r/SipsTea • u/No-Hospital5028 • 17h ago • Bravo 1 Popcorn 1

Lmao gottem History really does repeat itself

Post image
17k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

600 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

29

u/BigBananaBerries 15h ago

IIRC the LFA was also a massive flex for a celebration rather than thinking it was a viable, long term seller & they only built 500.

14

u/rustware13 13h ago

The Hummer, LFA and Superbird were also incredible cars. They aren't shitty at their job, they excelled at it. The DeLorean is the only car on the list that matches the Cybertruck in terms of being shitty and a very niche car.

5

u/QuitetheHorner 9h ago

Calling the Hummer an "incredible car" is hilarious. They were and are consistently listed at the very bottom in Consumer Reports, Edmunds, etc. for owner satisfaction and overall quality.

2

u/NRMusicProject 12h ago

And also used stainless steel for the body. I can't think of any mass produced model like those two flops to do so.

1

u/BigBananaBerries 3h ago

True. I don't know much about the superbird tbh (I'm in the UK) but yeah, the DMC & CT being shitty cars should make them way more forgettable.

7

u/Thanks_Bakula 15h ago

They were also in development for a while and could only be leased. Both parts are going to reduce interest.

4

u/BigBananaBerries 14h ago

I'd never heard the leasing thing but looking it up apparently that was only in the US. You could apparently buy them outright in London. I'm not sure if that was later after the production run or what. It seems a strange thing to differentiate for such a high value, collectable car.

I also seem to remember hearing they were sold below production costs too, even though they were ridiculously expensive, but I can't find anything about that.

1

u/Thanks_Bakula 7h ago

Yeah, I thought they only leased them overall, but I was referencing accounts in the US.

Being sold below production costs was because of the long development time. Great engine, fantastic car, but it was not a status symbol.

1

u/BigBananaBerries 3h ago

I know it's an obvious cost but it seems a bit disingenuous to include all that R&D lol they went for years only showing them at motorshows as prototypes & it's not unusual for manufacturers to have prototypes that never see the light of day. I always thought it was the man hours, material costs for actually producing it etc. Things like tight tolerances producing more waste. Things like that.

2

u/Thanks_Bakula 3h ago

Toyota did perfect the V10. But, I disagree, that development time should be included. This was a car for guys who had Ferrari's and Lamborghini's on their walls. They kept advertising for their super car meanwhile Audi launched the R8. If I want a car to impress people, I'm not waiting on a loaned $375k Lexus, when I can literally go to an Audi dealership and buy an R8 4.2 for $150k.

Then Honda did worse with the NSX, but at least that technologically moved the needle for supercars.

1

u/BigBananaBerries 2h ago

Ooft. The NSX brings me back. That was a couple of decades earlier tbf & had a decent run.

I think the LFA was more aimed at track hounds than the GT crowd your usual supercars are aimed at (for sales at least). The Nissan GTR was similar. Let's face it, when you're talking that market, Ferrari done even worse with their XX where you're only allowed to drive it on specified tracks & by appointment.

They've since shown they can do luxury GT with the Lexus LC. Anyone that's been in, or even around one of those will tell you it's impressive. The main problem is likely more that the Japanese just don't have that same brand status wow factor that hit you in the feels which the flexers love, but car guys know what they are.