AndyL, great find! We actually now have a publishing on curb weight. I'll post this key info in the "Official Thread" to make it more visible.

200t FWD: 1710 kg / 3762 lbs
200t AWD: 1770 kg / 3894 lbs

300h FWD: 1760 kg / 3872 lbs
300h AWD: 1820 kg / 4004 lbs

Actually the fuel consumption is also available but it is based on the Japanese method - JC08 mode which I I think there is no way to convert it to EPA.

23.2 km/l for IS300h is the very basic version. 20.4 km/l is the stated consumption for a normally equipped car, and a more accurate number to compare with.

The base IS300h is more basic than the base NX300h.

__________________
Johan Sällman 2014 IS 300h "Alexis" Nebula grey / black + all options

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntegresS

most people don't read the signatures- might as well say "banana banana banana"

Actually the fuel consumption is also available but it is based on the Japanese method - JC08 mode which I I think there is no way to convert it to EPA.

2014 IS350
10.0km/l (RWD) (without moonroof and Mark Levinson)
9.8km/l (RWD) (with both moonroof and Mark Levinson)

2014 IS300h
23.2km/l (RWD)

Note the figures for NX -- I assume they are without any kind of moonroof.

Nice to see the NX is less thirsty than the IS. This is good information. We can calculate a fairly accurate fuel consumption for the N.American market. Here goes.

Comparing the NX200t FWD to the IS250 RWD, the NX is a factor x better than the IS:
12.8 / 11.6 = x
x = 1.103

Calculate fuel consumption y for the NX 200t FWD using the factor above and known IS250 RWD fuel econ figures:

US:
y (NX) = 24 mpg (IS) x 1.103
y = 26.5 mpg

Canada:
y (NX) = 8.3L/100km / 1.103
y = 7.5L/100km

Folks this is very realistic and figures we can look forward to!

For the sake of completion, here's the 300h:

Comparing the NX300h FWD to the IS250 RWD, the NX is a factor x better than the IS:
21.0 / 11.6 = x
x = 1.81

Calculate fuel consumption y for the NX 300h FWD using the factor above and known IS250 RWD fuel econ figures:

US:
y (NX) = 24 mpg (IS) x 1.81
y = 43.4 mpg

Canada:
y (NX) = 8.3L/100km / 1.81
y = 4.6L/100km

Hmm... This seems too optimistic since the ES is 40 mpg and CT is 42 mpg...

__________________

___________________________________________________________________________ 2014 IS250 AWD F-Sport, 2013 RX350 F-Sport, On Order: 2015 NX200t F-Sport IS Build Thread: http://www.clublexus.com/forums/buil...ng-thread.html Previous: 2011 CT, 2008 IS AWD, 2007 RXh, 2004 RX

Nice to see the NX is less thirsty than the IS. This is good information. We can calculate a fairly accurate fuel consumption for the N.American market. Here goes.

Comparing the NX200t FWD to the IS250 RWD, the NX is a factor x better than the IS:
12.8 / 11.6 = x
x = 1.103

Calculate fuel consumption y for the NX 200t FWD using the factor above and known IS250 RWD fuel econ figures:

US:
y (NX) = 24 mpg (IS) x 1.103
y = 26.5 mpg

Canada:
y (NX) = 8.3L/100km / 1.103
y = 7.5L/100km

Folks this is very realistic and figures we can look forward to!

For the sake of completion, here's the 300h:

Comparing the NX300h FWD to the IS250 RWD, the NX is a factor x better than the IS:
21.0 / 11.6 = x
x = 1.81

Calculate fuel consumption y for the NX 300h FWD using the factor above and known IS250 RWD fuel econ figures:

US:
y (NX) = 24 mpg (IS) x 1.81
y = 43.4 mpg

Canada:
y (NX) = 8.3L/100km / 1.81
y = 4.6L/100km

Hmm... This seems too optimistic since the ES is 40 mpg and CT is 42 mpg...

Great effort and thanks CorradoMR2. :thumb up:

However, note the actual EPA should be different as JC08 uses a different methodology to calculate the fuel consumption figure.

What you have produced is a figure which will be useful to compare to the actual EPA when they become available.

Then when NXs are actually on the road, owners can report their figures and see which one ---- EPA or JC08 (or other methods used elsewhere) is a better reflection of the actual consumption based on their own experience.

Of course, some variation should occur because various options/features take weight.

__________________
2014 IS350 AWD non F Sport, Xpel Ultimate
2011 RX350 AWD, Ventureshield Ultra

23.2 km/l for IS300h is the very basic version. 20.4 km/l is the stated consumption for a normally equipped car, and a more accurate number to compare with.

The base IS300h is more basic than the base NX300h.

Agreed. Another factor thatdeviates the result is due to different method being used to calculate the fuel consumption figure.

Just curious, which method is used in Sweden?

__________________
2014 IS350 AWD non F Sport, Xpel Ultimate
2011 RX350 AWD, Ventureshield Ultra

If you compare curb weight to current H models the nex NX300h will be closer to 30 to 34 miles per gallon. Maybe even less. Can someone followup and do some more calculations. Thanks.

Actually the fuel consumption is also available but it is based on the Japanese method - JC08 mode which I I think there is no way to convert it to EPA.

2014 IS350
10.0km/l (RWD) (without moonroof and Mark Levinson)
9.8km/l (RWD) (with both moonroof and Mark Levinson)

2014 IS300h
23.2km/l (RWD)

Note the figures for NX -- I assume they are without any kind of moonroof.

I wonder if they are correct numbers... it doesnt seem like NX200t should have same consumption as IS250 F-Sport... especially considering how small difference between AWD and FWD is, and that NX200t has start/stop in Japan, unlike iS, which is doing wonders for JC08.

From European numbers, we know that NX300h has around 10-15% worse fuel consumption than IS300h, which is as expected.

i feel they might have made up a lot of those numbers.. might be wrong... numbers do match Harrier for Hybrid version, but not turbo one.

It is almost impossible for 200t and 300h to have such similar weight, it makes no sense at all. 2WD Harrier 2.0l is 1560kg while loaded Harrier Hybrid is 1800kg. 1800kg in Harrier and 20kg more in NX300h makes a lot of sense.

But for 200t to be 200kg heavier than 2.0l in Harrier - it just doesnt make sense - numbers simply dont work.