The main problem. IMO, with the Evoque is that the rear end looks like it went halfway through a roof-crusher and then stopped. Rear visibility is generally a peephole-slit rear window.....somewhat like the Dodge Magnum, but even more so.

I fully understand the reasoning behind the turbo 4-bangers in several of these vehicles (upcoming CAFE rules). But I still think that, given their price and upmarket-class, a nice, small-displacement, normally-aspirated V6 would be better-suited for them overall, without much loss of gas mileage, particularly with tall gearing or gears in the transmission. The 2.5L V6 used in the Lexus IS250, for example, would be an excellent power plant for vehicles like these if it was adapted to a transverse layout...or to a longitudinal layout with a FWD option.

 

a valid point, however this affects a large number of vehicles today which can easily be managed by Blind Spot Monitor, Rear Cross Traffic Alert, a host of Parking Sensors, Camera's (Back-up, Birds-eye, Side and Lane Watch) to name a few technologies



The 2.5L V6 though is too underpowered for that application with only 185lbft. The 2.7L EcoBoost avaialbe on the Edge and F-150 are rated 325-330hp and 370-375lbft, a more efficient tune and an upgrade to the transmission from a few more cogs would leave the car with plenty of refined power delivery and a mid 20's low 30's city/hw

 

Good win for the NX, though the X3 doing 0-60 in 6 seconds flat is simply mind blowing. Either BMW got the gear ratios to perfection or they seriously underrated the engine's output.

 

I'm thinking both.

 

exactly :-)

i am glad that apparently Lexus 2.0t is very flexible, it turned out to be great engine.

 

The 2.0t is the right engine for the class. People want something new and with some new tech. The V6 2.5 is way to old and inefficient. Also, this new buyer wants to feel the engine more than not hear it.

 

I am also not surprised that the Lincoln finished 4th. I guarantee in a few years we will see the NX get comparo tested again against the others but I predict the Lincoln will be left out.

 

nice win for lexus among strong competition.

 

that 2.5l is simply outdated these days.

 

Yes way too outdated. But more importantly, the segment foes not need a V6. The next turbo four is more fuel efficient and make more power than the Lexus 2.5.

 

The RDX and GLK both have a V6, but they are 3.5's. Better suited for 4,000 lb. vehicles vs. the 2.5.

 

I don't entirely agree on the 2.5L being outdated. While I don't necessarily have hard sales numbers on the RWD-vs.-AWD versions nationwide, the Lexus IS250AWD seems to sell quite well here in the D.C. area, where, in my experience, it outnumbers the RWD 250 handily.

LexBob2 has a point about luxury CUVs in this class not being featherweights (unloaded, they typically run 3800-4000 lbs). However, the IS250AWD is not very far behind in the pork department either, being over 3600 lbs. empty, and yet still sells quite well with the 2.5.

It's interesting that the 1Gen RDX had a turbo 4 (Honda's first in the American market), and its replacement 2Gen version upgraded to a V6, even with the upcoming CAFE rules. That alone, at least IMO, shows that turbo 4s aren't always the answer.

 

Just because it sells well doesn't mean it's not outdated. Of course you see more IS250's- it's the cheaper model. As far as the AWD model is concerned, you're in an area of the U.S. where AWD sells well so that's expected as well. I would assume most dealers stock far more AWD models than RWD.

 

Yes, I agree, strictly from an engineering point of view. But my point is that sometimes what is long considered "outdated" mechanically is what people actually want. For example, look at how long Mustangs sold with a live axle (just phased out this year), and how long the GM 3.8L V6, with push-rods, soldiered on before it was finally phased out. Mustangs go back to 1964, and the 3.8 to 1962.


Another reason for the IS250AWD's popularity is probably because it is the only non-SUV lower-line Lexus product that offers AWD. The ES and CT, even with their electric booster-motors, are FWD. if the ES offered AWD, I think the IS AWD models would be much less popular.

 

The 2.5 is seriously outdated, the sales mean nothing because the entry level buyers like it because it keeps the MSRP down compared to the 3.5. The AWD is a very popular option on the IS and in 2.5 it is cheaper than going up to a IS350.

If the 2.0t were available in the IS line with the same pricing currently the 2.0t would still sell at 2.5 numbers.

The 2.5 is a decent engine, but with the weight of the IS is really gets bogged down for both HP, efficiently and MPG. But it is by no means on par with modern V6 engines of today.