Anyone else see the need for a Lexus RAV4?
02-09-05, 07:34 AM
#16
Lexus Test Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 1,509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, I guess I see it less as a move "downmarket" as a move to cover the entire luxury market.
Would you guys see a Z4/SLK entry as a move downmarket? Such a car would almost certainly be cheaper and smaller than the current SC430.
And I don't mean just taking a RAV4 and slapping wood and leather in it. That's not what happened with the creation of the RX, GX, and LX, is it? They could base it on the RAV4 chassis, maybe make it a tiny bit larger, but there is a market for small SUVs that has not fulfilled its potential.
Anyway, if it happens, you'll remember me as bringing up the topic before Lexus did. If it doesn't, you'll probably have forgotten I even mentioned it. Win-win situation for me.
Would you guys see a Z4/SLK entry as a move downmarket? Such a car would almost certainly be cheaper and smaller than the current SC430.
And I don't mean just taking a RAV4 and slapping wood and leather in it. That's not what happened with the creation of the RX, GX, and LX, is it? They could base it on the RAV4 chassis, maybe make it a tiny bit larger, but there is a market for small SUVs that has not fulfilled its potential.
Anyway, if it happens, you'll remember me as bringing up the topic before Lexus did. If it doesn't, you'll probably have forgotten I even mentioned it. Win-win situation for me.
02-09-05, 10:21 AM
#17
Pole Position
Originally Posted by mmarshall
That is also the reason why we don't have the Lexus IS200.
As for why our IS300 has neither engine and the 2JZ, that's easy. Smog laws. It made no sense for Toyota to spend the money to smoggify [tm] the 1G or the 3S when it already had the 2JZ in the GS300, SC300, and older Supra's. It costs them money everytime they introduce a new engine to the NA market so they use as little engines as possible. Usually just 3 for the entire line. The FWD V6 (ES), the RWD straight 6 (SC, GS, IS), and the RWD V8 (LS). (Trucks not listed here)
It is this same smog BS that kept North American Celicas ghey for many years. We only got the first generation 3S-GE. Celicas all over the world had the base 3S-FE, and the 3S-GE for the performance models. Here, the 3S-GE cost to much to introduce vs. sales. So they went with, survey says: The Camry 4-banger. bleh. 5S-FE. 2.2 liters of anemic thrust. Later on they got WORSE and put Corolla motors in base Celicas. The 94-99 Celica ST's had 115hp 1.8's! Pathetic.
Even the 3S-GTE was only available here for 2 generations. When the third generation 3S-GTE was released all over the world, our MR-2's used the 2nd gen! We were actually running older engines while the rest of the world had upgraded. They eventually just killed it off.
This also explains other engines we didn't get like the 1JZ, 4A-GE 20 valve, later generations of the 4A-GZE, the most sexy of 3S-GE's (red BEAMS) as featured in the Celica SS-III (our 94-99 Celi's)
Sorry for going off on that tangent, but yea. Blame Smog Laws for our lack of engine options.
Couple that with the fickle American market and there ya go.
02-09-05, 02:50 PM
#18
Lexus Test Driver
I agree with most here and say no to the Lex RAV4... i think that would cause brand dilution... if anything, Lexus needs to move on UP... like Denny Clement has been hinting at with a new long wheelbase car and supercar.
02-09-05, 04:17 PM
#19
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYC/ATL
Posts: 2,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1SICKLEX
If you notice, Lexus invented the car based SUV (the RX) and now the performance/hybrid SUV (the 400h).
When I say Performance Im thinking big engine and handling, somehow X5 3.0 or RX330 do not fit into that picture, the RX400h looks more like a competitor to the X5 4.4 price wise, now you can add the Volvo XC90 V8
I don't know, so many cars, so many price ranges and they can all overlap in price and options 1 way or another
gets confusing, to bad we can't go back to the days when each make had their own niche
02-09-05, 05:42 PM
#20
Lexus Test Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 1,509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EDGE2
I thought the 1st performance SUV was the X5 followed by the M-Class and then the Infiniti FX came into the picture and the Cayenne.
When I say Performance Im thinking big engine and handling, somehow X5 3.0 or RX330 do not fit into that picture, the RX400h looks more like a competitor to the X5 4.4 price wise, now you can add the Volvo XC90 V8
I don't know, so many cars, so many price ranges and they can all overlap in price and options 1 way or another gets confusing, to bad we can't go back to the days when each make had their own niche
When I say Performance Im thinking big engine and handling, somehow X5 3.0 or RX330 do not fit into that picture, the RX400h looks more like a competitor to the X5 4.4 price wise, now you can add the Volvo XC90 V8
I don't know, so many cars, so many price ranges and they can all overlap in price and options 1 way or another
gets confusing, to bad we can't go back to the days when each make had their own niche
02-09-05, 10:28 PM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Incendiary
I don't think I understand what you're saying. Toyota has the RAV4, Highlander, 4Runner, Land Cruiser, and Sequoia. The Land Cruiser is already considered a luxury vehicle. Lexus has RX (based off Highlander), GX (based off 4Runner still?), and LX (based off Land Cruiser). I still think there's a case to be made for a smaller luxury SUV, since it wouldn't compete with the RAV4 as it's a Lexus, and it also wouldn't compete with the much larger Highlander or 4Runner. If anything, it made no sense for Toyota to Lexusize the Land Cruiser, wouldn't you say? It's already a luxury vehicle, like I said earlier.
That is the problem. Entry level luxury is 30k and up. Accords/Camrys, Altimas, Avalons and other non-luxury brands are over 30k now. The average new car is 30k. So why would anyone want to chase the SUB entry level market? What the hell is that anyway? Clearly, no offense but if you buy a sub 30k luxury badged car, that is more for badgehounds than anyone. Because you can easily buy a better non-luxury branded car for the same price. Why should Lexus compete in a non luxury market? It makes no sense for them. Besides, the X3 maybe small, but its priced HIGH. 40k easy.
BTS? Have you heard that anywhere other than the R&T article from last month? I haven't and would be a little surprised if Caddy really does that. I'd be all for it, but I'd be surprised nonetheless.
There are rumors within GM I've heard, it would simply be based on an existing platform.Caddy wants to sell more cars, and going downmarket may sell cars but hurts image.
I'm not sure what you mean by your first line, but I agree that the next IS has big expectations. And you forgot to mention the MB C230k as an I-4, although it's not FWD. Cheap leather is also not something unique to Audi and Acura, as all of the entry level lux class is plagued by this problem. Well, the G35 leather is actually quite decent, whereas the leather on the M35/45 is actually much less supple, surprisingly. In sitting in the Germans, when its leather (not leatherette), it is very solid. Lexus ES leather is solid, as the old I35. The IS has good leather when equipped with it. Go to any Acura forum the past 5 years and search under leather.
Audi is late to the game, you're right, but I kinda suspect their SUVs will do well. It fits better with their image, I keep thinking for some reason. Maybe because of the AWD thing? I dunno. Haven't seen the HPX concept, but I'll do a search for it. I can't see them doing better than the cars. They are late, the competiton is getting better and its not like people are dying for one. Its to appeal to loyal Audi owners. They thought they could use their Allroad Quatto would do better (its a sensational car BTW).
Really, I'd prefer SUVs not exist at all, or at least not in luxury form. I don't mean to advocate the creation of more of these non-sporty gas-guzzlers, but Lexus already does sell more SUVs than cars, right? I just see this as the next logical step, but I guess we'll have to wait a couple years and see how well the compact luxury SUVs sell.
That is the problem. Entry level luxury is 30k and up. Accords/Camrys, Altimas, Avalons and other non-luxury brands are over 30k now. The average new car is 30k. So why would anyone want to chase the SUB entry level market? What the hell is that anyway? Clearly, no offense but if you buy a sub 30k luxury badged car, that is more for badgehounds than anyone. Because you can easily buy a better non-luxury branded car for the same price. Why should Lexus compete in a non luxury market? It makes no sense for them. Besides, the X3 maybe small, but its priced HIGH. 40k easy.
BTS? Have you heard that anywhere other than the R&T article from last month? I haven't and would be a little surprised if Caddy really does that. I'd be all for it, but I'd be surprised nonetheless.
There are rumors within GM I've heard, it would simply be based on an existing platform.Caddy wants to sell more cars, and going downmarket may sell cars but hurts image.
I'm not sure what you mean by your first line, but I agree that the next IS has big expectations. And you forgot to mention the MB C230k as an I-4, although it's not FWD. Cheap leather is also not something unique to Audi and Acura, as all of the entry level lux class is plagued by this problem. Well, the G35 leather is actually quite decent, whereas the leather on the M35/45 is actually much less supple, surprisingly. In sitting in the Germans, when its leather (not leatherette), it is very solid. Lexus ES leather is solid, as the old I35. The IS has good leather when equipped with it. Go to any Acura forum the past 5 years and search under leather.
Audi is late to the game, you're right, but I kinda suspect their SUVs will do well. It fits better with their image, I keep thinking for some reason. Maybe because of the AWD thing? I dunno. Haven't seen the HPX concept, but I'll do a search for it. I can't see them doing better than the cars. They are late, the competiton is getting better and its not like people are dying for one. Its to appeal to loyal Audi owners. They thought they could use their Allroad Quatto would do better (its a sensational car BTW).
Really, I'd prefer SUVs not exist at all, or at least not in luxury form. I don't mean to advocate the creation of more of these non-sporty gas-guzzlers, but Lexus already does sell more SUVs than cars, right? I just see this as the next logical step, but I guess we'll have to wait a couple years and see how well the compact luxury SUVs sell.
02-09-05, 10:34 PM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Incendiary
Hmm, I guess I see it less as a move "downmarket" as a move to cover the entire luxury market.
Would you guys see a Z4/SLK entry as a move downmarket? Such a car would almost certainly be cheaper and smaller than the current SC430.
And I don't mean just taking a RAV4 and slapping wood and leather in it. That's not what happened with the creation of the RX, GX, and LX, is it? They could base it on the RAV4 chassis, maybe make it a tiny bit larger, but there is a market for small SUVs that has not fulfilled its potential.
Anyway, if it happens, you'll remember me as bringing up the topic before Lexus did. If it doesn't, you'll probably have forgotten I even mentioned it. Win-win situation for me.
Would you guys see a Z4/SLK entry as a move downmarket? Such a car would almost certainly be cheaper and smaller than the current SC430.
And I don't mean just taking a RAV4 and slapping wood and leather in it. That's not what happened with the creation of the RX, GX, and LX, is it? They could base it on the RAV4 chassis, maybe make it a tiny bit larger, but there is a market for small SUVs that has not fulfilled its potential.
Anyway, if it happens, you'll remember me as bringing up the topic before Lexus did. If it doesn't, you'll probably have forgotten I even mentioned it. Win-win situation for me.
The SLK was a downmarket move, b/c the SL was out. But that is not a BAD downmarket at all. That is a 40-60k car. The Z4 is much more expensive than the Z3, so its actually upmarket. You can get a loaded Z4 in the 50s!! Now PORSCHE is going very downmarket, and it has caused much fuss within the company. The Boxster was downmarket to the 911 for instance but has been tremendous for the company. And again, its a 40k-60k car. It seems Porsche wants to go lower, BELOW the Boxster, a 30k Porsche. Many think this kills the cars exclusivity. Many say we have to do it to sell more cars.
Your correct, there is a market. Acura wouldn't build a sub 30k SUV (RDX) if they felt it would not sell. But again, there is no other luxury car maker trying to go there. The X3 2.5 starts at 30k (with nothing inside) the 30 starts at 36k. For that price, you can get the RX 330, FX 35 etc etc.
02-09-05, 10:39 PM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by CleanSC
Actually the Altezza does come with a 4-cylinder. Overseas the Altezza comes with a 2.0L 6-cylinder (1G-FE) rated at 160hp and a 2.0L 4-cylinder (3S-GE) rated at 200hp. The 4-banger is the most fun of the two.
As for why our IS300 has neither engine and the 2JZ, that's easy. Smog laws. It made no sense for Toyota to spend the money to smoggify [tm] the 1G or the 3S when it already had the 2JZ in the GS300, SC300, and older Supra's. It costs them money everytime they introduce a new engine to the NA market so they use as little engines as possible. Usually just 3 for the entire line. The FWD V6 (ES), the RWD straight 6 (SC, GS, IS), and the RWD V8 (LS). (Trucks not listed here)
It is this same smog BS that kept North American Celicas ghey for many years. We only got the first generation 3S-GE. Celicas all over the world had the base 3S-FE, and the 3S-GE for the performance models. Here, the 3S-GE cost to much to introduce vs. sales. So they went with, survey says: The Camry 4-banger. bleh. 5S-FE. 2.2 liters of anemic thrust. Later on they got WORSE and put Corolla motors in base Celicas. The 94-99 Celica ST's had 115hp 1.8's! Pathetic.
Even the 3S-GTE was only available here for 2 generations. When the third generation 3S-GTE was released all over the world, our MR-2's used the 2nd gen! We were actually running older engines while the rest of the world had upgraded. They eventually just killed it off.
This also explains other engines we didn't get like the 1JZ, 4A-GE 20 valve, later generations of the 4A-GZE, the most sexy of 3S-GE's (red BEAMS) as featured in the Celica SS-III (our 94-99 Celi's)
Sorry for going off on that tangent, but yea. Blame Smog Laws for our lack of engine options. Couple that with the fickle American market and there ya go.
As for why our IS300 has neither engine and the 2JZ, that's easy. Smog laws. It made no sense for Toyota to spend the money to smoggify [tm] the 1G or the 3S when it already had the 2JZ in the GS300, SC300, and older Supra's. It costs them money everytime they introduce a new engine to the NA market so they use as little engines as possible. Usually just 3 for the entire line. The FWD V6 (ES), the RWD straight 6 (SC, GS, IS), and the RWD V8 (LS). (Trucks not listed here)
It is this same smog BS that kept North American Celicas ghey for many years. We only got the first generation 3S-GE. Celicas all over the world had the base 3S-FE, and the 3S-GE for the performance models. Here, the 3S-GE cost to much to introduce vs. sales. So they went with, survey says: The Camry 4-banger. bleh. 5S-FE. 2.2 liters of anemic thrust. Later on they got WORSE and put Corolla motors in base Celicas. The 94-99 Celica ST's had 115hp 1.8's! Pathetic.
Even the 3S-GTE was only available here for 2 generations. When the third generation 3S-GTE was released all over the world, our MR-2's used the 2nd gen! We were actually running older engines while the rest of the world had upgraded. They eventually just killed it off.
This also explains other engines we didn't get like the 1JZ, 4A-GE 20 valve, later generations of the 4A-GZE, the most sexy of 3S-GE's (red BEAMS) as featured in the Celica SS-III (our 94-99 Celi's)
Sorry for going off on that tangent, but yea. Blame Smog Laws for our lack of engine options.
Couple that with the fickle American market and there ya go.I agree and Well another HUGE reason, Lexus did tons of reasearch on what luxury buyers thought in the entry level market. Basically 4-cylinder luxury cars were laughed at and seen as an oxymoron. Notice BMW got rid of their 4s and Benz got rid of most of theirs. Also, they basically attacked the 330, I-6, RWD, comparable dimensions, power but for 5k less. Lexus has never had a 4-cylinder car, here or overseas. Period.
02-09-05, 10:42 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by EDGE2
I thought the 1st performance SUV was the X5 followed by the M-Class and then the Infiniti FX came into the picture and the Cayenne.
When I say Performance Im thinking big engine and handling, somehow X5 3.0 or RX330 do not fit into that picture, the RX400h looks more like a competitor to the X5 4.4 price wise, now you can add the Volvo XC90 V8
I don't know, so many cars, so many price ranges and they can all overlap in price and options 1 way or another gets confusing, to bad we can't go back to the days when each make had their own niche
When I say Performance Im thinking big engine and handling, somehow X5 3.0 or RX330 do not fit into that picture, the RX400h looks more like a competitor to the X5 4.4 price wise, now you can add the Volvo XC90 V8
I don't know, so many cars, so many price ranges and they can all overlap in price and options 1 way or another
gets confusing, to bad we can't go back to the days when each make had their own niche
Originally Posted by Incendiary
I don't know that I'd consider the M-Class a performance SUV, but I agree with you otherwise. I think Mike was referring to the hybrid aspect of that phrase more than the performance aspect... He picked and chose his words carefully in his post. For example, he mentioned that the RX was the first car-based luxury SUV, carefully neglecting to mention that Acura's SLX was the first luxury SUV on the market (although I'm sure he'd take issue with labeling it as such).
02-09-05, 11:37 PM
#25
Originally Posted by 1SICKLEX
Sorry, let me clarify. I meant 1st car based SUV and 1st hyrid luxury SUV. The hybrid will be marketed for performance though.
02-09-05, 11:59 PM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by CK6Speed
That's because it was an Isuzu and not a real Honda/Acura 
Originally Posted by CK6Speed
Doesn't Ford have a hybrid Explorer. I believe it is released at least as a 2005 model, maybe even earlier. The RX400H is indeed the first performance oriented hybrid SUV though. I guess it can also be the first car based hybrid SUV since the Explorer is still a truck chasis.
02-10-05, 12:44 AM
#28
Lexus Test Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 1,509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was under the impression that the RX400h uses its hybrid system as a mix between providing enhanced performance/acceleration and providing enhanced gas mileage. In other words, the hybrid system was not optimized towards one end of the scale or the other, unlike the Prius (gas economy). In contrast, the GS450h I thought was supposed to be maximized towards performance with gas economy as an afterthought.
I wonder which is causing more consternation among P-car enthusiasts: the "dilution" of the brand by the introduction of the Cayenne or the "dilution" of the brand by a less expensive Boxster coupe. If Porsche introduces a sedan, as they've been rumored to be considering for some time now, I bet the P-car camp will go absolutely bonkers.
I wonder which is causing more consternation among P-car enthusiasts: the "dilution" of the brand by the introduction of the Cayenne or the "dilution" of the brand by a less expensive Boxster coupe. If Porsche introduces a sedan, as they've been rumored to be considering for some time now, I bet the P-car camp will go absolutely bonkers.
02-10-05, 02:51 AM
#29
Originally Posted by Incendiary
I
I wonder which is causing more consternation among P-car enthusiasts: the "dilution" of the brand by the introduction of the Cayenne or the "dilution" of the brand by a less expensive Boxster coupe. If Porsche introduces a sedan, as they've been rumored to be considering for some time now, I bet the P-car camp will go absolutely bonkers.
I wonder which is causing more consternation among P-car enthusiasts: the "dilution" of the brand by the introduction of the Cayenne or the "dilution" of the brand by a less expensive Boxster coupe. If Porsche introduces a sedan, as they've been rumored to be considering for some time now, I bet the P-car camp will go absolutely bonkers.
02-10-05, 03:28 AM
#30
Lexus Test Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 1,509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CK6Speed
There are many who agree that the mid engine layout is by far a more superior chassis than a rear engine layout.