By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I understand your loyalty. The buying public does not share your enthusiasm. Both the GS430 and LS430 are way off in sales this year. Mercedes is making a nice comeback. The flagship "S" class is outselling the LS430 2 to 1. The "E" Class is outselling the GS Lexus. If it were not for the RX series SUVs they would not have many vehicles selling on the plus side so far this year. IMO they lost what they once had, great looking cars, that were a cut above the competition. If I want a fast car I will buy a Porsche Carrera not a Lexus. If you are looking for a street racer, get a Mitsubishi. They got a 4 banger that will out run the IS350.
PS
I could live with the LS430 it is a nice car.
And, living with it is what I do. I'm in like with the LS, but not in love with it. Very competent and reliable car though. Just not beautiful, and not exciting.
Test drove a new Mustang. The interior is nothing close to as good as the '98 Corolla. Not many choices in coupes under $22K these days. May buy another sedan some day. If I ever part with more money, I guess I will look at the CTS, new and used. BMW are of high quality, but I am not sure I am ready to pay the price of maintaining one for the long haul. I hear the Altima, Mazda6 and Milan are fun or at least quick, with a V6. After owning a Miata, I would like RWD again, but will pass on the Chrysler 300. Something I could hand my elbow out of would be nice. One without the too tall doors. Maybe I should get a classic of the 90's
-Loren
Lexus LS430 was my 1st runner-up when I last went car shopping, but the crown went to a Cadillac Seville STS. Overall, I'm quite happy with the car.
Somebody mentioned they had a 84K mile 1990 Lexus LS400? Shoot, keep the car and save your money. That car has a lot of life left in it.
Exactly, a fine built car I am sure. If I did a lot of road traveling I would put it on the list. I would just as soon fly to where I am going and rent, as to drive cross country.
Hard to believe isn't it. My wife bought it new before I came on the scene. She only had MB and Porsches prior. Never made a payment in her life. No, not rich, just worked and saved. Just very frugal with money. Took the bus till she could buy a MB cash in the 1960s.
Uh...it's because the S-class is an all new design but the all-new LS won't be for sell until October this year.
If I want a fast car I will buy a Porsche Carrera not a Lexus
If I am as rich as you are I would buy a Prosche Carrera as my weekend car but the reality is...I am not. Also, Porschea Carrera doesn't offer the same level of luxury as the new IS. I bought the IS because it's a good balance between performance and luxury.
If you are looking for a street racer, get a Mitsubishi. They got a 4 banger that will out run the IS350
First of all, I am not looking for a street racer. I was looking for an entry-level luxury sports sedan and my options were: IS350, 3-series, Infiniti G and Acura TL. I choose the IS350 because like I said earlier it balances performance and luxury the best among the segment IMO and that's why I choose the IS.
Also, please point me to a naturally aspirated 4 banger Mitsubishi that can put out over 300 HP and over 270 lb-ft of torque. I would love to know.
BTW, I was never a loyal Lexus customer, this is the first time I purchase a Lexus car. I was always a Honda/Acura fan and always will be but the new GS, IS and even the LS changed my view of Lexus. If Lexus can keep up what they are doing now they'll have my business for a very long time (unless Acura decides to go RWD and upgrades its interior up a notch).
No I know a few people that only put a few thousand miles a year on a car, My mom was lucky to put 5K a year on hers. My Caddy would likely be like that too as I am lucky to put 100 miles on it a week.
A co-worker has a 89 Grand Marque with about 55K on it. They bought it about two years ago and it had only 22K on the odometer.
The problem is not the mileage but the age, time will do a number to a car. A 16 year old car with 84K on it is not the same as a 6 year old car with 84K on it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
But you're still going to run into old age type of stuff. My '76 Lemans only has about 77,000 miles on it, but it also had a lot of work done to it before I bought it. And I've had it checked out by my mechanic to keep on top of things. For the most part it seems fine, but there are little annoyances like the air conditioner not working, the radio recently stopped working too, the plastic part of the dash that's between the windshield and the padded part is warped, some of the interior parts are fading at different rates, and to slightly different hues than other parts, and so forth.
My '79 New Yorker has about 90,000 miles on it, and like the LeMans, mechanically it's fine. But it does drop just a bit of oil here and there, the air conditioner doesn't work on it either, some of the interior plastic is breaking, some parts that were originally glued on are coming loose (yay Chrysler.
I think newer cars, such as from the 70's, 80's, and newer, will be even more prone to things breaking as they age than 60's and older cars, because of a greater use of plastics, electronics, lighter components, etc.
This is true indeed - but it's usually not mechanical stuff as much as bushings, electrical componentry, switches, gagetry, lights.
However - Lexus in the 90's at least, had a disciplin of "anti-aging" goin on, where they used rigoursly tested materials that would withstand the elements the best. Therefore, your Lexus on average will 'age better' than most cars. MB does the same. Ergo - buying an old Lexus or MB shouldn't be as big a pain in the rear as buying an old Cadillac.
I have noticed however, that even a Mercedes, parked in the sun for 25 years here, showed no signs of interior deterioration whatsoever - very impressive.
MB leather will do the same thing, it cracks after some time, but longer than those early Lexus.
The MB vinyl ("MB-Tex") lasts forever, and rarely falls apart. I've seen junkyard cars or rusted out hulk parts cars with pristine seats.
The 20+ year old cars I've spoken about all had the pleather (MB-Tex) and it's as durable as sheet metal, it seems....
MB-Tex is the best interior material ever, IMO. It does a passable leather impression, and it is tough as nails. The normal leather in modern cars holds up fine from what I have seen...my 126 had 182K miles on it, and the only wear was the slightest hint on the drivers seat. The C43, which is now 8 years old, looks as new in the back and passenger seats, with barely the slightest creasing on the bolsters of the drivers seat.
I think these aspects help keep the brand image strong, even with other issues.
One gained, one lost. Lexus is even. To each his own. The IS just does not cut it for me in looks. I start there and move to other areas of want and need. I just don't care for the looks of most new vehicles. The new CLS500 is not attractive to me or my wife. Another one scratched off the list.
Uh...I don't think it's Lexus' intention to attract customers from your age group with the IS. They have the LS and LX for that purpose.
I thought the old IS300 looked an awful lot like a tricked Civic, but it did grow on me after awhile.
Yes. And it is too bad, IMO.
The engine has been such a thrill for drivers though. The acceleration and torque.
Personally, I would just as soon BMW continue to perfect the engine, as well as work on things like hydrogen fueled ICE technology, than to put so much effort on the HP wars.
The market appears to be HP insatiable, so some of your predictions may be closer to what will happen.
Also, I wasn't talking about IS's interior earlier, I was refeering to its 306HP and 277 lb-ft of torque.
June 2, 2006
U.S. light-vehicles sales totals, individual automaker results and market share for May compared to May 2005:
MAY 2004
Maker volume % change
from 2005 % mkt
share YTD
volume % change
from 2005 YTD %
mkt share
GM 338,411 -12.5% 22.7% 1,628,524 -8.0% 23.7%
Ford 277,157 -2.0% 18.6% 1,274,895 -3.5% 18.5%
Toyota 235,708 17.0% 15.8% 1,000,524 8.8% 14.6%
DaimlerChrysler 212,912 -8.4% 14.3% 1,037,883 -1.0% 15.1%
Honda 141,810 16.1% 9.5% 614,778 8.6% 8.9%
Nissan 86,667 -7.3% 5.8% 436,614 -3.0% 6.4%
Hyundai 42,514 5.2% 2.9% 189,527 4.5% 2.8%
Volkswagen 29,652 28.5% 2.0% 130,060 18.7% 1.9%
BMW 28,390 5.4% 1.9% 129,661 9.9% 1.9%
Mazda 27,321 2.5% 1.8% 116,977 3.6% 1.7%
Kia 26,494 3.9% 1.8% 119,134 2.7% 1.7%
Subaru 16,406 13.3% 1.1% 77,546 2.9% 1.1%
Mitsubishi 11,821 3.9% 0.8% 48,357 -12.3% 0.7%
Suzuki 10,135 35.9% 0.7% 47,443 37.3% 0.7%
Porsche 3,272 -0.6% 0.2% 15,730 15.9% 0.2%
Isuzu 638 -47.7% 0.0% 3,973 -37.0% 0.1%
Maserati 219 13.5% 0.0% 890 25.7% 0.0%
Ferrari 137 10.5% 0.0% 568 20.3% 0.0%
TOTAL 1,489,664 -0.7% 100.0% 6,873,084 -0.4% 100.0%
GM includes Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Hummer, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Saab and Saturn. Ford includes Lincoln, Mercury, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston Martin. DaimlerChrysler includes Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Mercedes and Maybach. Volkswagen includes Audi and Bentley. BMW includes Mini and Rolls-Royce. Toyota includes Lexus and Scion. Honda includes Acura. Nissan includes Infiniti.
Figures are not adjusted for selling days.
Source: Autodata Corp.
OK, so it's not a sports sedan, can we call it a musle car?
NO, it is missing pushrod V8 and live axle at the rear, not to mention half in gaps between body panels.
The GS is supposed to be sportier, and it is, but it's not THAT sporty.....
June 4, 2006
BY JENNIFER DIXON
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
A quick look at the case
• Virtually all of GM's accounting errors worked in its favor, which industry experts say suggests a pattern that would concern regulators.
• Some of GM's methods were similar to Delphi Corp.'s troubled practices.
• GM says it has tightened its accounting to avoid future problems.
5 key players in accounting case
Rick Wagoner, General Motors Corp. chairman and chief executive. He said GM's accounting errors were made by employees who either did not know the rules or misinterpreted them.
John Devine, GM's chief financial officer until this year. He told Wall Street analysts that GM did not accept rebates from suppliers, a declaration seized upon by critics.
Peter Bible, GM's chief accounting officer. His resignation in May came two months after GM disclosed a series of accounting errors.
J.T. Battenberg III, Delphi Corp.'s founding chairman and chief executive officer. He announced his retirement days before Delphi revealed a slew of accounting irregularities.
Alan Dawes, Delphi's chief financial officer. He resigned after the audit committee of Delphi's board lost confidence in him.
Following GM's latest troubles
Oct. 19, 2004: General Motors Corp. says it received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission seeking records on its pension and retiree health plans.
March 4, 2005: Delphi Corp. concedes that it made a series of accounting irregularities and says it's examining its accounting for $237 million in cash payments made to GM and $85 million in credits received from GM.
Oct. 27, 2005: GM says it received SEC subpoenas related to its financial reporting for deals with Delphi, supplier credits, and any obligations it has to fund pension and other retirement costs for Delphi workers. GM said its finance arm, GMAC, received subpoenas from the SEC and a federal grand jury relating to industry-wide investigations of the insurance business.
Nov. 9, 2005: GM says an internal investigation of its accounting for payments -- or credits -- from suppliers finds an error that caused it to overstate its 2001 income.
March 16, 2006: GM concedes it made additional accounting errors.
March 28, 2006: GM says it has received an SEC subpoena in connection with an investigation of its dealings in precious metals and a federal grand jury subpoena regarding supplier credits.
One morning in March last year, General Motors executives conducted a conference call with Wall Street analysts to lay out some gloomy news: Shareholders could expect first-quarter losses and lower-than-expected earnings to follow.
When it was his turn, Prudential analyst Michael Bruynesteyn raised a delicate question. He asked if GM had the same sort of accounting problems that were haunting Delphi Corp.
GM's former parts unit had improperly recorded cash payments, known as rebates, from suppliers.
"Our policy is no rebates from suppliers," shot back John Devine, GM's chief financial officer. He added that the automaker "had been very clear with our suppliers that we don't do business that way.
"We think our accounting is very acceptable."
But in fact, GM had improperly recorded rebates. It later admitted that its accounting practices led GM to inflate its 2001 income by 42% -- and by lesser amounts in 2000, 2002 and 2004, errors GM attributes to honest mistakes.
GM's books are now under investigation by federal regulators and under fire from some GM investors, who claim in lawsuits that they were misled. The investigations come at a sensitive time for GM as it seeks to bolster shareholder confidence and turn a profit in North America.
'A great deal of suspicion'
Federal securities records and court filings reviewed by the Free Press show a string of accounting errors that consistently favored the company and offered investors a rosier outlook than actually existed. While GM is not accused of any crimes, experts warn that if GM is found to have intentionally misled investors, it might face legal problems and costly sanctions that could devastate the automaker.
Some industry experts said they are disturbed by what they already know. Most troubling, they say, is that nearly every error GM has acknowledged helped to improve its financial picture.
"The evidence is there was a string of errors, all going in one direction, giving a more positive light to GM's results," said Charles Mulford, an accounting professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology who has studied accounting at GM and other large companies. "Simple, honest errors go both ways. Investors were misled, in my view."
GM said the errors were nothing more than a series of mistakes and must be viewed in the context of a company that had $193 billion in revenue last year.
Peter Henning, a Wayne State University law professor who specializes in white-collar crime, sees reason for concern. When errors fall uniformly in the company's favor, he said, "that starts to look like a plan; that's not a series of accidents. That would generate a great deal of suspicion on the part of the government."
Jerry Dubrowski, a GM spokesman, did not directly address why the errors tended to favor GM.
"There's no question that the accounting errors were embarrassing to GM, that they hurt our reputation or damaged our reputation with investors," he said. "We are working very hard to restore that reputation.
"Our decision to correct these mistakes was not at all guided by whether they were in GM's favor or not," he said. "It was to get the correct accounting."
GM's defense was supported by David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, a nonprofit in Ann Arbor that studies the auto industry.
The bigger, more troubling picture
Van Conway, a corporate-turnaround specialist based in Birmingham, said whatever accounting problems existed, they pale compared with GM's larger problem: survival.
"If the company doesn't solve its declining market share, how they account for a rebate really isn't going to matter," he said.
Dubrowski said GM has tightened accounting controls and changed how it records supplier credits. The company also has brought in AlixPartners, a firm known for advising troubled companies such as Kmart, WorldCom and Dana Corp., to help GM with a range of accounting matters.
Last month Peter Bible, GM's chief accounting officer, abruptly resigned and controller Paul W. Schmidt said he was retiring.
Since October 2004, GM's accounting has come under scrutiny by two federal grand juries and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has issued six subpoenas seeking records -- including records on rebates and price adjustments GM received from suppliers and its dealings with Delphi.
Sued by investors
GM is accused of
A quick look at the case
• Virtually all of GM's accounting errors worked in its favor, which industry experts say suggests a pattern that would concern regulators.
• Some of GM's methods were similar to Delphi Corp.'s troubled practices.
• GM says it has tightened its accounting to avoid future problems.
5 key players in accounting case
Rick Wagoner, General Motors Corp. chairman and chief executive. He said GM's accounting errors were made by employees who either did not know the rules or misinterpreted them.
John Devine, GM's chief financial officer until this year. He told Wall Street analysts that GM did not accept rebates from suppliers, a declaration seized upon by critics.
Peter Bible, GM's chief accounting officer. His resignation in May came two months after GM disclosed a series of accounting errors.
J.T. Battenberg III, Delphi Corp.'s founding chairman and chief executive officer. He announced his retirement days before Delphi revealed a slew of accounting irregularities.
Alan Dawes, Delphi's chief financial officer. He resigned after the audit committee of Delphi's board lost confidence in him.
Following GM's latest troubles
Oct. 19, 2004: General Motors Corp. says it received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission seeking records on its pension and retiree health plans.
March 4, 2005: Delphi Corp. concedes that it made a series of accounting irregularities and says it's examining its accounting for $237 million in cash payments made to GM and $85 million in credits received from GM.
Oct. 27, 2005: GM says it received SEC subpoenas related to its financial reporting for deals with Delphi, supplier credits, and any obligations it has to fund pension and other retirement costs for Delphi workers. GM said its finance arm, GMAC, received subpoenas from the SEC and a federal grand jury relating to industry-wide investigations of the insurance business.
Nov. 9, 2005: GM says an internal investigation of its accounting for payments -- or credits -- from suppliers finds an error that caused it to overstate its 2001 income.
March 16, 2006: GM concedes it made additional accounting errors.
March 28, 2006: GM says it has received an SEC subpoena in connection with an investigation of its dealings in precious metals and a federal grand jury subpoena regarding supplier credits.
One morning in March last year, General Motors executives conducted a conference call with Wall Street analysts to lay out some gloomy news: Shareholders could expect first-quarter losses and lower-than-expected earnings to follow.
When it was his turn, Prudential analyst Michael Bruynesteyn raised a delicate question. He asked if GM had the same sort of accounting problems that were haunting Delphi Corp.
GM's former parts unit had improperly recorded cash payments, known as rebates, from suppliers.
"Our policy is no rebates from suppliers," shot back John Devine, GM's chief financial officer. He added that the automaker "had been very clear with our suppliers that we don't do business that way.
"We think our accounting is very acceptable."
But in fact, GM had improperly recorded rebates. It later admitted that its accounting practices led GM to inflate its 2001 income by 42% -- and by lesser amounts in 2000, 2002 and 2004, errors GM attributes to honest mistakes.
GM's books are now under investigation by federal regulators and under fire from some GM investors, who claim in lawsuits that they were misled. The investigations come at a sensitive time for GM as it seeks to bolster shareholder confidence and turn a profit in North America.
'A great deal of suspicion'
Federal securities records and court filings reviewed by the Free Press show a string of accounting errors that consistently favored the company and offered investors a rosier outlook than actually existed. While GM is not accused of any crimes, experts warn that if GM is found to have intentionally misled investors, it might face legal problems and costly sanctions that could devastate the automaker.
Some industry experts said they are disturbed by what they already know. Most troubling, they say, is that nearly every error GM has acknowledged helped to improve its financial picture.
"The evidence is there was a string of errors, all going in one direction, giving a more positive light to GM's results," said Charles Mulford, an accounting professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology who has studied accounting at GM and other large companies. "Simple, honest errors go both ways. Investors were misled, in my view."
GM said the errors were nothing more than a series of mistakes and must be viewed in the context of a company that had $193 billion in revenue last year.
Peter Henning, a Wayne State University law professor who specializes in white-collar crime, sees reason for concern. When errors fall uniformly in the company's favor, he said, "that starts to look like a plan; that's not a series of accidents. That would generate a great deal of suspicion on the part of the government."
Jerry Dubrowski, a GM spokesman, did not directly address why the errors tended to favor GM.
"There's no question that the accounting errors were embarrassing to GM, that they hurt our reputation or damaged our reputation with investors," he said. "We are working very hard to restore that reputation.
"Our decision to correct these mistakes was not at all guided by whether they were in GM's favor or not," he said. "It was to get the correct accounting."
GM's defense was supported by David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, a nonprofit in Ann Arbor that studies the auto industry.
The bigger, more troubling picture
Van Conway, a corporate-turnaround specialist based in Birmingham, said whatever accounting problems existed, they pale compared with GM's larger problem: survival.
"If the company doesn't solve its declining market share, how they account for a rebate really isn't going to matter," he said.
Dubrowski said GM has tightened accounting controls and changed how it records supplier credits. The company also has brought in AlixPartners, a firm known for advising troubled companies such as Kmart, WorldCom and Dana Corp., to help GM with a range of accounting matters.
Last month Peter Bible, GM's chief accounting officer, abruptly resigned and controller Paul W. Schmidt said he was retiring.
Since October 2004, GM's accounting has come under scrutiny by two federal grand juries and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has issued six subpoenas seeking records -- including records on rebates and price adjustments GM received from suppliers and its dealings with Delphi.
Sued by investors
GM is accused of fraud by lawyers representing investors from Mississippi to Germany. In the suits, which were consolidated in a New Y