It's pointless arguing about the looks of the new RX. This is all a matter of taste....just because you don't like the way it looks doesn't mean others won't like it too. There's a lot of anchoring going on here. People who dislike the new RX design hold some mental image of their preferred design....and that is anchored on the old RX design which they are familiar with or the designs of competitors that they have subconsciously held up as a kind of "benchmark". Since the haters see that the new RX deviates from their mental image, they then criticize it as being ugly. But this is just anchoring bias at work here. There is no law that says cars have to look like some imagined benchmark. There is nothing wrong with the new RX design. It is a somewhat radical departure from the RX of old. I applaud Lexus/Toyota for taking such a step, rather than just rehashing the same old formula. For as long as form follows function, the design is good enough for me. Those lines and creases on the new RX, if anything, help streamline the car and improve aerodynamics. Form follows function. These things have a purpose, besides adding to aesthetic originality. If there's any car company in the world that can afford to introduce radical designs without too much fear of financial repercussions, it is Lexus/Toyota. I'm glad the company recognizes this. Introducing this design is a sign that the company is confident of its financial position going forward, critics be damned. Otherwise, it would have taken the timid approach of merely recycling old designs.

 

I like how it looks and the interior looks great in the pictures. I'm concerned about the weak acceleration. I drive on a lot of old, high traffic, parkways that that have extremely short merge lanes and acceleration that slow makes merging difficult. Add family and cargo and it only becomes more difficult. I wish they would have at least added a more powerful engine option.

 

Alex on Autos says the 2016 RX he tested got to 0-60 in 6.5 secs.

 

I'm glad to hear that because that was going to be a deal breaker. Anything in the low 7's would have been manageable but 6.5 is great. It was the one thing making me consider an MDX over the RX.
On another note, Lexus marketing dept might want to correct some of these reviews, which I'm guessing is stating the 0-60 of the 200t instead of the 350 like someone else said. Autoblog and road and track both have the time listed for the 350 as 7.9

 

6.5 is pretty quick! As a reference, the 3RX (350) FWD does 0-60 in 7.7s.

 

Well said.

 

Perfectly said.

 

Exactly. I fact, if someone thinks the RX is too radical, they can get a fully loaded Highlander, for less money but most of the same features, with a much more traditional design, but the same car underneath.

 

An unrelated article about a seven seat RX demand is mentioned here. http://www.caradvice.com.au/377582/l...hief-engineer/

So what is my context in saying it here? Let me quote a couple lines from RX's chief engineer, Takayuki Katsuda, mentioned in the article:

“[The] first priorities of RX [buyers] is size or stylish proportions, that is, a not so practical meaning.

“We are not a practical brand – of course practicality of the car is needed, but practical image is not suiting for the Lexus, that is Toyota’s role,” Katsuda said.”

So there you have it. The RX is about style that their stylists decided. The new style has little engineering purpose, such as aerodynamics as you mentioned. Although I like your post, sadly, according to the chief engineer, the RX is about form first, function later.

I have nothing against the new looks, but as you mentioned, it is about aesthetic originality. The only difference is, it all about aesthetic originality.

 

The '15 Murano had a bit of jump on the floating roof,lines and creases designing.

 

And no one is talking about it as much.

It's the Carly Fiorina to this Donald Trump.

 

I think I prefer the non-F Sport's looks. It is easier on the eyes.

 

 

Pointless? Losing couple million and handing it to the competition is OK I guess. Look, I could care less on the design for the most part. I get it. However, by purposely eliminating your more conservative demographic Lexus essentially sent millions of dollars to the likes of Porsche, Audi and Mercedes. From a marketing & revenue stand point why would you do that? Especially when you could have built on the NX for one group while at the same time kept the RX for the very people that helped cement your name? Then build another that would be a true monster with V8TT down the line and so forth. Versatility is the name of the game. Now Lexus has pretty much one look across the board. Why do that? You want that front end or....that same one over there? Then you wonder how each will differentiate itself from each model. One guy spends 35k while another 65k and they both almost kook the same. Didn't Toyota learn this years ago when customer complained about this very same issue?

 

No one can be definite about the future. But from other countless examples, I can tell you that the general mass is pretty much insulated from nuances about design languages for any established brand or model. For as long as a new generation differentiates from the old design, so that one can boast of owning a newer model and can deride an older car, a new deisgn is good enough.

Countless critiques are born every time you see a refresh, whether big or small. Debates fill pages, and yet I am yet to see people moving in or out in droves over the long term for an established model as RX is. Any new launch comes with a surge in sales, and you'll see the same thing here as well. And it will characteristically fall as the model ages before a new one comes in.

Yes, there will be a push and pull between NX and RX; but the combined sum of RX and NX sales will definitely trend higher, given that NX is already a hit. Which means Lexus will sell more vehicles overall, and that is exactly what Lexus wants.