tcat012

Agree with TimboIS. Although, I am in the late 30's demographic.

Been looking for a shiny new toy for sometime.. After considering damn near everything in the market, I ordered an LC last week within minutes of seeing & riding in a demo car. Before this, I considered and test-drove the Aston DB11, various Corvette models, Bentley GT, Benz s-class coupe, various Porsche, V12 Ferrari. For me, none of the alternatives were as universally compelling as this car. Each had a downside that would detract from my enjoyment of the car. For me, there is zero downside to the LC

• The car is plenty fast for anything I plan to do. I prefer GT cars and I have a 45 mile daily commute.
• It will be a 3rd car, but I plan to use it as a daily driver in the spring/summer/early fall.
• I have no interest in track driving, This is not a tool for that job. Track cars are very unpleasant on congested, potholed, northeasters highways and roads.
• I am not obsessed with 0-60. The demo car took me from 40-100mph fast enough that I was looking for the grab handles.
• Is it Huracan fast? Of course not, but most of the population (myself included) have little use for that much speed.
• The car is super comfortable unlike several of the alternatives. I'm 6'3", 200 lbs.
• Lexus reliability is heads and shoulders above the alternatives. I can put tens/hundreds of thousands of miles on the LC without constantly worrying about ending up on a flatbed. Can't do that in a Ferrari.
• The maintenance and depreciation expense on the higher end cars is atrocious. If you compare it to pricier options, the LC is a real value.
• While I appreciate them, I have no interest in Corvettes, Hellcats, M3-M6's, bright orange or green cars, etc.
• To me, the styling is growing stale on most of the other options. I HATED the LC in Pictures, but in person it was absolutely "jaw droppingly" beautiful. The car is not pretentious like a Bentley, it's just very, very cool.

missedapex

I agree that the actual numbers behind the review should not be a major consideration for this car. What I disagree with is that folks that buy this car will have another car in their stable for satisfying their performance needs. While it is great that a number of you can afford numerous 100K+ cars not all of us have that budget. However, we do have the budget to have 2-3 other cars with one 100K+ car as a weekend toy.

Now back to the point around the actual numbers that were published by MotorTrend. While I have zero plans to track the car I do have significant wants (needs) for the feeling of being thrown back in my seat while accelerating. The feeling of having the backend step out a bit when jumping on the throttle. As well as other performance driving rewards and satisfaction that I was hoping to receive from this purchase.

With all of that said, I guess I will have to wait until my local dealer has one in stock so that I can test drive it and see if it can satisfy my exhilaration appetite. I was just hoping that the performance satisfaction question would not be in play but then again hoping is not a strategy.

TimboIS

I think you got it backwards. The other (more expensive) cars are the weekend toys and the LC is the daily. At least that's how Lexus positions it (and I would agree).

missedapex

Well CRAP, then I need a second job

TimboIS

I just think having an LC as a "weekend toy" would be a shame. It's a comfortable, reliable, cheap to operate, slow depreciating vehicle. Leave the weekend toys to those that don't possess those traits.

missedapex

I received a call from my local dealer stating that they are expecting their first set of LCs in the next few weeks. However, she stated that they were all accounted for or preordered cars. So, I asked when she thought that they would have one that could be test driven and she had no idea. It looks like Lexus may have learned from the RCF launch and not over shot on the supply side of things.

Im still interested to see how the LC feels when being push hard on the streets.

ISFPOWER

iTrader: (20)

i got a personal invite for a test drive here in about 2 weeks. they are getting 4 in here but will have a one ready for test drives for any person owning rc-f or Is-f exclusively only.

Frog98

It's slower and heavier than my RC F was...here is my shocked face

TimboIS

Strange. The one I tested was felt same, albeit smoother, than my friends RCF. Both rage 4.4s, so I'm guessing any variation you noticed was driver and/or conditions related.

Frog98

Just going off the time that is out there. I have not driven it yet. Let's hope it's more like 4.4. Guess we'll find out soon. I hope you are right on the smoother part...and hope it is more responsive in normal mode. I'd like to be excited about going into a Lexus showroom again!

TimboIS

Unless they're both test on same day, same driver, same conditions drawing conclusion and making statements on "Just going off the time that is out there" is foolish. If you're really that into numbers (which I'm guessing you are) based on your remark. You should be "excited" about the LC regardless of what the 0-60 number is. It's the next revolutionary step in Lexus' history. Talking to one of the dealers in Japan, Lexus Japan order books are 36x the projected numbers.

Frog98

​​​​​You might want to redirect that fanboy rage at the magazine that published the numbers. Sorry, I thought this was a thread discussing the numbers. You should write advertisements for the LC 500.

gs400jon

Had a chance today to take a short drive in a black LC500. It only had 35 miles on the odometer but I floored it a few times anyway. Being new, it doesn't have the acceleration of my RC F but rides a lot better. I don't care at all for the console shift arrangement or the steering wheel feel. The exhaust at cold start and floored from 30-50 MPH is much higher pitched than the RC F, closer to the LFA. It sounds like the converters have been removed or an aftermarket exhaust system installed. I wish the RC F had the same sound.

xellos

Did anyone actually read the MT article? My emphasis in bold.

"It lacks a dedicated launch program (which ordinarily enhances the transmission’s torque converter effectiveness, but here triggers a limp mode), so the 0-60 mph arrives in a stomp-and-go 4.8 seconds in the LC 500, and the quarter mile arrives in 13.2-second at 110.2-mph. Wheelspin is very slight with traction-control disabled. Anything under 5 seconds to 60 mph is “quick” in our book, but not what we’d call sports car quick. (Test driver’s notes reveal that the best run was achieved in Normal mode with the transmission in Drive, rather than Sport+ mode or manual shifting.)"

Does this mean they got the best results in normal mode without manual shifting or did they only test in with that method? It seems highly unlikely that it would be the former. My ISF would certainly not be as quick in Normal mode and leaving the auto to its own devices. I've heard of RCF owners getting better acceleration out of Sport than Sport+, but that's still with manual shifting in something other than normal mode.

missedapex

You bring up a very interesting and valid point. I don’t read it the same way that you do, but I appreciate that you could be correct. I would be astonished that an outfit such as MT would not have tried and tested the other drive modes. When I read that portion of the paragraph and tried to come to some reasoning why they would have achieved a better time using ‘Normal’ mode. I was wondering if the shift points were less aggressive in ‘Normal’ mode thusly allowing the RPMs to drop further down and into more of a ‘sweet spot’ vs the other modes. Maybe, manual shifting and Sport/Sport+ modes overshoot the peak TQ/HP curve combo that is best for acceleration given their testing parameters (temp, traction, weight…).