When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I'm surprised there are several members defending the V6 only LS and saying other are bashing the car.
This is very unique in this segment and not the norm and it is a huge departure for the LS model since it always had a V8. Therefore people will have strong opinions on it.
The V6 is also underpowered as compared to the V8s of its competitors so after 10 years of development to still be at a large disadvantage sure there will be criticism.
Besides not having a V8 option, im surprised there is no Hybrid at launch either.
This whole debut seems a bit rushed.
I don't think it's fair to criticize the TTV6 for not being as powerful as competitors TTV8s, i would focus on the fact that it's considerably more powerful than competitors 6 cyl models, and is surprisingly close to those V8 models.
If pricing is similar to those V8 models then that's fair game, but until that we know that...
I'm not sure what the angst over the TTV6 is about.
Just like BMW 7 series and Audi A8 have 6 cylinder base engines (which are outclassed by the LS's TTV6 incidentally), Lexus will have this LS 6 cylinder function as the base engine in the LS range with a higher powered TTV8 in the near future.
Maybe the angst is market specific? Not sure if the international markets would worry so much about the V8. Anyhow for some markets the Lexus V8 doesn't have enough power for a new generation luxury launch car while other markets may even wish for a LS250...so for international markets the V6tt may not be a base engine.
Jury still out on Lexus turbo engines if the 200t is any indication.
Sure the suspension parts are different - they're just "modifications" of the same basic platform.
Don't be fooled by the different platform nomenclature.
You said it yourself when you said that the next generation of BMW's are sharing the CLAR platform.
They're the same, or modifications and derivatives of each other.
CLAR is a modular architecture with a specific set of hard points (like the firewall) that allow it to be adapted to many different body styles and cars. That commonality is absent between the E60 and E90, same with the E46/E39. It's not just that the parts are different, it's that they can both have Macpherson struts yet the entire setup is completely different which doesn't happen on shared platform cars. It's not even a slight adjustment here and there, they went about setting the whole thing up differently.
Originally Posted by peteharvey
That's why the 2003-10 E60 5 Series and the 2005-12 E90 3 Series have very similar overall weight of 3,307 and 3,230 lbs respectively; a difference of less than 100 lbs!
On the other hand, because the 2010-17 F10 5 Series uses a remarkably different platform [based on the old 7 Series] from the 2012-19 F30 3 Series, their weights are significantly different at 3,725 and 3,351 lbs respectively; a difference of nearly 400 lbs.
That had everything to do with the fact that the E60 platform used an aluminum front structure which was absent from the E90 (and the later F10 for that matter). Regardless, it's clear that the F01 and F10 share platform not just because BMW said so, but that the tell-tale signs are there. You really haven't provided anything to prove otherwise outside of weight figures.
Originally Posted by peteharvey
In the end, that's why the 2003-10 E60 5 Series was one of the greatest handling midsize chassis ever.
Yep, that's why I owned one. I was a hardcore BMW fan up until about ~2013, having an owned an E46 and an E60. I'm not debating that weight isn't important; just that it's not that hard to find out which vehicles actually share platforms when they're taken apart.
Just wanted to mention that Lexus is (or has been) at the very least sensitive about the 6-cyl vs 8-cyl issue on the LS, as any time I've gotten a LAB survey regarding future vehicles, it has had questions relevant to the perception of 6cyl vs 8-cyl engines especially in regards to flagship models. Any of the other LAB members here on CL (at least those who got the same surveys I did) can confirm this.
So either Lexus' research suggested that buyers don't care about "needing" 8-cyl in flagships (which I doubt, but whatever) or, as I more likely suspect, Lexus ignored them..
Interesting. I wonder if they had a "negative feedback" threshold that didn't get met. I step into design clinics and media days occasionally, but have no visibility to how they come to a decision on features. I don't have any visibility into any Japanese car maker's culture really, except from what I hear about Nissan/Infiniti and their constant delays.
I'm sure if you enjoyed LS460 you would enjoy this one too as its faster and has more torque, like one third of more torque. Yes, it has two cylinders less but it also features two more turbines
I think only the Lexus 4.6 V8 is relevant to the comparison to new 3.5 V6TT honestly. If I'm not wrong Lexus didn't have a horsepower leading V8 compared to competition in like 15 years and it always lacked in performance compared to BMW or MB so this is not news really.
Have to admit I was the one who expected Lexus to bring V8 to US for the new model, I didn't expect V8 from F models and LC but 5.0 V8 from LS600h with new bits and pieces making around 430hp. But again torque would be miserable even if compared to V6 competition.
Let's talk price. I am actually very curious how Lexus prices this car. I went back and googled some information regarding the 2007 release and the price point versus the competitors at that time, while also looking at 2017 model year comparisons.
When the most recent version was released in 2007 it was, on average $8k cheaper than the competition when looking strictly at the LWB MSRP. So in fact, it did bargain price versus what was offered elsewhere. It was a staggering $11.4k less than the SWB versions (Mercedes not included).
For 2017, I again compared everything just to the LWB since that's all the competition has, but since they offer multiple engine choices, I compared both to the current 2017 LS 460 LWB price. For 2017, the V6 versions of the competition is $2.1k more on average than the current LS 460 (excluded the Mercedes). For 2017, the V8 versions of the competition is $15.4k more on average than the current LS 460.
So where does Lexus place this? While the Audi A8 is due for a new model in 2018, the older 2017 3.0 is almost just as fast as the current 4.6, but the 4.0 tt is loads faster than the existing and proposed version of the 3.5 tt. The 3.0 sits currently at $82.5k, or $3.6k more than the current LWB. The 4.0 sits at $91.5k, or $12.6k more than the current LWB.
The BMW typically underestimates its claimed times, but for comparison's sake, the existing 740i i6 is probably faster than the current LS 460, whereas the existing 750i is also probably faster than the proposed 3.5. This car starts at $81.5k and $94.6k respectively.
Does Lexus undercut again? Let's say for simple hypothetical purposes Lexus "thinks" the V6 is equivalent to the V8 versions. And again, for simple hypothetical purposes, lets assume it undercuts by $8k. This would mean that the price might be $86k MSRP assuming it's a straight $8k under the average of the big three's MSRP.
Is it worth an MSRP of $86k?
Frankly, I think that's too much. They would be smart to price it the same as the competition's six-cylinder flavors imo. They could then say, hey, you can get a V6 version of the LS that's slightly cheaper than the the A8 3.0 or 740i, but it performs much better.
This is the MSRP it needs imo, if all it offers is that V6tt: $79k-80k
Edit: and I think it would be a mistake on Lexus' part to price it to the competition's V8 versions regardless of performance.
Nice analysis, Rhambler, I think your logic is pretty good. Did you price the "base" models in all these categories? Further, Lexus plans to include all the safety features as standard equipment in the 5LS (DRCC, LKA, BSM). HUD is likely to be an option. Keeping these factors in mind, my guess for the "base" model is 80-83K.
Another thing, back in 2007, if you look at the numbers, the LS 460 offered more of everything and at a less price. It had, at the time, more HP than anything in its comparable class and it did for less. It was also faster, albeit just slightly, but in hindsight, it was pretty darn good car for its time and sat--at least in 2007--at the head of its class.
This new release will mark the first time the raw numbers don't exceed anything, EXCEPT if they compare it to the other V6 flagships.
That's the ONLY facet where it beats the competition and that's why I think it has to MSRP less than the V6 competition. There's really nothing it has over the V8 except fuel economy and even then, the competition has forthcoming or existing tricks in cylinder deactivation that might match whatever fuel economy will be forthcoming in this V6. And frankly, trying to emphasize that element to some person who could probably care less about that facet, probably won't provide much traction.
Yeah, for this to move it shouldn't be much higher than the existing LWB. Personally, I think it has be priced less than the Audi A8 3.0, especially since it will be all new in 2018. It should also be priced less than the BMW 740i.
They can sticker it at $79,995 and there you go (some psychology about leaving it under that $80k mark).
I see you have focused all the pricing based on the engine issue. Can you dig up the MSRP for the 2012 LWB and the 2013 LWB "base" models? They are essentially the same car, except for the exterior refresh and significant "hidden" improvements in body structure etc. I would like to see what the price increase was between those two years for the same engine under the hood. That might tell us what increase we can expect from 2017 LWB to 2018 (LWB) "base" models if they both had V8s. Then you can decide whether to factor in a penalty (decrease) due to the V6TT and whether to factor in a premium (increase) due to the additional safety features. I think we will still end up in the same ballpark.
CLAR is a modular architecture with a specific set of hard points (like the firewall) that allow it to be adapted to many different body styles and cars. That commonality is absent between the E60 and E90, same with the E46/E39. It's not just that the parts are different, it's that they can both have Macpherson struts yet the entire setup is completely different which doesn't happen on shared platform cars. It's not even a slight adjustment here and there, they went about setting the whole thing up differently.
That had everything to do with the fact that the E60 platform used an aluminum front structure which was absent from the E90 (and the later F10 for that matter). Regardless, it's clear that the F01 and F10 share platform not just because BMW said so, but that the tell-tale signs are there. You really haven't provided anything to prove otherwise outside of weight figures.
Yep, that's why I owned one. I was a hardcore BMW fan up until about ~2013, having an owned an E46 and an E60. I'm not debating that weight isn't important; just that it's not that hard to find out which vehicles actually share platforms when they're taken apart.
Even when certain sections are modified, the main midsections are essentially and often the same, hence similar weight.
For example, Lexus RC chassis has different sections from GS, IS and old IS cabriolet.
If we go back to the old days when aluminium was not yet used in the midsize luxury 2002-09 E Class/2003-10 5 Series/2005-12Lexus 3GS etc, the old 1996-03 E39 5 Series and old 1998-05 E46 3 Series @ 3,483 vs 3,273 lbs were still only 210 lbs apart - a far cry from the current F10 5 Series and current F30 3 Series which are nearly 400 lbs apart, because the 5 Series uses the old 7 Series platform.
The IS's slower acceleration, higher fuel consumption, and less sharp handling is attributed mainly to its higher weight relative to the 3 Series and new C Class.
Of course, the new C and E Class chassis have a near 50% aluminium content.
While the 5 and 3 Series presently have dramatically different chassis underpinnings, hence a big difference in weight between the two chassis designs, resulting in the 3 Series easily undercutting the 3IS for weight - hence the difference in linear performance, economy and dynamics...
.
Even when certain sections are modified, the main midsections are often the same, hence similar weight.
For example, Lexus RC chassis has different sections from GS, IS and old IS cabriolet.
This is exactly what I've been saying from the start! The midsections of the E39/E46 and E60/E90 aren't the same. Further, if the E60 hadn't used an aluminum front structure it would've been much heavier, increasing the gap between it and the E90.
Originally Posted by peteharvey
If we go back to the old days when aluminium was not yet used in the midsize luxury 2002-09 E Class/2003-10 5 Series/2005-12Lexus 3GS etc, the old 1996-03 E39 5 Series and old 1998-05 E46 3 Series @ 3,483 vs 3,273 lbs were still only 210 lbs apart - a far cry from the current F10 5 Series and current F30 3 Series which are nearly 400 lbs apart, because the 5 Series uses the old 7 Series platform.
Aluminum was used in the 2003-2010 5-series...aka the E60 (and the 2002-2009 E-class for that matter)...and this was before BMW decided chassis stiffness should be of paramount importance, which is why the F10 has a remarkably stiff structure. The weight does not indicate platform sharing, period. There's more to it than that, although it can be a contributing factor (as stated with the F10 an F01).
Originally Posted by peteharvey
The moral of the story is that Lexus does not have a grossly inferior 2.0 turbo in-line four.
The IS's slower acceleration, higher fuel consumption, and less sharp handling is attributed mainly to its high weight relative to the 3 Series and new C Class.
Of course, the new C and E Class chassis have a near 50% aluminium content.
While the 5 and 3 Series now have dramatically different chassis underpinnings, hence a big difference in weight between the two chassis designs, resulting in the 3 Series undercutting the 3IS for weight - hence the difference in linear performance, economy and dynamics...
The IS is less than 200lbs heavier than the C-class and the GLC300 AWD is actually heavier than the NX200t AWD (as per Car and Driver, who weighs cars as-tested) yet the Lexus was dusted in both situations. The IS200t at least had the 8-speed auto.
01-16-17, 06:11 AM
