Next-Generation Lexus GS F Under Development

Next-Generation Lexus GS F Under Development

Toyota racing arm Gazoo Racing will play an active role in the next performance sedan.

View the original article post

Next-Generation Lexus GS F Under Development

Toyota racing arm Gazoo Racing will play an active role in the next performance sedan.

View the original article post

Enthusiasts win!!!!!!!

About damn time! Still think we need another ISF!

still some mystery here though, but it does look promising!

... new car needs to be lighter to achieve the playful feel GR is aiming for...
... cars have to run faster, and that tuning is already (in place)...

Exciting because it sounds like they understand precisely what is "wrong" with current F cars - weight (RC-F) and power (GS-F).

ACEtheOG

... new car needs to be lighter to achieve the playful feel GR is aiming for...
... cars have to run faster, and that tuning is already (in place)...

Exciting because it sounds like they understand precisely what is "wrong" with current F cars - weight (RC-F) and power (GS-F).

I picked up an RCF carbon a few weeks ago. Even though, it weighs 4000 lbs, it is the most enjoyable car I have ever driven. Before I got the RCF, for 2 years I had read and dreaded the weight as it had been so talked about in the media. Having now the car for 3 weeks and coming from a 2650 lbs 190 compact sporty car, I was shocked to realize it does not feel heavy at all. I simply played with the tire pressure to eliminate tire roll and squat. After several trial and errors, 37 psi rear and 36 psi stiffens the tire walls enough to eliminate any tire roll. The chassis rigidity, suspension tuning and the mass near the center, does not make this car feel heavy at all. There is almost zero understeer even cornering at full throttle with TVD in track mode. Again, going by "feel". I had driven the E90 M3 (was on my short list along side the RCF), ISF, IS350, SLK55 AMG and the older 450 HP 2010 c63. Of all of these cars, RCF feels the quickest with the howling sound track and the tail easily comes around if either it is slightly cold or you keep the throttle nailed through the corner.

They must keep the GS to fill the gap between LS and IS. They should make the new ES (its probably too late) a wagon so it wont steal GS sales.

Tinhinnh

They must keep the GS to fill the gap between LS and IS. They should make the new ES (its probably too late) a wagon so it wont steal GS sales.

I don't think the ES steals GS sales. They're very, very different cars. The ES is very much a comfy-cruiser with some nice Lexus touches, while the GS is much more performance-oriented.

Ian Schmidt

I don't think the ES steals GS sales. They're very, very different cars. The ES is very much a comfy-cruiser with some nice Lexus touches, while the GS is much more performance-oriented.

True but the typical buyer will mostly only care about price and since they ES is slightly more roomy and just as comfy as the GS while being cheaper, thats what they end up going with.

So if the Aussie Lexus executive words at the beginning of this year turn to be right about the 4 doors coupe , this makes me excited that his words about the Sport Cross may turn out to be true also

Ian Schmidt

I don't think the ES steals GS sales. They're very, very different cars. The ES is very much a comfy-cruiser with some nice Lexus touches, while the GS is much more performance-oriented.

That’s why its being outsold 5 to 1.

Faisal Sheikh

I picked up an RCF carbon a few weeks ago. Even though, it weighs 4000 lbs, it is the most enjoyable car I have ever driven as most of it went towards Frankenstein chassis rigidity with the IS-C chassis center. Before I got the RCF, for 2 years I had read and dreaded the weight as it had been so talked about in the media. Having now the car for 3 weeks and coming from a 2650 lbs 190 HP compact sporty car, I was shocked to realize it does not feel heavy at all as it shrinks around the driver when pushed hard. It feels wide in the back, but still light on its feet. I simply played with the tire pressure to eliminate tire roll and squat. After several trial and errors, 37 psi rear and 36 psi stiffens the tire walls enough to eliminate any tire roll. The chassis rigidity, suspension tuning and the mass near the center, does not make this car feel heavy at all. There is almost zero understeer even cornering at full throttle with TVD in track mode. Again, going by "feel". I have driven the E90 M3 (was on my short list along side the RCF), ISF, IS350, SLK55 AMG and the older 450 HP 2010 c63. Of all of these cars, RCF feels the quickest especially around turns with the howling sound track and the tail easily comes around if either it is slightly cold or you keep the throttle nailed through the corner.

The easiest and most obvious way to make it an M4 or C63S killer is to put big turbochargers on the engine. Personally, it was never about tenths as it was either N/A high-revving V8 or nothing, even if it was not the quickest car in the class. That is why it boiled down to either E90 M3 sedan or RCF. In the end, I chose to go with RCF because overall it was the much superior car.

Now imagine how much better the car would be if it was 2-400 lbs lighter...

My point is not that the RC-F is a bad car because of its weight or that the GS-F is a bad car because of its power, but that they would be better if the RC-F were lighter and the GS-F had more power. It appears Team GR agrees. I will patiently wait to see what the fruits of their labour will be.

ACEtheOG

Now imagine how much better the car would be if it was 2-400 lbs lighter...

My point is not that the RC-F is a bad car because of its weight or that the GS-F is a bad car because of its power, but that they would be better if the RC-F were lighter and the GS-F had more power. It appears Team GR agrees. I will patiently wait to see what the fruits of their labour will be.

I doubt it will be 400lbs lighter... Their new performs are not light, there will not be a big difference.

They invest those pounds into sophisticated suspensions and luxury, it all costs.

spwolf

I doubt it will be 400lbs lighter... Their new performs are not light, there will not be a big difference.

They invest those pounds into sophisticated suspensions and luxury, it all costs.

You're right, 400 lbs is wishful thinking for the current car. I was presenting a hypothetical.

2-400 lbs lighter should be a target for the next-gen car however.

If memory serves correct, the GT and GT3 cars shed about 800 and 1000 lbs respectively from the production RC-F. Luxury bits are heavy.

ACEtheOG

You're right, 400 lbs is wishful thinking for the current car. I was presenting a hypothetical.

2-400 lbs lighter should be a target for the next-gen car however.

If memory serves correct, the GT and GT3 cars shed about 800 and 1000 lbs respectively from the production RC-F. Luxury bits are heavy.

Look at how much aluminum and CFRP is used on the LC, yet it still managed to be 200 lbs overweight. That's Lexus for you, these engineers always use the extra weight budget on improving reliability and safety rather than saving them for a couple of tenths on tracks.

ACEtheOG

You're right, 400 lbs is wishful thinking for the current car. I was presenting a hypothetical.

2-400 lbs lighter should be a target for the next-gen car however.




If memory serves correct, the GT and GT3 cars shed about 800 and 1000 lbs respectively from the production RC-F. Luxury bits are heavy.

It
Yes. I can see your point. the GT and GT3 are stripped out cars with no luxury, no rear seats, no safety equipment to meet crash testin
g. I stated a lot of that weight went into extra rigidity of the chassis with the IS-C middle section. If it were say, 200 lbs (the weight of ISF), it would not be as rigid and have so much consistency through the turns. That weight into some good measure and Lexus went through a lot of pain to make sure the weight is near the center of the car. You feel in how stable the car is through rapid slaloms. Regarding understeer, simple answer (according to my finding), the stock toe is too conservative (for safety and liability reasons) and the tires on RCF are not 'XL' (but, 'Y') version of the MPSS. The XL have extra stiff tire walls. I had to raise the tire pressure to 38 psi on the rears to get the tires to show some serious roll resistance in slow turns (at high speed turns, the steering rack is so quick that the tire wall is barely used). My alignment has slight toe out and it is an oversteering demon. With the TVD in track mode, it wants to turn very quickly and hang the tail out easily with slight power-on cornering.

You can reduce the weight by putting a smaller, lighter turbo engine and gain all of that torque, but this engine is a pure masterpiece. Quite possibly one of the very best engine Toyota/Lexus ever produced. I would not have it any other way.

Some pictures of my RCF (with slight toe-out alignment)

Tinhinnh

True but the typical buyer will mostly only care about price and since the ES is slightly more roomy and just as comfy as the GS while being cheaper, thats what they end up going with.

I think it's krew that likes to use the phrase "doesn't scare Granny" about the ES. In that situation Granny was never buying a GS, because everyone in her sewing circle knows FWD is better in rain/snow. Similarly, someone who cares about RWD and performance will get a GS. And if that person cares about RWD but they "care only about price" they'll get an IS.

For those who don't care about that stuff either way, if they end up in the ES that's pure Darwinian selection. And Darwin would be really disappointed if people went around killing off successful, well-adapted species in order to favor the genetically less-successful. In less high-falutin' language, the solution to the "problem" that the ES is a pretty great car for the money is to make the GS a better car for the money.

ssun30

Look at how much aluminum and CFRP is used on the LC, yet it still managed to be 200 lbs overweight. That's Lexus for you, these engineers always use the extra weight budget on improving reliability and safety rather than saving them for a couple of tenths on tracks.

and more sophisticated suspensions as well... everything takes weight.

Also when it comes to turbos, we all know Lexus will never go with really all aluminium and light engine... they will reinforce it to last longer and lose 50lbs just there.

Ian Schmidt

I don't think the ES steals GS sales. They're very, very different cars. The ES is very much a comfy-cruiser with some nice Lexus touches, while the GS is much more performance-oriented.

Many of you have heard me say it for years, but this unfortunately happens all the time. I have a friend who is car shopping right now, sent her into a dealer to look at a GS 350 and they told her she "didn't really need that" and the "GS is a man's car," so they set her up with an ES.

Needless to say, that didn't go over well.

In reality, the two cars are just too similarly sized and the ES costs less but has similar options. Your average consumer doesn't really care about FWD or RWD - they came for a "Lexus midsize sedan" and are delighted to find out you can get a nice ES for $8k less than a GS. Case closed.

Gecko

In reality, the two cars are just too similarly sized and the ES costs less but has similar options. Your average consumer doesn't really care about FWD or RWD - they came for a "Lexus midsize sedan" and are delighted to find out you can get a nice ES for $8k less than a GS. Case closed.

So what you're saying is there's no reason to have a GS in the first place and/or that it's a very niche car. Which we knew - BMW has essentially the same problem with the 5 Series.

@Ian Schmidt
But BMW , Benz & Audi only have 1 car in this category unlike Lexus with 2

Ian Schmidt

So what you're saying is there's no reason to have a GS in the first place and/or that it's a very niche car. Which we knew - BMW has essentially the same problem with the 5 Series.

If you think about about it historically, there was - at one point - a very clear case for an ES and GS. The ES was a smaller, entry level product that competed more directly with the C Class, while the GS was a true midsize sports sedan that was more aimed at the E Class and 5 Series.

Over three generations, Lexus grew the ES to now being the second-largest sedan in the lineup, while simultaneously neglecting the GS by eliminating it's performance credentials for the 3rd generation and then dropping the V8 for the fourth generation. So what you end up with is two cars that aside from their drivetrain layouts are now very similar, with one having a massive price advantage over the other. Furthermore, FWD vs RWD doesn't really matter much to every day consumers - people come in wanting a "midsize Lexus sedan," and the ES ticks most of those boxes while costing significantly less.

This issue has been compounded by Lexus dealers who know the ES is a quick sale and who don't put the effort into socializing the GS with consumers. I worked in a Lexus dealer for 3 years and saw this happen numerous times: Someone could come into the dealership with a GS wanting another one, and sales would automatically usher that person into an ES because it's what they had on the lot. I saw people come in with E Class, 5 Series, etc. saying, "I want to look at a GS," and the dealer would generally say, "No, no - have you seen the ES?! The ES is what you really want!" Dealers have decided they already know what consumers want, and quite frankly, history proves they're probably right.

Depending on size, a dealer's inventory generally looks something like:

5-7 black on black ESs
5-7 white on tan ESs
2-3 Silver on black ESs
2-3 extraneous color combinations of ES (Burgundy, blue, champagne)
1 black GS F Sport
1 white/silver GS base

... and that's about it.

Dealers stock what they know they can sell quickly, and that's ES in popular color combinations. At the same time, Lexus has given them that car in the ES, which is bigger than the 5 Series and E Class but costs half as much, so consumers feel like they're getting a great deal on a "Lexus midsize sedan," and some of them don't ever even get to see or consider a GS.

Looking forward at some of the rumors and speculation, if it plays out as planned, what Lexus is about to do is brilliant. If they elevate the ES slightly and offer an F Sport variant along with optional AWD, they'll probably capture 70% of the people who would have bought a GS while only offering one vehicle in this segment. Think about ES with FWD, AWD, 4cylinder, 4 cylinder hybrid, V6, F Sport, luxury package, etc. Even if they bump up the base price to $40-42k, they have already undercut the E Class and 5 Series by $10k and those are base models. You'll probably be able to snag a really nicely equipped ES for $46-48k, and that'll be something like $20k less than a comparably equipped E Class or 5 Series. Lexus is about to do to Mercedes and BMW what they already did to the GS, and they can do it because they have the scale and flexibility with TNGA-K to price the car so low. In addition, they already know people don't care much about FWD vs RWD, and those few who do are already going somewhere else anyway. Plus consider the mass exodus from passenger cars to light trucks - they are positioning the ES to run cleanup on the entire segment.

On the flip side, if you elevate the GS to being an ultra dramatic 4 door coupe, you have the ability to pick up that midsize sedan buyer who DOES want the performance and drama an ES won't offer, while being able to compete against the E Class and 5 Series at the top end, not to mention A7, CLS, and 6 Series GC. They can also offer GS F and not have to bother with ES F, leaving the ES to completely fill that "every day luxury sedan" space. It also gives Lexus an emotional car that's more attainable than the LC, and hedges their losses in the ES/5 Series/E Class segment as sales there drop off but sales of 4 door coupes remain strong. Also consider the rumor of "GS Sport Cross" - this gives Lexus something that's sportier than RX and NX, and it's a size in between them. This would also be a great playground for Lexus to experiment with BEVs, plug in tech, etc. A product that's more niche and more emotional will be better received with such tech, I think.

I think the last decade for GS and ES has been very transitional (hell, for Lexus as a whole), but I really believe what they're about to do is very smart. We'll know soon.

Gecko

Dealers stock what they know they can sell quickly, and that's ES in popular color combinations. At the same time, Lexus has given them that car in the ES, which is bigger than the 5 Series and E Class but costs half as much, so consumers feel like they're getting a great deal on a "Lexus midsize sedan," and some of them don't ever even get to see or consider a GS.

So the same exact problem will persist even if Lexus elevate the GS to be something really sensational. Lexus dealers have been very comfortable selling ES and ES only. They will keep stocking them up and ignore the GS no matter how good the new GS is. If someone has a bigger budget, the dealers will probably just recommend a RX, or even a GX (which is surprisingly doing well) because, well, SUVs. And further up is LS territory, which is a steal at $75k. The GS-F will probably be the only GS that makes sense because there's nothing similar in Lexus' lineup already.

ssun30

So the same exact problem will persist even if Lexus elevate the GS to be something really sensational. Lexus dealers have been very comfortable selling ES and ES only. They will keep stocking them up and ignore the GS no matter how good the new GS is. If someone has a bigger budget, the dealers will probably just recommend a RX, or even a GX (which is surprisingly doing well) because, well, SUVs. And further up is LS territory, which is a steal at $75k. The GS-F will probably be the only GS that makes sense because there's nothing similar in Lexus' lineup already.

I think that will all depend on how ES and GS are positioned. So far, LC and LS are the "new Lexus" top end products so we have yet to see how Lexus would execute something like a $40-50k ES. Part of the current problem is that both GS and ES currently look like true, three-box sedans and are only within about 30 horsepower of each other. If ES evolves and stays true to that formula, and Lexus is really (finally) willing to differentiate them, there is room I think.

Consider the GS as an ultra-dramatic four door coupe, something like a four door LC but perhaps even more striking - low window line, small greenhouse, exaggerated spindle front end and maybe starting with a V6 pumping out 350-375 horsepower and then offering the 3.5L TT V6 and the multi-stage hybrid option. That's a very different animal from ~300hp, family-friendly ES. They could also potentially ditch "F Sport" like they did with LC and make the sporting intentions standard.

Gecko

Consider the GS as an ultra-dramatic four door coupe, something like a four door LC but perhaps even more striking - low window line, small greenhouse, exaggerated spindle front end and maybe starting with a V6 pumping out 350-375 horsepower and then offering the 3.5L TT V6 and the multi-stage hybrid option. That's a very different animal from ~300hp, family-friendly ES. They could also potentially ditch "F Sport" like they did with LC and make the sporting intentions standard.

But that will make the GS even more of a niche product, and it would also somewhat interfere with the RC then.

Gecko

I think that will all depend on how ES and GS are positioned. So far, LC and LS are the "new Lexus" top end products so we have yet to see how Lexus would execute something like a $40-50k ES. Part of the current problem is that both GS and ES currently look like true, three-box sedans and are only within about 30 horsepower of each other. If ES evolves and stays true to that formula, and Lexus is really (finally) willing to differentiate them, there is room I think.

Consider the GS as an ultra-dramatic four door coupe, something like a four door LC but perhaps even more striking - low window line, small greenhouse, exaggerated spindle front end and maybe starting with a V6 pumping out 350-375 horsepower and then offering the 3.5L TT V6 and the multi-stage hybrid option. That's a very different animal from ~300hp, family-friendly ES. They could also potentially ditch "F Sport" like they did with LC and make the sporting intentions standard.

Good Idea.

LS/LC:
I can see the TTV6 making it to the LC sometime down the road making it available in three trims. V6TT, V6MS-hybrid, *V8 TT*. V6 TT priced similarly as the LS. V8 TT replace the current LC 500 pricewise and LS v8TT too

IS/RC:
The RC should be redesigned with the mindset to be the coupe version of the IS. That way it can get rid of the combination of GS and IS it has right now. They need to figure a way to bring The ISF back (ISF/RCF). They should keep the boxy shape of the IS to differentiate it a little from the RC.

ES:
We saw it testing with the E-class and Audi. I think there is a reason the 5series wasn't spotted. The ES can easily compete with those two cars without taking away its characteristics. Luxury like the E-class handling like Audi since it is already FWD based. Also a regular E-class is a nice driving car focused more on comfort.

GS:
Redesign and refocus. Give it a coupe like shape that way it does not need a coupe version of its own. Make it look bold aggressive and still gorgeous in such a way that just by looking at it no sales man would be able to compare it with the ES. Give it performance to back the look up. Get rid of that GS300 weakness by putting a real 3.0 T. Make sure any future GS300 is putting up number close to the current 350. introduce the 3.5MS Hybrid. detune the V6TT in the LS enough to still compete reasonably.

Just an opinion. I still think lexus needs a 3.0L TT.

I agree, @bogglo - good post :thumbsup:

Ian Schmidt

But that will make the GS even more of a niche product, and it would also somewhat interfere with the RC then.

I think GS needs to be priced something like $64-78k, which in theory, would be a bargain for a car that competes with the CLS, A7 and 6 Series Gran Coupe. RC starts around $40k and like bogglo mentions above, I think we will see the next gen closely aligned to the IS redesign instead of being a mashup of IS, IS C and GS. There should be a big difference in engines, interior quality, features and technology between an entry level two-door coupe like the RC and a midsize four-door coupe.

So you'd end up, hypothetically, with something like:

IS: $38-50k
RC: $40-57k
ES: $43-56k
GS: $64-78k
LS: $75-100k
LC: $95-115k

IS F: $64-72k
RC F: $68-74k
GS F: $85-92k
LS F: $100-120k
LC F: $135-150k

^That pricing structure actually makes things a lot easier, IMO, than what we have now where IS bleeds into ES, which bleeds into GS. IS is pretty clearly the choice for the entry level sports coupe, ES is the logical choice for a midsize sedan, GS is a niche product before you get to the LS flagship.

I think there's also a lot of demand in other global markets for four-door coupes vs. traditional sedans, so I think Lexus could make the case with a GS globally. One of the biggest things to consider is Lexus' strategy for F cars... leaving a hole in the high performance midsize sedan arena seems weird. Going from IS F to LS F is a big jump. If someone is going to fork over the money for a car like that, I'd have to think they'd be more apt to purchase a four door coupe anyway... similar to how Audi only offers RS7 here, and not RS6. It's already an emotional purchase - I'd rather go all the way and get the sexier model.