mmarshall

Well, there's a first. I don't thnk I've ever heard that term used before.

Toys4RJill

I have always thought the interior of the NX was nicely done.

mmarshall

The interior wasn't bad style-wise, but, by Lexus standards, lacks sound insulation, and I wasn't terribly impressed with its ride comfort, either. I found the new RX to be far superior in comfort / refinement, and, IMO, worth the extra money.

Toys4RJill

But you are not the target audience for a NX. Quiet is not what young buyers want, they want fun, feeling, excitement. This is why you can play faux engine sound in the NX.

mmarshall

Well, then, if that's what they want, then I guess it's time to open their wallets LOL. Lots of young people today, though, aren't buying new cars, period......they either get along without wheels, or shop in the used car market for a lower price.

Toys4RJill

That is simply not true and you are wrong. People still buy cars and more young people lease luxury cars at the lower of the segment. Also, last year was a record for car sales in America. So people are still buying them

mmarshall

Here's a good article on the subject. The Millenials were famous for shunning new-car ownership, but that might be changing with Generaton Z.

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/03/16/g...ts-cars-study/

Anyhow, back on topic, I understand the appeal that the NX has to some people. But if they took the time to test-drive an RX, I'd wager that a fair number of them would change their minds.

SW17LS

The RX is a lot more money than the NX, and its bigger. The NX has its place.

mmarshall

......and worth it, too, IMO. But even so, on the thread-topic, it's hard to say the NX is the worst Lexus ever done, as some posts here have said. I would disagree with that, even though I think the NX's refinement is lacking. As you say, the NX does have its place.

Aron9000

2nd gen SC430, just for its abhorrent styling alone. Its also heavy, doesn't handle worth a crap, which would be forgivable but the ride is annoyingly stiff with the stock runflat tires. The back seats are a joke but that's true of a lot of other "4 seat" convertibles. Seriously though it is just one very ugly car, a disgrace to the timeless elegance that was the 1st gen SC coupe.

I'd also have to say the IS250, for its small 2.5 V6. It was maybe 1, 2mpg more efficient than the larger 3.0 V6, but down 100hp. It also has a tendency to get carbon buildup in the valves and pistons, which can cause detionation and rough running. If it gets bad it can lead to full engine replacement.

Toys4RJill

The 2.5 was used for 11 model years or something close it. It is not that bad of an engine, but it's not super great

dseag2

I will agree and disagree with you because I owned two... an '03 SC430 and an '06 SC430. I agree that it was crap relative to the competition, but then the competition at that time (Mercedes SL) was much more expensive. It was only a real Lexus because it was very well finished and had an interior that would rival a Bentley (leather, wood, aluminum, etc.) and a Mark-Levinson system that was second to none. It did not have a comfortable ride because it was too harshly sprung and had runflat tires. The ride was rough, yet there was no advantage in sporty handling. On both cars, I replaced the runflat tires with standard summer tires.

When the car was first introduced there was a long waiting list for orders. However, there were many used ones with low miles at dealerships, because the styling promised sports car handling and the driving experience didn't deliver, and dealers marked them up at prices higher than new ones due to immediately availability. I loved my SC430s, top-down on long, straight country roads where the car could cruise along. For any other type of driving, the steering was numb and the car was all over the place. The V8 was decent. Don't ask me why I went for a second one. I was coming from a Miata MX-5 and was just looking for peace and quiet! Didn't keep either one very long. Not the worst car Lexus ever built... especially since they last forever... but not a great example of what Lexus can produce.

Och

iTrader: (3)

Yeah, I came up with that term - it goes well with its driving characteristics.

modad

I actually owned the 'worst' Lexus model. The 1st gen. RX made within the first few months of production ('99 model sold in '98) Apparently Lexus rushed the SUV on the market so quickly that even the engineers weren't given time to make it right. Examples: the seat heater choices were "driver" or "driver and passenger"; no "passenger only". You could not open the sunroof at any speed and not experience incredible wind noise and the 'wop, wop, wop" that crushes your eardrums. The paint peeled off the dash in 3 months. The dash, and various other parts rattled excessively, and other stuff that got my car in the shop as they continued to 'update' and 'repair' the initial problems.

How did Lexus and my dealer (often ranked #1 dealer in the US) finally respond to all my problems? They offered me (without any Lemon Law threat) to trade my '99 with 25K miles that I owned for 18 months for a new 2000 model for $1,000! Drove the 2000 model 110,000 miles with no problems and then traded for another RX. Dontcha love happy endings

Aron9000

^ That's pretty sweet right there, $1000 trade for the new model!! I thought 1998 was the first model year for the RX, but what do I know.