Concepts

Photo Gallery: The Lexus LF-1 Limitless Crossover Concept

Lexus LF-1 Limitless Gallery

Lexus has published a large collection of LF-1 Limitless crossover concept photos — let’s gather them all together in one place, there are 64 images in total:

Comments
Great
So the ES will missed NAIAS
For me, the most significant bit of the video that supra93 posted above comes at the 6:55 mark, when Toyota North America's Executive Vice President of Sales (and Toyota USA President of Sales) Bob Carter says:

"Today, we have a flagship coupe, the LC. We just saw outside our flagship sedan, the LS, and today we have a flagship SUV, which is the LX. LX does extremely well for us, but it's still a traditional SUV where it's built on a body-on-frame manufacturing process. So, the concept that we're going to reveal, we call it the LF-1 Limitless, and what it is it's an execution, a concept of what if Lexus had a flagship CUV.
There have been rumblings that the production version of LF-1 might replace LX, but Mr. Carter's words suggest that there's room at Lexus' flagship level for both a traditional body-on-frame SUV and a car-based crossover.
So we will have 4 Ls in the near future
LS
LC
LX
L?
maiaramdan
So we will have 4 Ls in the near future
LS
LC
LX
L?
You raise an interesting conundrum. It makes sense that all flagship Lexus models start with "L", doesn't it? Yet, as it currently stands, Lexus naming protocols use an "X" as a second letter for both body-on-frame SUVs and car-derived crossovers. At this point, my prediction is that the production LF-1 Limitless will break with the L? pattern and be badged with the still-live trademark (last time I looked) TX prefix, and call it a "Touring Crossover".
M
Maybe it be called LTX : Luxury Touring Crossover or if Lexus decides to keep the LX name, but changes it to a CUV platform it should be called the LX 500h and the LX 500 or the LX 500t ( twin turbo 5 liter V8).
Michael
Maybe it be called LTX : Luxury Touring Crossover or if Lexus decides to keep the LX name, but changes it to a CUV platform it should be called the LX 500h and the LX 500 or the LX 500t ( twin turbo 5 liter V8).
No more 't' for turbo engines. Could also just be called LA (Luxury All-Purpose Vehicle), which it basically is: style of LC, luxury of LS, practicality of LX.
Levi
No more 't' for turbo engines. Could also just be called LA (Luxury All-Purpose Vehicle), which it basically is: style of LC, luxury of LS, practicality of LX.
hahahaha. So I will just drive to LA in my LA
Levi
Could also just be called LA (Luxury All-Purpose Vehicle), which it basically is: style of LC, luxury of LS, practicality of LX.
I like that! :thumbsup:

Other possibilities along those lines are LM (Luxury Multipurpose) and LT (Luxury Touring).
M
I like the LT, LM, and the LA but, I think Lexus should discontinue the GX and the LX and use the RX L as their flagship SUV by extending the RX wheel base and adding the 5 liter V8.
Michael
I like the LT, LM, and the LA but, I think Lexus should discontinue the GX and the LX and use the RX L as their flagship SUV by extending the RX wheel base and adding the 5 liter V8.
The GX and LX are niche products compared to all cars sold, but are not niche products in Toyota's line-up and are well sold in some regions (Middle-East, Central and Eastern Europe and Pacific). I do believe these product could be merged though and available in different setups, should be cheaper (more profitable) and allow a better product. Sometimes market share is better than profit. I understand production is based regionally and suppliers are as local as possible, work-force culture and skills are different, but Toyota still has a lot of redundancy in their BOF range: FJ Cruiser, Cruiser 70, Cruiser 200/LX, Prado 150/GX, Hilux and Fortuner, Tacoma and 4Runner, Tundra and Sequoia, only I4 diesel, V8 diesel, V6 petrol and V8 petrol.
Michael
I like the LT, LM, and the LA but, I think Lexus should discontinue the GX and the LX and use the RX L as their flagship SUV by extending the RX wheel base and adding the 5 liter V8.
just wanted to add that LX has been easily outselling LS for quite few years worldwide. So these days, it would be LS thats endangered species and not LX.
Levi
but Toyota still has a lot of redundancy in their BOF range: FJ Cruiser, Cruiser 70, Cruiser 200/LX, Prado 150/GX, Hilux and Fortuner, Tacoma and 4Runner, Tundra and Sequoia, only I4 diesel, V8 diesel, V6 petrol and V8 petrol.
if anything, they will add more "redundancy"... I am not sure of exact numbers, but their BOF range likely sells over 1M worldwide these days, and it is major profit driver for the company, likely the biggest one for Toyota brand.

So they are not going anywhere and range is likley expanding. New Innova is also selling well, as are some other vehicles based on IMV platform.
Levi
but Toyota still has a lot of redundancy in their BOF range: FJ Cruiser, Cruiser 70, Cruiser 200/LX, Prado 150/GX, Hilux and Fortuner, Tacoma and 4Runner, Tundra and Sequoia, only I4 diesel, V8 diesel, V6 petrol and V8 petrol.
I think the issue with redundancy is that Toyota cannot produce one BOF platform for all markets. The 'less fancy' BOF vehicles are designed to be as simple as possible; they are just a tough frame with a reliable diesel. These vehicles cannot be updated to NA-spec because there is a huge supply of spare parts in those less-developed nations that makes these vehicles extremely cheap to maintain. To give you an idea: even a remote village in the middle of nowhere in Tibet has a spare parts depot for the Prado 150. This is why the Prado (and its chinese rip-offs), despite looking like a modern luxury family hauler, is used to traverse the toughest terrain in Tibet for military and tourists alike. You can't do that with a Rubicon/Raptor because if the truck broke down it's dead for good.

On the other hand, NA always demand 'fancier' trucks, with more tech, gimmick, power, and whatnot at the cost of toughness and TCO. Americans talk about their trucks being tough all the time, not realizing there are vast area in the world where trucks are subject to much tougher conditions (which is why the Hilux and LC70 thrive). You can't ask a fisherman in Bangladesh or a shoemaker in Ghana to haul their stuff with a F-150; it is simply too expensive for them. This is why Tacoma/4Runner/Tundra/Sequoia became NA-only. Despite their reputation, I doubt they can be as indestructible as the good old Hilux and LC70 because they have too much unnecessary stuff to appeal to american buyers.
Levi
The GX and LX are niche products compared to all cars sold, but are not niche products in Toyota's line-up and are well sold in some regions (Middle-East, Central and Eastern Europe and Pacific). I do believe these product could be merged though and available in different setups, should be cheaper (more profitable) and allow a better product. Sometimes market share is better than profit. I understand production is based regionally and suppliers are as local as possible, work-force culture and skills are different, but Toyota still has a lot of redundancy in their BOF range: FJ Cruiser, Cruiser 70, Cruiser 200/LX, Prado 150/GX, Hilux and Fortuner, Tacoma and 4Runner, Tundra and Sequoia, only I4 diesel, V8 diesel, V6 petrol and V8 petrol.
Let's take the BOF lineup piece by piece and you will see that there's little to no redundancy

Not that all the BOF will be on only 1 wheelbase based on the SA-L architecture but for BOF

1- Hilux / Innova / Fortuner
Pickup / Minivan / SUV
Midsize Off-road sport Capabilities

2- Tacoma / 4 Runner / Prado / GX
Pickup / SUV
Midsize Off-road luxurious Capabilities
* The only redundant here is the Prado with the GX , there's even a Prado trim named Prado GX "not the most lux. Prado thought"
= The solution is to turn the GX in Lexus Lineup to a sport rear wheel drive CUV , which will give the Prado more space for the upper lux. trim

3- FJ70
Pickup / SUV
Its very important and essential and it's to Toyota BOF lineup as G to Benz lineup, it's sturdy, rugged and have a lot of heritage by it's own

4- LC200 / LX
This is the second redundancy point where they are technically the same and honestly the Land cruiser naming decreases in order to give the LX the space so it will be more logic to turn the LX also to ultra lux. rwd CUV aka Bentley/Range Rover competitor and leave the Land cruiser naming to shine and grew again maybe returning the Cygnus naming and make the Land Cruiser naming as a new brand just for BOF vehicles

5- Tundra / Seqouia
Pickup / SUV
Last but not least the American couple that Toyota shouldn't leave them ever as long as there respective categories still exists
maiaramdan
Let's take the BOF lineup piece by piece and you will see that there's little to no redundancy

Not that all the BOF will be on only 1 wheelbase based on the SA-L architecture but for BOF

1- Hilux / Innova / Fortuner
Pickup / Minivan / SUV
Midsize Off-road sport Capabilities

2- Tacoma / 4 Runner / Prado / GX
Pickup / SUV
Midsize Off-road luxurious Capabilities
* The only redundant here is the Prado with the GX , there's even a Prado trim named Prado GX "not the most lux. Prado thought"
= The solution is to turn the GX in Lexus Lineup to a sport rear wheel drive CUV , which will give the Prado more space for the upper lux. trim

3- FJ70
Pickup / SUV
Its very important and essential and it's to Toyota BOF lineup as G to Benz lineup, it's sturdy, rugged and have a lot of heritage by it's own

4- LC200 / LX
This is the second redundancy point where they are technically the same and honestly the Land cruiser naming decreases in order to give the LX the space so it will be more logic to turn the LX also to ultra lux. rwd CUV aka Bentley/Range Rover competitor and leave the Land cruiser naming to shine and grew again maybe returning the Cygnus naming and make the Land Cruiser naming as a new brand just for BOF vehicles

5- Tundra / Seqouia
Pickup / SUV
Last but not least the American couple that Toyota shouldn't leave them ever as long as there respective categories still exists
These distinctions are very clear, yet I am not certain it is this "choice" that makes Toyota/Lexus BOF SUVs sell, but rather the general Toyota/Lexus proven image of durability/reliability. When you look at the models, there is no regional redundancy, because those 'redundant' products are simply not available (with the exception of Land Cruiser/LX everywhere except Western Europe, where they are no more for sale and one never was as far as I know). In Australia you can't get anything the NA gets, in NA you don't get those models produced in Thailand (Hilux, Fortuner, Innova) and those for the Australian market etc. In Western Europe there is nothing else except the Hilux and Prado, Lexus has only CUVs. When you look at Toyota's competitors, they are mostly the same world wide, with for example the Ford Ranger now coming to NA. The Ford Ranger competes against two Toyota's, the Hilux in some markets and the Tacoma in other markets. Both these cars could be the same ones, even if produced in different regions, and also have different names, something that is not unusual at Toyota. There is no issue with the models 3-5 that you listed, but more with 1-2, where one truck and one SUV, with its van version, would be enough world wide. I do not believe the NA versions (Tacoma/4Runner) are significantly less durable than versions (Hilux/Fortuner), or that it would cost too much to make the Hilux/Fortuner NA viable. Toyota's BOF lineup is from a time the market was not SUV/CUV crazy, now it also has to adapt. The main issue seems to come for the development and life-cycle. the BOF car Sequoia and Land Cruiser are really very old. But Toyota is not as small as Mitsubishi with their old, yet very well built and still competitive Pajero.

The Lexus LF-1 is the first step in the right direction (for Lexus), not only for NA, but specially for Europe and Asia. Regarding Toyota's last CUV/SUV concepts, 3 of them, they better be functional. Unfortunately the functionality gets lost from concept to production.

One thing that is sure, is that Toyota will remain a BOF vehicle manufacturer, because until there is a breakthrough in sustainable energy, that is abundant, can be easily transported and accessed from the most remote places, until autonomous cars can drive in the most remote and unpredictable places, BOF vehicles are here to stay, few compared to the whole consumer market, but quite enough to make a profit, and TMC better be a leader in this domain. 'Green' will no more be a selling point, when every car will be 'green'.
Levi
These distinctions are very clear, yet I am not certain it is this "choice" that makes Toyota/Lexus BOF SUVs sell, but rather the general Toyota/Lexus proven image of durability/reliability.
Of course it is a choice they made. IMV based products are cheaper specifically for where price matters. Fortuner is certainly not higher quality by any means than 4Runner.

Tacoma is also a lot bigger than Hilux, it is 5.3m vs 5.7m... Tacoma would be way too big for most places where Hilux sells well.

This is why Toyota is most profitable manufacturer in the world - they are big enough to sell different versions of similar type of vehicle to cater to the specific market and thus achieve much better market share than competition.
Honestly for me
I hope Lexus sticks as all premium makers with the rwd based SUV in the top tier segments

LX to be Range Rover Vogue, X7, Bentayga, GL, G, Next Rolls Royce SUV competitor

GX to be Range Rover Sport, X6, Urus, Q8 SUV competitor

They don't need any new thing
Wheelbase / Chassis from the (LS/LC) same as Engines, Transmissions & Tech
Michael
I think Lexus should discontinue the GX and the LX and use the RX L as their flagship SUV by extending the RX wheel base and adding the 5 liter V8.
This is the single worst thing I've read on the internet in 2017.
L
Gecko
This is the single worst thing I've read on the internet in 2017.
I agree.
If Mercedes can make the G Wagon and GLS which are BOF and Unibody sell and work together, so can Lexus. The G Wagon has cult status and I feel the LX is there too. Lexus would always be able to sell the LX, some people just want the image of an old school BOF vehicle.

A sporty flagship CUV makes a ton of sense.... I post this as a reminder of whats coming from Audi.....

http://www.audi.com/en/innovation/design/audi_q8_concept.html

From what I am reading, it seems like Audi is positioning the Q8 as the brand's overall flagship - even over the A8 and R8, which is now rumored to be discontinued after this generation.

A sign of the time, folks...
Gecko
From what I am reading, it seems like Audi is positioning the Q8 as the brand's overall flagship - even over the A8 and R8, which is now rumored to be discontinued after this generation.

A sign of the time, folks...

Which is logic for the current market trend
Q8 will be Urus twin
As R8 was to the (Huracan & Gallardo)
Gecko
From what I am reading, it seems like Audi is positioning the Q8 as the brand's overall flagship - even over the A8 and R8, which is now rumored to be discontinued after this generation.

A sign of the time, folks...
A "Sigh" of the times hahahahah
mikeavelli
If Mercedes can make the G Wagon and GLS which are BOF and Unibody sell and work together, so can Lexus. The G Wagon has cult status and I feel the LX is there too. Lexus would always be able to sell the LX, some people just want the image of an old school BOF vehicle.
I do not think G and GLS analogy with Lexus LX and 'LA' fit. The G is more a luxury version of the Toyota Land Cruiser 70, and is sold for its appearance and its off-road image, that for its true capability. The new G Wagon gets independent front suspension, I would not be surprised if in ten years it would get independent rear suspension and electric motor. As for the LX, it is more a luxury version of the Land Cruiser, which still remains a true functional off-roader, used by wealthy in "third world" countries (don't like the expression much). The LC200 is not available as pick-up, thus a unibody Land Cruiser with fully independent suspension is not an impossibility, and would be just a capable and durable. It is mostly the engineering of the Land Cruiser that makes it so much better than the competition, rather than the concept (body on frame vs unibody, solid axle vs independant, manual/mechanic vs automatic/electric/electronic, ...). I just think a Crossover from Lexus is a higher priority. In my thinking, a Lexus version of the LC70 would be a better and more unique proposition, even though just as pointless as the G Wagon, which unless the (now discontinued?) Professional version is good at nothing.
Levi
I do not think G and GLS analogy with Lexus LX and 'LA' fit. The G is more a luxury version of the Toyota Land Cruiser 70, and is sold for its appearance and its off-road image, that for its true capability. The new G Wagon gets independent front suspension, I would not be surprised if in ten years it would get independent rear suspension and electric motor. As for the LX, it is more a luxury version of the Land Cruiser, which still remains a true functional off-roader, used by wealthy in "third world" countries (don't like the expression much). The LC200 is not available as pick-up, thus a unibody Land Cruiser with fully independent suspension is not an impossibility, and would be just a capable and durable. It is mostly the engineering of the Land Cruiser that makes it so much better than the competition, rather than the concept (body on frame vs unibody, solid axle vs independant, manual/mechanic vs automatic/electric/electronic, ...). I just think a Crossover from Lexus is a higher priority. In my thinking, a Lexus version of the LC70 would be a better and more unique proposition, even though just as pointless as the G Wagon, which unless the (now discontinued?) Professional version is good at nothing.
I think you might be taking it too literally. :) My point is there is room for people that want a real old school image BOF like the G-Wagon and LX and for those that want a new school image vehicle like a car based suv flagship. I know many G63 owners (more than the 550) and they don't give a crap about its off road capability. To them its cool and hip and makes them stand out from the crowd since its not that popular (since its so expensive for one lol). The LX kind of has that same flavor here, old school, hip, stands out from the crowd in the USA. I don't mean to say the G63 and LX are head on competitors exactly.

Note Mercedes-Benz also sells a G63, G65 AMG and a GLS 63 AMG aimed at different buyers. A niche market but it makes AMG cool, Mercedes-Benz cool and desirable to people.
Levi
Both these cars could be the same ones, even if produced in different regions, and also have different names, something that is not unusual at Toyota.

I do not believe the NA versions (Tacoma/4Runner) are significantly less durable than versions (Hilux/Fortuner), or that it would cost too much to make the Hilux/Fortuner NA viable. Toyota's BOF lineup is from a time the market was not SUV/CUV crazy, now it also has to adapt. The main issue seems to come for the development and life-cycle. the BOF car Sequoia and Land Cruiser are really very old. But Toyota is not as small as Mitsubishi with their old, yet very well built and still competitive Pajero.
At this point I think we should move this part of the discussion to the BOF thread: https://lexusenthusiast.com/forums/threads/lets-talk-bof.4076/

Your assumption that Tacoma and Hilux can merge into one platform is not true. In the U.S., majority of the road freight is transported by semis, and pick-up trucks are mostly for hauling divisible cargo by individuals and small businesses. In fact a lot of people use them for recreational use. Also, crew comfort and safety are very important for american buyers. In the rest of the world, pick-up trucks are mostly used for commercial cargo transport, and safety regulations aren't as strict. Light trucks are much more maneuverable than semis in tight cities of Asia and muddy roads of Africa. Due to the scarcity of heavy-duty transport, pick-up trucks are overloaded on a regular basis.

As a result:
NA-spec pick-up trucks are much more front-heavy because of extra crew protection, space, and amenities. The payload capacity is heavily underrated.
RotW pick-up trucks have less weight in the front, but much higher payload capacity for the same size and power.

The Tacoma is a slightly larger vehicle than the Hilux. But the Tacoma is only rated for 1600 lbs of payload while the Hilux has 2,000-2,500 without any modifications. To get that kind of payload you would have to go for a F-150 with the payload package that strengthens the rear axle, but that's a much bigger and more powerful truck than the Hilux. Of course the Hilux gets a very torquey turbo-diesel (seriously, americans deserve these diesels!) that helps a lot, but most of that impressive capacity comes from a very strong rear, which is not practical for the U.S.

When designing pick-up trucks, engineers always tune the chassis to have optimal drivability when the truck is fully loaded. Doing so requires the rear suspension to be much firmer than the front so the ride frequency could match. The brake bias needs to be towards the rear so the truck won't nosedive and lose traction under heavy braking (which is why Tacoma's puny rear drum brakes are a big problem). But such a set-up is both terribly uncomfortable and unsafe. When the truck is empty, it will have a tendency to oversteer and roll-over (remember the infamous Hilux moose test?) because the front wheels have too much grip compared to the rear. Of course the issue could be solved by stability control, but it should only be used in an emergency and there is no replacement for a stable chassis. Ford paid dearly for the notorious Expedition roll-overs. As a result, american manufacturers nowadays are willing to sacrifice capacity for extra safety and comfort. That's why they build the trucks to be heavier in the front and less stiff in the rear.
Joaquin Ruhi
At this point, my prediction is that the production LF-1 Limitless will break with the L? pattern and be badged with the still-live trademark (last time I looked) TX prefix, and call it a "Touring Crossover".
Forget that. I just looked in on the U.S. Trademark Electronic Search System, and it turns out that TX had been dead as a Toyota/Lexus trademark since 16 June 2017. Thus, TX joins JX and VX as trademarks once considered for Lexus crossover/SUV model lines but subsequently abandoned.
Video: Lexus LF-1 Limitless Crossover Concept Sneak Peek

[​IMG]

The new concept will debut tomorrow at the Detroit Auto Show.
View the original article post
Surely it will be above and beyond more on the lines of a Bently Bentag0 - the RX range is more than adequate against the X5 etc. There is also the new big BMW to take on the seven series cross over/suv. The LS needs to add this style to its range big saloons are waning in popularity.

Hoping it will really be something special to take on the top models of the world above the Cayenne etc. The name indicates something bold and very special and Toyota need to do this with Lexus put it right up there with the very best. I repeat that i hope the wheel will keep the Lexus L insignia in an upright position at all times al la Rolls Royce surely fairly simple to do but a unique detail. Japan needs to match the best in the world and have the ability to do it.

Exciting prospect to look forward to!
Surely it will be above and beyond more on the lines of a Bently Bentag0 - the RX range is more than adequate against the X5 etc. There is also the new big BMW to take on the seven series cross over/suv. The LS needs to add this style to its range big saloons are waning in popularity.

Hoping it will really be something special to take on the top models of the world above the Cayenne etc. The name indicates something bold and very special and Toyota need to do this with Lexus put it right up there with the very best. I repeat that i hope the wheel will keep the Lexus L insignia in an upright position at all times al la Rolls Royce surely fairly simple to do but a unique detail. Japan needs to match the best in the world and have the ability to do it.

Exciting prospect to look forward to!

R
Top