1SICKBLOG: The RX 450h and 30MPG, unappreciated and what ever vehicle should offer

[SLegacy99]

Originally Posted by IS-SV

Thanks for the info. The AWD fuel economy penalty is pretty typical, probably involves a lower final drive ratio like most.

Well recall that the 400 and 450h don't utilize a rear drive shaft. An electric motor is the only drive of the rear wheels. Thus, given the rigorous testing of the EPA city fuel eco. test, I would assume that the rear electric motor sucks enough power from the battery, along with the front, that the ICE has to come on to provide some charge to the battery, hence the 2 MPG penalty. Though I could be wrong. I don't know how much braking is involved during the test to recharge the battery, without the use of the ICE.

[werewolf]

For SUVs I think diesel engine options are a better choice than hybrid. Why?

1) Weight and torque
2) Lower development costs - many car makers have existing diesel engine sold abroad
3) Lower to consumer price - as mentioned 60 large is not the sweet spot of the RX demographic

You don't need a 3.0 liter diesel to push a SUV. Car makers could go smaller but the prestige issue will get in the way. (would you pay 45K for a 2.0tD?)

This thread brings up a good point. For all the eco discussion, most SUVs makers haven't done much on MPG improvements.

[SLegacy99]

Originally Posted by werewolf

For SUVs I think diesel engine options are a better choice than hybrid. Why?

1) Weight and torque
2) Lower development costs - many car makers have existing diesel engine sold abroad
3) Lower to consumer price - as mentioned 60 large is not the sweet spot of the RX demographic

I could argue against all 3 points.

1. Weight. Hybrids and diesels both carry a weight penalty. Hybrids have heavy batteries. A diesel has a heavier engine block than a gasoline engine. Thus the suspension must be fortified, adding weight. Torque: Diesels have alot of it. Hybrids do to. I'd estimate that the advantage of a diesel comes in when towing heavy loads of 3000 lbs. or more, depending on the vehicle in question.

2. Cost. Existing diesels don't cut it in the States. They can't simply be sold here without measures made to meet emissions standards. This translates to R & D costs. Furthermore, the ML and X5 require urea injections to meet emissions. I believe that BMW has it covered in their 4 year maint. program. After that the consumer pays to have the tank refilled. If the tank runs dry, you have a certain of starts before the engine locks you out.

3. Price. The prices speak for themselves. Base prices for luxury alt. fuel SUVs:
RXh: $41,660 (32/28 MPG)
ML 320 CDI: $48,600 (18/24 MPG)
X5d: $51,200 (18/25)

The RX is the cheapest by far, while offering the best fuel economy. I disagree that Lexus buyers don't spend $60k on the RX. It should be noted that $55k was as high as I could get the build price on the Lexus website. The RX has had the title of no. 1 selling Luxury utilility vehicle for sometime. I think there are plenty of buyers willing to spend $55K.

[werewolf]

Originally Posted by SLegacy99

I could argue against all 3 points.

1. Weight. Hybrids and diesels both carry a weight penalty. Hybrids have heavy batteries. A diesel has a heavier engine block than a gasoline engine. Thus the suspension must be fortified, adding weight. Torque: Diesels have alot of it. Hybrids do to. I'd estimate that the advantage of a diesel comes in when towing heavy loads of 3000 lbs. or more, depending on the vehicle in question.

2. Cost. Existing diesels don't cut it in the States. They can't simply be sold here without measures made to meet emissions standards. This translates to R & D costs. Furthermore, the ML and X5 require urea injections to meet emissions. I believe that BMW has it covered in their 4 year maint. program. After that the consumer pays to have the tank refilled. If the tank runs dry, you have a certain of starts before the engine locks you out.

3. Price. The prices speak for themselves. Base prices for luxury alt. fuel SUVs:
RXh: $41,660 (32/28 MPG)
ML 320 CDI: $48,600 (18/24 MPG)
X5d: $51,200 (18/25)

The RX is the cheapest by far, while offering the best fuel economy. I disagree that Lexus buyers don't spend $60k on the RX. It should be noted that $55k was as high as I could get the build price on the Lexus website. The RX has had the title of no. 1 selling Luxury utilility vehicle for sometime. I think there are plenty of buyers willing to spend $55K.

1) How much weight are you talking about? Is it material to a SUV with 4000+ curb weights?
2) a hybrid don't offer much advantage on the freeway. This is where diesel is a better option. The U.S. has been playing catch up on the quality of diesel fuel (high sulfur) and has higher particulate standards relative to Europe. The urea trap is a PITA but I would still take a diesel over a hybrid for the same money.
3) Those base prices you quote are for 2nd gen models. Try to sell the ML or the x5 at those prices without incentives or discounts. The base price of a 3.0i x5 was 39.9K at launch in 2001. The base price of the rx300 was 35K or 37K. The 2nd generation are markedly more expensive and launched around the start of the recession. I don't think you can say these prices are winners given people have less money, lease rates are up and disposable income / asset values are down

[1SICKLEX]

Originally Posted by werewolf

1) How much weight are you talking about? Is it material to a SUV with 4000+ curb weights?
2) a hybrid don't offer much advantage on the freeway. This is where diesel is a better option. The U.S. has been playing catch up on the quality of diesel fuel (high sulfur) and has higher particulate standards relative to Europe. The urea trap is a PITA but I would still take a diesel over a hybrid for the same money.
3) Those base prices you quote are for 2nd gen models. Try to sell the ML or the x5 at those prices without incentives or discounts. The base price of a 3.0i x5 was 39.9K at launch in 2001. The base price of the rx300 was 35K or 37K. The 2nd generation are markedly more expensive and launched around the start of the recession. I don't think you can say these prices are winners given people have less money, lease rates are up and disposable income / asset values are down

While I do think its great diesels are offered and I hope more diesels are sold, the facts are clear the RXh is cheaper and gets substantially more MPG than the ML/X5 diesels. Depending on driving habits one might prefer a diesel and lose a couple MPG on the highway over a hybrid. If one drives in the city, the RXh makes a lot more sense from a MPG standpoint.

Lets hope America gets more diesel options from the Germans.

[SLegacy99]

Originally Posted by werewolf

1) How much weight are you talking about? Is it material to a SUV with 4000+ curb weights?
2) a hybrid don't offer much advantage on the freeway. This is where diesel is a better option. The U.S. has been playing catch up on the quality of diesel fuel (high sulfur) and has higher particulate standards relative to Europe. The urea trap is a PITA but I would still take a diesel over a hybrid for the same money.
3) Those base prices you quote are for 2nd gen models. Try to sell the ML or the x5 at those prices without incentives or discounts. The base price of a 3.0i x5 was 39.9K at launch in 2001. The base price of the rx300 was 35K or 37K. The 2nd generation are markedly more expensive and launched around the start of the recession. I don't think you can say these prices are winners given people have less money, lease rates are up and disposable income / asset values are down

1. What are you reffering to here? I'm not sure I understand what you are asking me? If diesel SUVs weigh more than 3000 lbs? I can post the weights of the SUVs in question. The unladen weight of an X5d is 5,225 lbs. For the RX450h it is 4,520 lbs.

2. How do you figure? Hybrids are a logical choice for highway driving. The RX has a 4 MPG advantage over its non hybrid counterpart. Compare that to the X5d which also has a 4 MPG advantage over its gasoline counterpart. People often forget that highways also have accidents and construction. Thus if you have to slow down or are in stop and go traffic, a hybrid is a considerably better choice than a diesel.


Furthermore you said, "The urea trap is a PITA but I would still take a diesel over a hybrid for the same money." The fact is that hybrid SUVs aren't for the same money. As I posted, they are drastically less in price, not to mention the price of gasoline is less expensive than diesel, further increasing the savings margin of a hybrid.

The U.S. has a higher standard for diesels, hence the urea systems and the fact that foreign diesel automakers cannot simply bring over a diesel and expect it to meet U.S. emissions standards. Even with low sulfur fuels.

3. I'm not sure you understand what a base price is. The prices are listed are the starting price, so before any options or fees are added, of the 450h, X5d, and ML 320 currently on sale today. Generations have nothing to do with it. It's what it on the market right now.


Don't get me wrong, diesels have their place. But the models available right now are very expensive in comparisson to other alternative fuel vehicles. Not to mention the price of diesel is back on the rise.

[werewolf]

Originally Posted by SLegacy99

1. What are you reffering to here? I'm not sure I understand what you are asking me? If diesel SUVs weigh more than 3000 lbs? I can post the weights of the SUVs in question. The unladen weight of an X5d is 5,225 lbs. For the RX450h it is 4,520 lbs.

2. How do you figure? Hybrids are a logical choice for highway driving. The RX has a 4 MPG advantage over its non hybrid counterpart. Compare that to the X5d which also has a 4 MPG advantage over its gasoline counterpart. People often forget that highways also have accidents and construction. Thus if you have to slow down or are in stop and go traffic, a hybrid is a considerably better choice than a diesel.


Furthermore you said, "The urea trap is a PITA but I would still take a diesel over a hybrid for the same money." The fact is that hybrid SUVs aren't for the same money. As I posted, they are drastically less in price, not to mention the price of gasoline is less expensive than diesel, further increasing the savings margin of a hybrid.

The U.S. has a higher standard for diesels, hence the urea systems and the fact that foreign diesel automakers cannot simply bring over a diesel and expect it to meet U.S. emissions standards. Even with low sulfur fuels.

3. I'm not sure you understand what a base price is. The prices are listed are the starting price, so before any options or fees are added, of the 450h, X5d, and ML 320 currently on sale today. Generations have nothing to do with it. It's what it on the market right now.


Don't get me wrong, diesels have their place. But the models available right now are very expensive in comparisson to other alternative fuel vehicles. Not to mention the price of diesel is back on the rise.

1) My point - a heavier engine (diesel vs gas) is what a couple 100lbs? On a vehicle type (SUV) where weights start at 4000lbs, a couple 100lbs is not that material (your comment about suspension)
2) My point - the electrical part of the hybrid system is generally not in use on a highway (especially longer highway drives) so the savings is generally gotten in the city not the freeway
3) My point - I know what a base price is. The demographic that buys an x5, rx, a ML started with vehicles (about 10 yrs ago) that were base priced at 40K (+/-) before options. That same class of car today is now 10k more (base to base, loaded to loaded). What's different? recession, higher gas costs, SUV not as trendy, loss of asset value (home / stocks), no increases in income, job loss, higher lease costs.

The buyer base you refer to bought / leased these vehicles during a boom time in the economy with cheap money. The 2nd generation of these vehicles (what is new now) cost more (high base prices) and sell less easily.

What is drastically less in price? BMW and MB have always costed more than Lexus counterparts (less true in 3rd generation Lexus vehicles). Just b/c a diesel MB costs more than a hybrid Lexus doesn't mean a diesel is more expensive than a hybrid.

I do think the urea trap goes away eventually. Just not for the next 5 years of the product cycle

[nthach]

Originally Posted by SLegacy99

I could argue against all 3 points.

1.Torque: Diesels have alot of it. Hybrids do to.

2. They can't simply be sold here without measures made to meet emissions standards.

Hybrids offer torque from a standstill - I know if I mash the throttle on my parent's Prius, it almost feels like my 1LS. They're just more sedate and mannered than a diesel. I know VW was advertising the "manly" qualities of the Jetta TDI, but compared to a "proper" truck diesel like a Cummins or Navistar, it's a joke.

If you don't live in a state that uses Cali emissions standards(read: any state that is heavily liberal) you can buy a diesel car. However, not every fueling station carries ultra-low sulfur diesel. There is the issue of the urea tank and also having to regenerate the DPF. Also, maintenance on a German car isn't exactly a DIY job - you can't go to your local AutoZone or Wal-Mart and expect to find VW or BMW approved oil there. With a hybrid, most maintenance can be DIY.

If I was to buy a diesel, the only choice would be a Ford F250 SD Powerstroke. Not a dinky VW.

[DustinV]

Originally Posted by Och

And here we are, this latest Lexus is faster, smoother and more economical than any comparable petrol, its even more economical than dreadful econoboxes such as Fit and Yaris, and where are these long promised clean diesels?

They are there right in front of you. You need to open your eyes.

Originally Posted by SLegacy99

2. Cost. Existing diesels don't cut it in the States. They can't simply be sold here without measures made to meet emissions standards. This translates to R & D costs. Furthermore, the ML and X5 require urea injections to meet emissions. I believe that BMW has it covered in their 4 year maint. program. After that the consumer pays to have the tank refilled. If the tank runs dry, you have a certain of starts before the engine locks you out.

This claim that the tank will suddenly run dry has been beaten to death already. It won't. The urea tank volume is designed to last for at least 10,000 miles if I recall correctly which corresponds with the normal service interval times of your normal BMW or Mercedes. The tank is refilled there. Big deal.

Originally Posted by SLegacy99

3. Price. The prices speak for themselves. Base prices for luxury alt. fuel SUVs:
RXh: $41,660 (32/28 MPG)
ML 320 CDI: $48,600 (18/24 MPG)
X5d: $51,200 (18/25)

Most ML diesel owners seem to be getting 21/28 mpg, the X5 comes in at 22/28 mpg as well. These are the real world numbers from consumer feedback - not EPA tests.

[Och]

Originally Posted by DustinV

They are there right in front of you. You need to open your eyes.

Right, so these new diesels are here. So like I said before, since were discussing the RX-h, lets take one of these new diesels, for instance the ML-D which competes directly with the RX-h and compare them.

Is it more fuel efficient than RX-h? No. In fact it is no more efficient than a regular RX. How the hell did MB manage to fail like that, considering that dieself fuel has 20% more energy than petrol to begin with?

Does it offer better performance than RX-h? Another no. Its performance is comparable to regular RX performance, and thats with a turbo. Another fail.

Is it cost efficient? HELL NO. It is more expensive than RX-h, while not offering any advantage over a regular RX. Thats an epic fail.

No wonder I havent seen a single ML blutek on the road, and I live in NYC. I've only seen one E class blutek. Clearly people are not buying them.

[DustinV]

Originally Posted by Och

Is it more fuel efficient than RX-h? No. In fact it is no more efficient than a regular RX. How the hell did MB manage to fail like that, considering that dieself fuel has 20% more energy than petrol to begin with?

Let me guess. You're taking the best fuel economy tested with a new RXh and comparing it to the absolute worst fuel economy you could find for the ML Bluetec. Am I right? I've looked around because I was interested in what real Mercedes ML Bluetec owners were getting with their cars: 21/28 mpg. If that isn't impressive for an almost 3-ton SUV then I don't know what will please you.

Originally Posted by Och

Does it offer better performance than RX-h? Another no. Its performance is comparable to regular RX performance, and thats with a turbo. Another fail.

A turbo is an essential component of a modern diesel engine. It is what gives them their performance. Oh, and you're essentially still comparing a gasoline engine to a diesel engine - and in this case the gasoline engine is more powerful. No wonder the RXh is quicker. Big deal.

What makes you so sure that Mercedes failed with the Bluetec ML in terms of performance? I am sure if they wanted to they could have optimized the ML in such a way that it could beat the RXh from 0-60: they just didn't. They optimized it for fuel economy and satisfactory performance. I don't see anything fail about the performance and fuel economy of the ML Bluetec. It is an amazing achievement for a vehicle this heavy as is the fuel economy of the RXh.

Oh, and the RXh you're talking about is a brand new car. The ML is how old now?

Originally Posted by Och

Is it cost efficient? HELL NO. It is more expensive than RX-h, while not offering any advantage over a regular RX. Thats an epic fail.

Really? The ML has several big advantages over the RX. You're way to focused on performance - and nobody, I repeat - nobody buys these cars for performance. Only twenty year-old kids on an internet forum think in that way. The people out there, the real target market of these cars have other more important considerations. The performance of the RXh and ML Bluetec to them are more than satisfactory.

If you want an ML that performs like a real sports car then go sign up for an ML63 AMG. If you want an RX that performs like a real sports car then...eh...

Lexus and Mercedes know their target demographics - you don't. If there was a market for a performance RX then Lexus would have given some serious thought to an RX-F already. They apparently have not.

Originally Posted by Och

No wonder I havent seen a single ML blutek on the road, and I live in NYC. I've only seen one E class blutek. Clearly people are not buying them.

You have not seen a single ML Bluetec on the road and that means nobody is buying them? Buddy, you're a genius!

No wonder I have not seen any Bugatti Veyrons on the street! Nobody is obviously buying them!!! Why didn't I think of that before?

[1SICKLEX]

My point is not price, I am talking strictly from a technology standpoint and the MPG ratings. If you want to judge the RX on price, be my guest but that is not the point here.

My point is simple, its quite stunning this vehicle the 450h AWD or 2WD, (hell NO MATTER the price) gets MPG on par or better than MOST sub-compacts and compacts.

You can spin it anyway you want, add price, add people, add goats, subtract martians, subtract tax the MPG RATINGS DO NOT CHANGE.

Originally Posted by DASHOCKER

All of this time, I was thinking that the Rx450h was avg. 30 mpg in 4wd form.. Instead, it is avg 30 mpg in 2wd form.. They still make 2wd suvs?? Is it rear of front wheel drive for the Rx?

30 MPG 2WD
29 MPG AWD (yes a shocking 1 MPG less)
Yes most companies offer 2WD SUVs with a AWD or 4x4 option. I thought you were a "choice" guy.

Originally Posted by Och

The point is not to compare prices of one vehicle to another, the point is that the hybrid technology is working, and Lexus is the company thats number one in making the best of it. For several years now haters have been running their mouths how hybrid technology is too expensive, how hybrid cars are slow and dreadful, and how clean diesels are going to totally destroy it in performance, driveability, cost and economy.

And here we are, this latest Lexus is faster, smoother and more economical than any comparable petrol, its even more economical than dreadful econoboxes such as Fit and Yaris, and where are these long promised clean diesels?

Thank you. If you miss the basic jest of the blog, I am quite frankly stunned you figured out how to join an internet forum.

Originally Posted by werewolf

For SUVs I think diesel engine options are a better choice than hybrid. Why?

1) Weight and torque
2) Lower development costs - many car makers have existing diesel engine sold abroad
3) Lower to consumer price - as mentioned 60 large is not the sweet spot of the RX demographic

You don't need a 3.0 liter diesel to push a SUV. Car makers could go smaller but the prestige issue will get in the way. (would you pay 45K for a 2.0tD?)

This thread brings up a good point. For all the eco discussion, most SUVs makers haven't done much on MPG improvements.

I posted the diesel ML numbers 20 MPG avg, not so good. The BMW X5 diesel has a 22 MPG avg. Lower than the RX but its not bad compared to some smaller less luxurious SUVs.

[SLegacy99]

Originally Posted by 1SICKLEX

My point is simple, its quite stunning this vehicle the 450h AWD or 2WD, (hell NO MATTER the price) gets MPG on par or better than MOST sub-compacts and compacts.

It is. And even compare it to the Camry hybrid. 32/30 for the RX vs. 33/34. Thus the RX is incredibly impressive and the Camry could stand to benefit from the updated hybrid tech.

[1SICKLEX]

Originally Posted by SLegacy99

It is. And even compare it to the Camry hybrid. 32/30 for the RX vs. 33/34. Thus the RX is incredibly impressive and the Camry could stand to benefit from the updated hybrid tech.

Surely the CTh will also benefit from the improved tech. Lets hope the next GX offers it soon, it surely has the space for the hybrid tech. It only avgs 15 MPG

[SLegacy99]

Originally Posted by 1SICKLEX

Surely the CTh will also benefit from the improved tech. Lets hope the next GX offers it soon, it surely has the space for the hybrid tech. It only avgs 15 MPG

Yes, it would seem like a fairly easy and quick way to bring another hybrid to the market. And I would think that a GX450h would be quicker than the ailing 470 and more than likely be priced about the same.

One would also think that it wouldn't be too difficult to install the 3.3L, 3.5L setup into the ES, given there is already a Camry hybrid. But, I'm a social scientist not an engineer.