We are looking at buying another Lexus as my wife's daily driver. We have owned an '07 - RX350, which is now my daughters car.
We went to look at an RX yesterday at the dealership and found ourselves driving an NX. We hadn't really even looked at these, but the RX has just gotten so bulky.
We live in Denver and are a bit concerned about a 4 cylinder engine heading up to the mountains once we load the car up.

Can anyone here speak to the power and other differences between these two models?
The RX we are looking at is a 2015. The NX is a 2016.

The only other concern about the NX is that it has been owned by the dealership and used as a loaner.
Only 11K miles so it's fairly low miles overall.... but not sure how concerned we should be about the loaner car issue.

Your thoughts are appreciated.
Richard

 

Richard, corrado did a great comparison between the two in this thread. He went from an 3RX F-Sport to the NX F-Sport. BTW, he's now driving the 4RX F-Sport.

 

I would stay clear of the loaner.

You may like to loan it for a weekend, and pack it as you would, and test it at higher elevation.

Salim

 

I would only get the loaner car if it's a huge discount. Those cars can get beat up in just 10,000 miles sometimes.

This is a tough question. The NX has a newer screen with better menus. I'm not a fan of the interior of the pre-2016 model RX's to be honest but it is still pretty nice even compared to the NX. It would come down to price for me. I'm around both cars on a daily basis and it's still a tough choice.

 

Personally an 11K loaner would not bother me if it is good shape... but I would be expecting a substantial discount.

Going from a 6 cylinder engine to a 4 cylinder is a dissapointment and something I could not talk myself into. I am a pretty aggresive driver though. If you are a mellow driver you might not find the downgrade as annoying.

I would never base my car purchase choice based on the technology package. I keep my cars for a long time, any connectivity technology in a car is going to be obsolete way before I consider upgrading to a newer car. If you are the type that gets a new car every 3 years the technology package might make more of a difference to you.

To me the NX is a small car platform and the RX is a mid sized car platform. If you feel the RX midsized platform has gotten to big for your purposes then the smaller NX makes a lot of sense. I prefer a midsized car and would be dissapointed in an NX. The RX is a very solid refined platform. The NX is a more efficient platform.

 

Huge discount from dealer due to a loaner will most likely not going to happen. They can sell it to wholesaler and the next purchaser would likely not know that it was a loaner before. If you are in used car market, always check the chain of ownership. If you do not see a person as an intermediate owner, beware it can be a loaner from the dealership.

Savings if any can happen as the vehicle may qualify as first sale. Check with the dealer.

Salim

 

RX uses regular gas. NX requires premium. In some parts of the country that can be a 50 cent per gallon difference.

 

In Chicago area that would be a $1.00 difference per gallon. Totally defeats the economy of the 4 cylinder.

 

A benefit of the 2015 RX is that it was the last of it's generation and a lot of bugs if any get worked out by then.

 

second that

 

Is there a year by year improvement/fix list.

First gen had roof slats, spoiler, turning radius, Gas tank size, oil drain tubes, pcv, sun-visor.

Salim

 

The turbo-4 engine will have an advantage in the mountains. That's why Subarus are so popular in CO.
Normally-aspirated engine will degrade in performance when the air thins out, while forced-induction can compress air to the optimal level.
In Denver, being 1 mile above sea level, Turbo/Supercharger is your best friend.

 

Vlad, respectfully, I could not disagree more. That is not why they are so popular in CO. They are popular because they are cheap to own and upkeep, and the AWD system is second to none. Non-turbo Subs outsell turbo'ed Subs by quite a margin. To get the turbo to spool up requires running at higher RPM, which means higher heat. If you are going up a long/extended grade, a larger NA engine is usually better than a smaller turbo'ed engine, IMO. Also, the on-board ECM adjusts the oxygen/fuel levels instantaneously. in both vehicles. ALL vehicles suffer loss of HP at altitude.

Yes the turbo will be a faster vehicle, regardless of altitude. But, there are some serious trade-offs. One additional being that the turbo'd vehicle REQUIRES Premium fuel.

 

I think that some people are fans of turbo charged engines and some people aren't. I appreciate the extra power and efficiency that turbos have the potential to offer BUT reliability and longevity are a couple of attributes I value in a vehicle and turbocharged engines will generraly wear faster than normally aspirated engines in my experience. If you buy a new car every 3 to 5 years pretty much any engine (turbocharged or not) should easily last 5 years and 80k miles. I own and enjoy vehicles that are 20, 30 and even 50 years old that are still running well and pretty darned reliable. (67 Ford F100 with a 300ci straight 6 engine being the oldest). I do not trust current small turbo charged engines to power mid sized vehicles and achieve this kind of longevity and reliability. I am gambeling on the normally asperated V6 engine in the 450h to meet my expectations for reliabilities... of course the hybrid battery is the biggest risk of that gamble.

Turbo charged engines offer the same power as larger engines in a considerably smaller and lighter (and more efficient) package. Since ICE's are around 20% efficient 80% of the potential energy in gasoline goes into heat. So a 200 hp engine has to manage and dissipate 800hp worth of heat when running at full power. In a turbocharged engine that heat has to be managed and dissipated by a lot less engine mass. A 6 cylinder 3.5l engine putting out 200 hp not only has more mass to dissipate the heat than a 4 cylinder 1.8l turbocharged putting out 200hp but also has 33% more bearings and an even greater percentage of bearing surface area controlling that 200hp of power. Turbo charged engines push hotter air into the engine due to the air being compressed then all the heat coming out ot the engine in the exhaust gases goes directly back into the turbo charger to spin that extremely hot shaft at 50,000 rpm or more. I do believe that turbo technology and reliability is improving. I also believe that if any company can build a reliable turbo charged engine Toyota is a great bet! But I believe that there are many lessons yet to be learned about pushing fairly large vehicles with fairly small turbocharged engines.

BTW, I do own a turbo charged vehicle that Ihave found to be very reliable... it has an excellent Isuzu designed turbo charged Duramax diesel engine with considerable mass and bearings to manage the power required to propell my big old truck.

Of course you need to buy what best suits your needs and you are most comfortable with... not what is best for me and what I am most comfortable with.

 

Of course, I was exaggerating a bit why Subarus are popular in CO. There are many very valid reasons why the brand is on the rise across the board.
Being based out of Denver, Nathan from TFLCar explains Forced Induction advantages best:
There's less loss for Turbo or SC engine because it forces more air (read oxygen) in than it needs and blows off the rest. Heat generated by compressing air is dissipated via the intercooler.
At high altitudes, the FI will simply keep the blow-off valve closed longer, until it reaches optimal pressure levels. Sure, there will be some delay in that regard, but it can get there.
Yes, the turbo will be spinning faster, but the combustion engine will be running at the sea level parameters. No extra heat there.

All-in-all, it has to do less work than an NA engine because it does not have to compensate nearly as much for loss of air density/oxygen. 30% loss of power is a lot to take in for NA. And that will mean downshifting and running higher RPMs.