Why? The LFA Taught Lexus Plenty - But Brand Has No Plans For A Follow Up

Probably because a quick search still finds brand new ones 3 years after production stopped?

Lexus forgot what made them successful in the first place, offering relatively comparable performance, luxury, and features at a price undercutting the competition.

The GTR is to Nissan/Infiniti what the LFA should have been to Toyota/Lexus

You cant enter a market where you have little to no heritage/history and charge top dollar unless you have some game changing, ground breaking statement with the new vehicle like Bugatti did with the Veyron as the world's fastest production car, but even they had heritage to boot

Did a little better search and found 29 out of 180 copies allocated to the US still in the showrooms as new after 3 years.

Lambo can release 1500 copies of a Justin Bieber leopard spotted aventador and it will sell out in a week.

Lexus can't move 180 landmark vehicles in almost 3 years. So sad.

When one can get a GT-R for much less it is a tough sell.

It was (1) unattractive, (2) stupidly expensive, and (3) a Lexus not a Lamborghini or Ferrari.

Is it just me or it has already started to look old?

Hell look at the R8. Really needs an uodate

"The LFA Taught Lexus Plenty" -- Yeah, don't make another LFA! Or if you do, price it a lot more modestly. It likely would have sold like hotcakes priced to compete with the Corvette.

When you can't move 180 vehicles in 3 years (009's numbers), then that clearly shows your product has extraordinarily limited consumer appeal, all things considered.

I doubt the purpose of the LFA was to make money.

It's a wonderful car with arguably the best sounding engine of all time. Overpriced, perhaps, but there's no doubt it's a showcase for Toyota's leading edge engineering. Too bad we won't get another taste for 30 years.

runninglogan1: I certainly don't know what Lexus hoped to accomplish with the LFA. It hasn't raised their profitability. It hasn't resulted in lineups to Lexus showrooms or an explosion of unit sales. It hasn't overcome Lexus's new polarizing "Predator Face" styling language.

My thinking is if Kia created this car, people would not shift their perception of Kia to think of is as that amazing sports car company. They'd continue to think of it as they always had, and just note the one, oddball car they made that sold poorly. Granted, Lexus is a huge step up from Kia, but I don't believe much has changed to the positive as a result of making this car.

What do you believe was Lexus's reason to make this car. How did it benefit them in any tangible way. How would Lexus have been worse off by not making it? The LFA is arguable the difference that made no difference.

It's wrong to think that Lexus created the LFA to boost the bottom line.

Much like the 2000 GT, the LFA was conceived to push their engineers' imagination, to push the boundaries of what's technically feasible with modern materials and manufacturing techniques, to show the world that Toyota has some enthusiast blood pumping through its veins.

Although it was never the fastest, or put up the best numbers, the consensus was that it was a remarkable engineering achievement. A truly great car.

I disagree that it made no difference. If your sole metric is sales then maybe that's correct.

I and many car enthusiast all over the world appreciate what Toyota attempted and achieved with that car and would never discourage ANY car company from shooting for the stars.

Lexus has been a success since its inception and I hardly think a generational attempt at a super car will hurt them in any way. On the contrary.

runninglogan1: So what (positive) benefit did the LFA make?

You say "the LFA was conceived to push their engineers' imagination". That's a result, but what's the *benefit*. How hoes Lexus or it's consumers benefit from that?

Unless some benefit is achieved, then it's just an exercise in engineering masturbation. If the sole benefit was to make 151 LFA drivers super happy (180 produced - 29 unsold = 151 sold), then the guy who did the LFA cost-benefit analysis should be shot.

Like I said before TheSteve, the point of the LFA wasn't to make money.

Much like the Bugatti Veyron and the LaFerrari, it's an exercise in showing the world what you're capable of.

These cars aren't created to be huge money makers and even if every single Lexus had sold, we're still only talking about 500 vehicles - $200 million for Toyota. You couldn't even finance one crappy Transformers movie with that.

The LFA is widely admired for it's excellence. Many enthusiasts around the world lust after it. That was the point and it was achieved.

I can't tell you exactly how the engineering lessons learned from that car apply to the regular F series but it would be naive to think Toyota gained nothing.

The LFA was an utter disaster for Lexus. It imparted literally no street cred to the rebadged Toyotas that are the meat and potatoes of Lexus' sales.

Lexus needs a coupe that goes toe to toe with the Stingray on price and performance and then a $100K sports car to battle the 911 and the Z06.

The price gap between the LFA and the next most expensive Lexus was LAUGHABLE.

Moreover, the car was not that attractive.

Here's an example of what the LFA did for Lexus. Jeremy Clarkson, who has driven practically every hypercar ever made, has said more than once that the LFA was the best car he has ever driven. He also quoted Stig saying the Ferrari F12 Berlinetta is the only car in the world that can hold a candle to the Lexus LFA.
Top Gear is watched by some 250 million people around the world. This kind of praise helps change peoples' perception of Lexus from maker of bland, detached luxury cars to a brand that can play with the big boys. Now when they come out with something like an RC-F, people's default setting isn't to automatically dismiss it.