vraa

iTrader: (2)

FWIW - The SL rocks for long distance driving.

I can't wait to get rid of it though.
The SC430 is a lame car, it has nothing going for it. Not power, not speed, not finesse, nor history. Objectively it's a boring car -- the antithesis of a sports car.

But I guess that's why women love em

AKoch

I actually find that the SL is not that great for long drives: really noisy at speed. And 90% of it is the tyre noise. In my case it is amplified by the panorama roof (all glass), so sound resonates inside and there is very little surface that actually captures the reflections. Cranking music louder makes it worse. This is very different in the LX or LS, which really excel in longer trips (and I routinely do BC to California and back, or to Calgary etc).

The SL has a very nice look and decent power. The SC has an OK look, but WAY better interior and is actually quite and comfortable. The power is more than sufficient for me, especially for North American roads and speed limits. It does not have as much 'history' (some actually may know more about the Soarers than its common in this forum), but it does have finesse which the SL actually lacks relatively speaking.

tigmd99

Alex, why didn't you like the G320?? Did you buy it used or new?

vraa

iTrader: (2)

That's interesting, I didn't like the LS for long drives because it would make my legs fall asleep.

Love the LX though.

By any chance do you have an X5? If so, we must be identical people...

AKoch

"By any chance do you have an X5? If so, we must be identical people..."

ops, sorry No X5 for me. I actually do go off-road, so I don't "get" vehicles like RX or X5.

Twstrchasr

SC430 ?? Now there is an example of a homely design !! That thing is't even "sporty" enough to be a Buick for petes sake !! Horrible design, absolutely horrid. It has to be one of (if not THE) most unattractive autos in recent history, IMO. Right up there with the Pontiac Aztek ----YUK !!

I'm curious, does you SL have the "sport" pkg? I can assure you that when you combine large wheels, very low profile tyres, firmer bushings, etc, you are going to be giving up some form or fashion of ride quality. While the SL isn't a pure sports car like say a 911, it is worlds away from a boulevard cruiser like the SC. One word to describe the SC---soft ! But, some people like that sort of thing. It's not my bag but it doesn't mean that you are right or wrong for liking or disliking it. To each his own.

lexusrott

^^^ no, no, no the Pontiac Aztec !!!!

AKoch

Yes, my SL does have the sport package which adds to the noise level. I'm aware of the 'large tires and firmer bushings thing' I used to do rally for a while, and I am intimately familiar with the rallyart evolutions and STis. I'm fine with the firmness (or softness) level of the SL and the SC, neither bugs me. It is the noise, acoustic and interior comfort that leaves to be desired.

The SL even with the AMG package is just as much of a boulevard cruiser as the SC430. Unless you step up to the SL65. And then you get an awesome and powerful engine that dies on you every now and then, and it takes forever to fix. And the suspension is still not up to the task to what the engine is capable of. If you ever took and Evo on a track you would know what I mean.

I would agree that exterior design of the SL is noticably better than the SC (that was the reason I got one), though I would honestly say that the interior of the SC is FAR better. And this is where I spend most of the time.

AKoch

Thai,

it was not that I really disliked the G320, it was actually fine and I was not too spoil back then. But then I got a brand new TLC80 and it was such a huge step up in terms of comfort, capabilities and workmanship. The G was not anywhere near: rusting, mechanical things, noise and comfort. The north american version is done a bit better now, the interior is revised and 'upscaled' which looks unnatural on this truck . But still overall I feel that G is actually good where it was supposed to be - simple diesel no frills off-roader. Once you start desiring an elevated level of comfort, etc - there are better vehicles in that category. That's the reason I drive the LX. But as you see this is purely subjective.
I'd actually look again at a G, but because now I don't like where Toyota takes the new LX and out of respect to 'sticking to where it needs to be' on Mercedes part. I respect it.

Twstrchasr

Actually, you need not go all the way up to the V12 65. The s/c V8 SL/CL55 or 6.3 is quite sufficient to provide a very swift kick in the pants that only but a very fery few rides can equal. Until the LFA (?) thingy comes out, no Lexus can even approach, at least performance wise. Once again, there really is no right or wrong in someones personal preferences. But, I would strongly argue with anyone who thinks the SC430 has any performance intentions...It would make a very nice Buick Riviera though !!

The AMG cars are really in a different price class than the SC. Even the lower priced SL 550 still has a decided performance edge versus thre SC.


Woops, sorry for getting off the topic on this thread..That's all for me on this unless we want to start up a new thread on the SC vs. SL .

Back to the real topic of this thread...I am a longtime Land Cruiser owner and I was waiting for the new LX with much anticipation. After seeing both the LC and LX I am terribly disapointed in their exterior design. Especially the LX's !!!

lexusrott

Hi Twstrchasr

Your expertise of the Land Cruiser is very much welcome.
Is hard for any auto manufacture to be able to please everyone. On the 200 series Toyota/Lexus dropped the ball quite a few times. Starting by the inflated price.

AKoch

"That's all for me on this unless we want to start up a new thread on the SC vs. SL "

Oh, no, I'd rather not. But I would not buy the SL again if I had a chance to go back in time. And I really regret I got one instead of the SC. You are absolutely right, the SC is not a sports car and I don't expect it from it. And you are right the SL exterior looks great.