a lower price with proven reliability. Coupled with an aftermarket warranty and some DIY tech upgrades, the ISF is a clear winner in my book. This is precisely why I chose to extend my warranty rather than look at the new "F" models in the CPO market.
09-11-17, 10:04 AM
#34
Supras were depreciating just like all the rest of the Japanese sports cars of the early 90s. The FD RX7, 300ZX, 3000GT VR4 are all pretty cheap and in 1995 when my ex totaled my '94 Supra, it wasn't even worth $30k - one year after purchase at $39.6k. I bought my current Supra in January 1997 for $28.5k - it was identical to the '94 the ex totaled. When F&F hit, suddenly the same car was worth over $35k while the rest of the great cars of the day depreciated normally. I remember well when Guilly Polo sold his Supra to the movie production crew and urged others to do the same, thinking he was making out big time on the deal, not knowing that prices would skyrocket.
Conversely, the RX-7 suffered from heat, bad turbos, and overall reliability concerns. The 3000GT VR-4 was a chubby chaser with VERY poor chassis dynamics and handling and a technology overload. The 300ZX was probably the best competitor (opinion) in untuned form but it was already old at the time and VERY difficult to work on. The tuner community picked the Supra because it was/is the best car for tuners. So did the tuners pick it because of the movie or did the movie pick it because of the tuners? I dunno, I couldn't afford any of them at the time but I loved looking at them and wishing!
09-11-17, 11:31 AM
#35
To be fair, it could be a "chicken first or egg first" type of thing. The fame cast upon the Supra in F&F surely didn't hurt things, but one could argue that the reason it was in the movie to start with was because the tuner community knew it to be the car the best responded to mods. The inline-6 was/is the superior choice over a "V" configuration in all regards with the exception of packaging. The engine is naturally balanced and butter smooth and likely overbuilt from the factory. As I remember, mods mentioned on the forums could put you in the 500hp club with a little effort and expense in a car that was 200lbs less than a MKIII and handled great!
Conversely, the RX-7 suffered from heat, bad turbos, and overall reliability concerns. The 3000GT VR-4 was a chubby chaser with VERY poor chassis dynamics and handling and a technology overload. The 300ZX was probably the best competitor (opinion) in untuned form but it was already old at the time and VERY difficult to work on. The tuner community picked the Supra because it was/is the best car for tuners. So did the tuners pick it because of the movie or did the movie pick it because of the tuners? I dunno, I couldn't afford any of them at the time but I loved looking at them and wishing!
Conversely, the RX-7 suffered from heat, bad turbos, and overall reliability concerns. The 3000GT VR-4 was a chubby chaser with VERY poor chassis dynamics and handling and a technology overload. The 300ZX was probably the best competitor (opinion) in untuned form but it was already old at the time and VERY difficult to work on. The tuner community picked the Supra because it was/is the best car for tuners. So did the tuners pick it because of the movie or did the movie pick it because of the tuners? I dunno, I couldn't afford any of them at the time but I loved looking at them and wishing!
09-11-17, 02:46 PM
#36
Supras were depreciating just like all the rest of the Japanese sports cars of the early 90s. The FD RX7, 300ZX, 3000GT VR4 are all pretty cheap and in 1995 when my ex totaled my '94 Supra, it wasn't even worth $30k - one year after purchase at $39.6k. I bought my current Supra in January 1997 for $28.5k - it was identical to the '94 the ex totaled.
Compared to the 300ZX, isn't there quite a few less Supras produced? But turbo models, still bring $25-30k for a 25 yr old car?
Compared to RX7, aren't the turbo variants still relatively sought after now? Granted not the insane values like Supra, but still can fetch good $? Turbo models still upward of $35-40k, thats a lot of dough for a 20-25 year old Mazda, no its not $80k like supra, but 40k, were they that much new? I think low-mid 30s is what they cost back then?
Compared to 3000 GT, just my opinion, but i feel those values are hurt a lot by their step brother Dodge Stealth, but still a clean VR4 can bring good money. Heck of a lot more then id spend on one....a clean VR4 is still bringing around 20k, in comparison to its non VR4 brother, you can barely give one away...
All of these have many more production numbers then the ISF, RCF/GSF, and Supra.
My opinion is that, all of those, along with ISFs and RCFs/GSFs, within the first 3-5 years after the car came out take a large hit in depreciation, especially while still in production, and you can buy a new one, they depreciate much like any other car. Its not until production stops, and and they start to go away does the value level out and start to creep up. I think the supra was taking those depreciation hits, just as every other car then, because well, it was not known then when the run would end, they weren't a car that would be unobtainable in the near future, now they are.
My opinion is it is the tune-ablity of the Supra, and limited ability to find clean examples due to low production numbers is whats driving the increase. I remember long before F&F came out the Supra was still quite an impressive car which was sought after, and unobtainable by regular everyday joes. It was always something back in my street racing days (long before F&F) that the Supra was known as the beast it is now, always a car that everyone knew with very minor mods could crank out 500hp, unheard of back then, it was always the pinnacle of Japanese performance and tuning.
My point is while the ISF GSF RCF may not be Supra values 10-20 years from now, i think theyll still be a good investment, as good as one can do with a "depreciating asset". For a car purchase, I'm happy to get all or most my money back after driving it for 10-15 years. I think thats a pretty good investment since most cars are worth nothing by that time.
Last edited by USB2011JAM; 09-11-17 at 03:00 PM.
09-12-17, 05:28 PM
#37
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
In 1998, the last year of US Supra production, they sat on the floor for 6 - 8 - 10 months before selling. Part of the reason they stopped selling in the US was poor sales performance. They continued production in Japan until 2002.
Like so many things in life, producing something is all about who will actually write a check. Not visit the showroom and drool.
IS F numbers are way smaller than Supra numbers. I'm still not sure it will hold its value like the Supra has. And I'm still disappointed with how Toyota/Lexus have squandered the opportunity to make the F brand something everyone knows is special.
Like so many things in life, producing something is all about who will actually write a check. Not visit the showroom and drool.
IS F numbers are way smaller than Supra numbers. I'm still not sure it will hold its value like the Supra has. And I'm still disappointed with how Toyota/Lexus have squandered the opportunity to make the F brand something everyone knows is special.
09-12-17, 06:07 PM
#38
Advanced
Thread Starter
Would be interesting to see a head to head comparison between the two. And I guess I need to actually drive RCF one day.
When I bought M235i, I also test drove S5 and it felt like a heavy boat compared to M235i that's 3500 lbs
When I bought M235i, I also test drove S5 and it felt like a heavy boat compared to M235i that's 3500 lbs
09-12-17, 06:45 PM
#39
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
I know I can't have an F40LM with 2315 lbs curb weight and 700+ hp, but wouldn't it be impressive if Toyota could build cars in the 3000 - 3200 lb range with the same power we have right now in the 2UR-GSE? That's what I dream about when I think F.
09-12-17, 07:00 PM
#40
Yes...this is what I've wanted to see happen as well. From the factory I want a south of 3500 lb N/A V8 sports sedan with fantastic handling and about 6.5 lbs/hp. It would be expensive to build, but absolutely amazing.
09-12-17, 10:12 PM
#41
In 1998, the last year of US Supra production, they sat on the floor for 6 - 8 - 10 months before selling. Part of the reason they stopped selling in the US was poor sales performance. They continued production in Japan until 2002.
Like so many things in life, producing something is all about who will actually write a check. Not visit the showroom and drool.
IS F numbers are way smaller than Supra numbers. I'm still not sure it will hold its value like the Supra has. And I'm still disappointed with how Toyota/Lexus have squandered the opportunity to make the F brand something everyone knows is special.
Like so many things in life, producing something is all about who will actually write a check. Not visit the showroom and drool.
IS F numbers are way smaller than Supra numbers. I'm still not sure it will hold its value like the Supra has. And I'm still disappointed with how Toyota/Lexus have squandered the opportunity to make the F brand something everyone knows is special.
It won't hold like Supra, IMO, however, i think holding close to what they were are now, or creep up a bit isn't out of the realm of possibility. Same with GSF/RCF, maybe not as much as ISF.
In addition to all the luxury and comfort features people demand from a Lexus and, any other higher end car for that matter, the thing a lot of people don't know, or may not realize is the factories are regulated to build cars with a lot of added safety features that add 10lbs here, 50 lbs, there, 75 lbs there... you get the idea. Such as all the extra airbags that weren't required 20 years ago, reinforced, and strengthened frames, and subframes, sensors galore to control it all, stability control, traction control, , I don't know if its taken place yet, but by a certain time, all cars will be required to have a back up camera. Not to mention all the emissions and other government regulated items most of us don't care about in the performance car world, but the government requires it in order to be legal on the streets. Hell even a Corolla is close to 3000 lbs.
Talk to your congress man ! haha
3200 lbs would be perfect, so perfect in fact, thats only 100lbs heavier then a 458 Italia... I think Ferrari has put a little more $ into weight savings, and less creature comforts though... not to mention a lot more carbon fiber and other super car goodies.
Last edited by USB2011JAM; 09-12-17 at 10:21 PM.
09-12-17, 11:05 PM
#42
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
My congressman has been sucker punched by Joan Claybrook and the whole stupid airbag idea. But that's a whole different rant, and if you look at my history on CL, you will know I do not have a high opinion of the travesty foisted on the unsuspecting sheeple about airbags.
The point about the 458 Italia is well taken, and speaks to my chief complaint - why does the US market LFA weigh more than my hardtop Supra? Toyota went to great lengths to make the LFA light, and it is not bad in other markets, but in the US, it's a pig. A horribly heavy pig. Does this mean we in the US are doomed to overweight cars because our legislators (who understand absolutely nothing about high performance automobiles) have been suckered into requiring our cars to be engineered to overcome the fundamental deficiencies in driver training in the US? (Driving safety is a triad - roads, cars, and drivers).
I had GREAT hope for the RC F. I mean REALLY GREAT hope. I wasn't asking for much. Make it the same weight as the IS F with a more powerful engine. Should be pretty simple to achieve, no? Not 3100 pounds like I would really hope to achieve (Corvette weight), but the same 3742 lbs my IS F weighed at Roebling Road and just a little more power. That would have been awesome. Sadly, it was not to be.
And to ice the cake - just tonight, the wife said no more than 4 hours in the GS F. She's 6 months pregnant, so her tolerance is low to start, but she said point blank, the seats in the IS F are more comfortable than the seats in the GS F. Why? Makes no sense to me.
The point about the 458 Italia is well taken, and speaks to my chief complaint - why does the US market LFA weigh more than my hardtop Supra? Toyota went to great lengths to make the LFA light, and it is not bad in other markets, but in the US, it's a pig. A horribly heavy pig. Does this mean we in the US are doomed to overweight cars because our legislators (who understand absolutely nothing about high performance automobiles) have been suckered into requiring our cars to be engineered to overcome the fundamental deficiencies in driver training in the US? (Driving safety is a triad - roads, cars, and drivers).
I had GREAT hope for the RC F. I mean REALLY GREAT hope. I wasn't asking for much. Make it the same weight as the IS F with a more powerful engine. Should be pretty simple to achieve, no? Not 3100 pounds like I would really hope to achieve (Corvette weight), but the same 3742 lbs my IS F weighed at Roebling Road and just a little more power. That would have been awesome. Sadly, it was not to be.
And to ice the cake - just tonight, the wife said no more than 4 hours in the GS F. She's 6 months pregnant, so her tolerance is low to start, but she said point blank, the seats in the IS F are more comfortable than the seats in the GS F. Why? Makes no sense to me.
The following users liked this post:
spacexmase (09-13-17)
09-13-17, 12:51 AM
#44
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
Nope. Don't want a POS with a 20k mile service life on the gearbox. The GTR could have been great, but they screwed it with too much weight and bad driveline engineering.
09-13-17, 01:45 AM
#45
My congressman has been sucker punched by Joan Claybrook and the whole stupid airbag idea. But that's a whole different rant, and if you look at my history on CL, you will know I do not have a high opinion of the travesty foisted on the unsuspecting sheeple about airbags.
The point about the 458 Italia is well taken, and speaks to my chief complaint - why does the US market LFA weigh more than my hardtop Supra? Toyota went to great lengths to make the LFA light, and it is not bad in other markets, but in the US, it's a pig. A horribly heavy pig. Does this mean we in the US are doomed to overweight cars because our legislators (who understand absolutely nothing about high performance automobiles) have been suckered into requiring our cars to be engineered to overcome the fundamental deficiencies in driver training in the US? (Driving safety is a triad - roads, cars, and drivers).
I had GREAT hope for the RC F. I mean REALLY GREAT hope. I wasn't asking for much. Make it the same weight as the IS F with a more powerful engine. Should be pretty simple to achieve, no? Not 3100 pounds like I would really hope to achieve (Corvette weight), but the same 3742 lbs my IS F weighed at Roebling Road and just a little more power. That would have been awesome. Sadly, it was not to be.
And to ice the cake - just tonight, the wife said no more than 4 hours in the GS F. She's 6 months pregnant, so her tolerance is low to start, but she said point blank, the seats in the IS F are more comfortable than the seats in the GS F. Why? Makes no sense to me.
The point about the 458 Italia is well taken, and speaks to my chief complaint - why does the US market LFA weigh more than my hardtop Supra? Toyota went to great lengths to make the LFA light, and it is not bad in other markets, but in the US, it's a pig. A horribly heavy pig. Does this mean we in the US are doomed to overweight cars because our legislators (who understand absolutely nothing about high performance automobiles) have been suckered into requiring our cars to be engineered to overcome the fundamental deficiencies in driver training in the US? (Driving safety is a triad - roads, cars, and drivers).
I had GREAT hope for the RC F. I mean REALLY GREAT hope. I wasn't asking for much. Make it the same weight as the IS F with a more powerful engine. Should be pretty simple to achieve, no? Not 3100 pounds like I would really hope to achieve (Corvette weight), but the same 3742 lbs my IS F weighed at Roebling Road and just a little more power. That would have been awesome. Sadly, it was not to be.
And to ice the cake - just tonight, the wife said no more than 4 hours in the GS F. She's 6 months pregnant, so her tolerance is low to start, but she said point blank, the seats in the IS F are more comfortable than the seats in the GS F. Why? Makes no sense to me.
On a very different note, congratulations on the upcoming birth. With all the great advice and knowledge you've provided myself and many car owners and enthusiasts, I know you will do the same with your offspring!
The following 2 users liked this post by bnizzle87:
lobuxracer (09-13-17),
spacexmase (09-13-17)