Benoit

The problem is, that the initial size of the engine matters a lot. Not only for reliability, but for sparing enough fuel.
In the actual days, Atkinson cycle, variable valve timings and direct/port injections are a lots of benefits for sparing fuel. But all that goes down the toilet if you are pushing your car to a point where it can't take advantage of those.

I always was surprised that the little VW 1.2 TSI engine was that gulpy on the Highway (6.7 L / 100km). In regard, I achieved inferior figures with the 1.6 Opel atmospheric engine. A well known example in Switzerland is the Subaru Legacy, that was a very popular car. I knew several persons that bought those, and a common trick for sparing fuel costs, was to take the higher displacement 2.5L engine, because the 2.0L engine was only able to be economic when driven extremely softly ; on everyday road application, the 2.5L was more economic, it had the right size for this car.

In this Lexus forum, we know for example that the 200T wasn't, in general, able to achieve the promised MPG without very specific conditions that where rarely able to be achieved on road. It had an Atkinson cycle on board but was never able to see it in real world application because the car was always on boost and/or simply overly heavy for such a tiny engine. You can also look up the hybrid lineup, it's not a coïncidence that Lexus is pairing the 2.5L with his cars. The 2.0 would only be suited for lighter cars.

So, yes. Size matters -> the right size matters

Sulu

That's right. A small engine that has to work hard is less efficient (use more fuel) than a larger engine that does not have to work as hard.

geko29

Lexus has several flagship products, and none of them are the RX. Until the NX was introduced, the RX was their entry-level SUV.

Cocal

Exactly, MPG figures as taunted by the manufacturers are obtained under contrived conditions, conditions that the average driver will NEVER put up with.
A 2 litre turbocharged engine will have the turbo going in 90% of the time and will use the same amount of fuel as a 3 litre non turbo, but will put a lot more stress on everything mechanical and not only that, but you have to know how to drive the turbo, when to let the turbo kick in and when to turn it off. It's one of those advantages whose benefits really are only paperworthy. Diesel engines are OK with the turbo as they are beefier and the fuel is also a lubricant.

riredale

Huh. The Highlander going to a 4-cylinder engine is a big surprise to me. The older RXh/HiHy powertrain was identical, I think, and the 3.5 liter V6 delivered only 240hp due to the switch to the more-efficient Atkinson cycle. So how can they do 240hp with a little four?

By the way, I think 240hp in the RXh is plenty, since it's augmented to 300+hp for brief passing events with the assistance of the front and rear electric motors.

Sulu

The 240hp in the new Highlander Hybrid with the 2.5-litre 4-cylinder engine would be the combined gasoline engine and electric drive motor power, not the power from the engine itself.

Nauticalx

Let's face it- you don't buy an RX for the best handling or performance. You buy it because it's the most practical and very efficient. Toyota would not be making a switch to a 4 cyl without having the utmost confidence in its reliability. The efficiency of engines today is amazing and getting incrementally better by the day. Nothing wrong with a 4 banger in this vehicle. period.

spwolf

RX will most certainly still be available with 450h powertrain, but lets hope it will also come with 300h internationally.

ericsan13

Flagship product: "A major product of a company, which is typically why the company was founded and/or what made it well known"

Since the RX is 35% off all their cars sold, including sedans, yeah I think it's pretty safe to say that the RX is their flagship.

DaveGS4

iTrader: (2)

Sorry Eric, what you posted 100% defines the LS line - why the company was founded and what made it well known.

RX is a great vehicle and is certainly a big part of current Lexus sales, it didn't show up until 9 years after Lexus was founded. Not a flagship model (current or past), not a halo model.

ericsan13

Perhaps we can agree to disagree as this is an off-topic conversation. When you ask most anyone about Lexus today, their thoughts immediately jump to the RX, ES, and IS. Not many people even knows that the LS exists.

Back to the 4 banger issue, even my V6TT experiences turbo lag. I can't imagine a I4T holding its weight compared to a NA V6. RX200t takes 9.2s to reach 60. That's way slower than today's RX and is not okay in a world full of much faster competitors.

situman

The LS is the model that put Lexus on the luxury map. It makes no sense to think the RX is the flagship of the Lexus brand. You can say it is their bread and butter, but it isnt some sort of status symbol or representative of the brand.

Benoit

So was the Ford T. But Ford moved away from it, and now sells more F150 than T's.

I don't say you are wrong. Just that tastes are shifiting and "sport-fridges" are todays trend.

For my testimony of that, I see the big SUV's of Lexus often on my streets. And also some rare IS. The LS and the RC are unicorns. I saw one new LS and one LS400 on the streets since introduction. And saw only 2 RCF in flesh and blood since introductions on my streets. It's too few for a brand to continue existing. If Lexus wouldn't have had it's SUV, it would be out of market right now in the EU.

ericsan13

You could also chalk this up to different perspectives due to age. Most younger people do not see the LS as relevant as they were not around when Lexus was founded with the LS, whereas older folks see the LS as the reason for Lexus' existence. Before the NX, the RX dominated Lexus and was the de facto representative of the brand.

geko29

But if you're going to define "Flagship" that way, you come up with an increasingly silly list of flagships:

Cadillac: Escalade
Acura: MDX
Mercedes: E-Class
BMW: 3-Series
Audi: Q5
Infiniti: Q50
Buick: Encore (??)