When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Ok but how many car buyers really knew what the naming meant, when it actually referred to engine size? I bet it's way fewer than you would think....
Yeah I'd imagine most people don't know what the number means. "Higher = better" might be the extent of it. Like how I've heard/read multiple people referring to their Lexus as their "Lexus 350".
I have to say, I am happy to see that "350" on my trunk lid and know that it actually means something.
That's real funny but I guess MB, BMW and now Lexus know how to trick people with their naming. I'm more than happy with 3.0. Plenty of power. I do see a mix of 350, 450 and Coupe AMGs. I haven't seen a 580 once for some reason.
Mercedes used to have a number that was not reflective of the engine size. Then it was in the 1990s..now it is back to original ways.
A Lexus LX 350tt just sounds dumb
Last edited by Toys4RJill; Nov 4, 2022 at 12:08 PM.
I think it makes more sense, just put the T label or H label at the ends if they are turbo/hybrid.
That would just confuse everyone endlessly which is precisely why marketing as avoided doing so. For example, you'd get a S400t and an AMG S40t. This would look like a downgrade to people who are used to S500/S550/S580 and S63. What would you do with the current gen C300, C43, C63? They're all 2.0t and the latter two are both 2.0t hybrids. Not worth it for the vast majority of people who didn't understand engine displacement to start with. Obviously they're doing just fine as-is.
That would just confuse everyone endlessly which is precisely why marketing as avoided doing so. For example, you'd get a S400t and an AMG S40t. This would look like a downgrade to people who are used to S500/S550/S580 and S63. What would you do with the current gen C300, C43, C63? They're all 2.0t and the latter two are both 2.0t hybrids. Not worth it for the vast majority of people who didn't understand engine displacement to start with. Obviously they're doing just fine as-is.
That would just confuse everyone endlessly which is precisely why marketing as avoided doing so. For example, you'd get a S400t and an AMG S40t. This would look like a downgrade to people who are used to S500/S550/S580 and S63. What would you do with the current gen C300, C43, C63? They're all 2.0t and the latter two are both 2.0t hybrids. Not worth it for the vast majority of people who didn't understand engine displacement to start with. Obviously they're doing just fine as-is.
The problem is it's already inflated. So fixing makes people feel downgraded even it's more accurate. On the other hand, people seem fine when they feel "upgraded". It certainly makes it sound "upgraded" when there's LC/S500 on the roads.
Funny that they couldn't find ONE extra cc per cylinder to make the displacement accurate. (3,444 cc rounds to 3.4L, while 3,450 would round to 3.5L) Much like how the Mustang "5.0" introduced in 1968 didn't actually displace a full 5 liters until 2011--prior to that it was 4,948 cc, or 4.9L.
The problem is it's already inflated. So fixing makes people feel downgraded even it's more accurate. On the other hand, people seem fine when they feel "upgraded". It certainly makes it sound "upgraded" when there's LC/S500 on the roads.
It wasn't inflated at S550, but at some point it would've turned into a S460t and then a S400t. That's not the direction people want to go.
See they got me. I'm not into the LX so didn't know the size of the engine. Wow LX600 for 3.5? I thought RX500 is already bad. .
I don’t really care what they call it to be honest. It should be a V8. A V6 is just not acceptable
Originally Posted by 1111GS
I thought RX500 is already bad. .
RX500 has a nice ring to it. But the RX should be a V6 at minimum. A I4 is also unacceptable
Originally Posted by geko29
Funny that they couldn't find ONE extra cc per cylinder to make the displacement accurate. (3,444 cc rounds to 3.4L, while 3,450 would round to 3.5L) Much like how the Mustang "5.0" introduced in 1968 didn't actually displace a full 5 liters until 2011--prior to that it was 4,948 cc, or 4.9L.
Its actually 3.445cc
Last edited by Toys4RJill; Nov 4, 2022 at 02:17 PM.
I can literally only find a single source that has it at 3,445 cc. But at this point, we are literally splitting hairs, and my point is made either way (3,445 still rounds to 3.4L) so I'm going to let it go.
I can literally only find a single source that has it at 3,445 cc. But at this point, we are literally splitting hairs, and my point is made either way (3,445 still rounds to 3.4L) so I'm going to let it go.
from the EPA. I’ve never disputed that it’s not a 3.4. I don’t see the big issue