Popular Stories

Sorry. No data so far.

Comments
T
spwolf
Since C-HR is sister car I can tell you that it handles a lot better than Rav4... so UX should handle really good. It is very tight car that can handle big pot holes without problems.

I think speed will be around the same with UX faster at low speeds while Rav4 faster at higher speeds. But I expect UX to spend a lot less fuel.
That's good know. My biggest complaint with the RAV4 hybrid is that it handles like crap. You feel every bit of that 4000lbs curb weight and high center of gravity when you make a turn or even some slight side to side motion to avoid something on the road. It's not confidence-inspiring. I am really curious to see what the UX ends up weighing in with the hybrid system, as that will have a big impact on how it drives.
Gecko
Also, keep in mind that with Lexus nomenclature, we've had h, L, d, t, F and probably some others I'm missing. Approximations based on total power output really simplify things, especially as all models become turbocharged, and then we even move to turbocharged hybrid powertrains.

Imagine:

LS 350ht L F Sport

Oi.
Gecko
Also, keep in mind that with Lexus nomenclature, we've had h, L, d, t, F and probably some others I'm missing. Approximations based on total power output really simplify things, especially as all models become turbocharged, and then we even move to turbocharged hybrid powertrains.

Imagine:

LS 350ht L F Sport

Oi.
Gecko
Also, keep in mind that with Lexus nomenclature, we've had h, L, d, t, F and probably some others I'm missing. Approximations based on total power output really simplify things, especially as all models become turbocharged, and then we even move to turbocharged hybrid powertrains.

Imagine:

LS 350ht L F Sport

Oi.
Gecko
Also, keep in mind that with Lexus nomenclature, we've had h, L, d, t, F and probably some others I'm missing. Approximations based on total power output really simplify things, especially as all models become turbocharged, and then we even move to turbocharged hybrid powertrains.

Imagine:

LS 350ht L F Sport

Oi.
Gecko
Also, keep in mind that with Lexus nomenclature, we've had h, L, d, t, F and probably some others I'm missing. Approximations based on total power output really simplify things, especially as all models become turbocharged, and then we even move to turbocharged hybrid powertrains.

Imagine:

LS 350ht L F Sport

Oi.
A
ssun30
Still, power equivalency is way better than 'torque equivalency' system VAG is experimenting with. Audi models now have severely inflated equivalency model numbers e.g. the Q3 30TFSI (actually a 140hp 1.4T) A4 40TFSI (190hp 2.0T) A6 45TFSI (250hp 2.0T) and A8 50TFSI (300hp 3.0SC). These cars don't even really have the torque the model numbers suggest. I call this false advertising since consumers are cheated to believing they are buying something much much better. The less knowledgeable common folks will think they are buying an A4 with a V8 when it is merely a 2.0 I4T. And this is extending to other VAG models as well. At least BMW underrate all their equivalency values. The 330i will smoke the A4 45TFSI any day, and the 340i is very comparable to a real V8.
Yet, a lot of people buy into all these BS because they think some extremely sophisticated German engineering is going on under the hood (for christ sake it's an iron block carried over from the 90s) , but complain Lexus overrate their hybrids.
You may have some misunderstanding about the Audi TFSI designation system. It is a weird system but it has nothing to do with displacement nor torque. It is an artificial calculation inversely related to 0-100Km/h acceleration speed. That’s why the former A6 had both 30FSI(2.5 NA V6) and 40 TFSI (2.0 Turbo L4. This also explains why different models with exact same engine have different designations sometimes. But yea, VW is using a torque related designation right now.
A
ssun30
Still, power equivalency is way better than 'torque equivalency' system VAG is experimenting with. Audi models now have severely inflated equivalency model numbers e.g. the Q3 30TFSI (actually a 140hp 1.4T) A4 40TFSI (190hp 2.0T) A6 45TFSI (250hp 2.0T) and A8 50TFSI (300hp 3.0SC). These cars don't even really have the torque the model numbers suggest. I call this false advertising since consumers are cheated to believing they are buying something much much better. The less knowledgeable common folks will think they are buying an A4 with a V8 when it is merely a 2.0 I4T. And this is extending to other VAG models as well. At least BMW underrate all their equivalency values. The 330i will smoke the A4 45TFSI any day, and the 340i is very comparable to a real V8.
Yet, a lot of people buy into all these BS because they think some extremely sophisticated German engineering is going on under the hood (for christ sake it's an iron block carried over from the 90s) , but complain Lexus overrate their hybrids.
You may have some misunderstanding about the Audi TFSI designation system. It is a weird system but it has nothing to do with displacement nor torque. It is an artificial calculation inversely related to 0-100Km/h acceleration speed. That’s why the former A6 had both 30FSI(2.5 NA V6) and 40 TFSI (2.0 Turbo L4. This also explains why different models with exact same engine have different designations sometimes. But yea, VW is using a torque related designation right now.
A
ssun30
Still, power equivalency is way better than 'torque equivalency' system VAG is experimenting with. Audi models now have severely inflated equivalency model numbers e.g. the Q3 30TFSI (actually a 140hp 1.4T) A4 40TFSI (190hp 2.0T) A6 45TFSI (250hp 2.0T) and A8 50TFSI (300hp 3.0SC). These cars don't even really have the torque the model numbers suggest. I call this false advertising since consumers are cheated to believing they are buying something much much better. The less knowledgeable common folks will think they are buying an A4 with a V8 when it is merely a 2.0 I4T. And this is extending to other VAG models as well. At least BMW underrate all their equivalency values. The 330i will smoke the A4 45TFSI any day, and the 340i is very comparable to a real V8.
Yet, a lot of people buy into all these BS because they think some extremely sophisticated German engineering is going on under the hood (for christ sake it's an iron block carried over from the 90s) , but complain Lexus overrate their hybrids.
You may have some misunderstanding about the Audi TFSI designation system. It is a weird system but it has nothing to do with displacement nor torque. It is an artificial calculation inversely related to 0-100Km/h acceleration speed. That’s why the former A6 had both 30FSI(2.5 NA V6) and 40 TFSI (2.0 Turbo L4. This also explains why different models with exact same engine have different designations sometimes. But yea, VW is using a torque related designation right now.
A
ssun30
Still, power equivalency is way better than 'torque equivalency' system VAG is experimenting with. Audi models now have severely inflated equivalency model numbers e.g. the Q3 30TFSI (actually a 140hp 1.4T) A4 40TFSI (190hp 2.0T) A6 45TFSI (250hp 2.0T) and A8 50TFSI (300hp 3.0SC). These cars don't even really have the torque the model numbers suggest. I call this false advertising since consumers are cheated to believing they are buying something much much better. The less knowledgeable common folks will think they are buying an A4 with a V8 when it is merely a 2.0 I4T. And this is extending to other VAG models as well. At least BMW underrate all their equivalency values. The 330i will smoke the A4 45TFSI any day, and the 340i is very comparable to a real V8.
Yet, a lot of people buy into all these BS because they think some extremely sophisticated German engineering is going on under the hood (for christ sake it's an iron block carried over from the 90s) , but complain Lexus overrate their hybrids.
You may have some misunderstanding about the Audi TFSI designation system. It is a weird system but it has nothing to do with displacement nor torque. It is an artificial calculation inversely related to 0-100Km/h acceleration speed. That’s why the former A6 had both 30FSI(2.5 NA V6) and 40 TFSI (2.0 Turbo L4. This also explains why different models with exact same engine have different designations sometimes. But yea, VW is using a torque related designation right now.
A
ssun30
Still, power equivalency is way better than 'torque equivalency' system VAG is experimenting with. Audi models now have severely inflated equivalency model numbers e.g. the Q3 30TFSI (actually a 140hp 1.4T) A4 40TFSI (190hp 2.0T) A6 45TFSI (250hp 2.0T) and A8 50TFSI (300hp 3.0SC). These cars don't even really have the torque the model numbers suggest. I call this false advertising since consumers are cheated to believing they are buying something much much better. The less knowledgeable common folks will think they are buying an A4 with a V8 when it is merely a 2.0 I4T. And this is extending to other VAG models as well. At least BMW underrate all their equivalency values. The 330i will smoke the A4 45TFSI any day, and the 340i is very comparable to a real V8.
Yet, a lot of people buy into all these BS because they think some extremely sophisticated German engineering is going on under the hood (for christ sake it's an iron block carried over from the 90s) , but complain Lexus overrate their hybrids.
You may have some misunderstanding about the Audi TFSI designation system. It is a weird system but it has nothing to do with displacement nor torque. It is an artificial calculation inversely related to 0-100Km/h acceleration speed. That’s why the former A6 had both 30FSI(2.5 NA V6) and 40 TFSI (2.0 Turbo L4. This also explains why different models with exact same engine have different designations sometimes. But yea, VW is using a torque related designation right now.
A
Joaquin Ruhi
Yes, I was about to mention the new Audi system but agree it's so ridiculous and absurd that I preferred not to. You expressed it much better than I could've.
You can refer to my latest post. The Audi TFSI uses an acceleration speed related calculation to determine the number. But still, extremely strange and misleading.
A
Joaquin Ruhi
Yes, I was about to mention the new Audi system but agree it's so ridiculous and absurd that I preferred not to. You expressed it much better than I could've.
You can refer to my latest post. The Audi TFSI uses an acceleration speed related calculation to determine the number. But still, extremely strange and misleading.
A
Joaquin Ruhi
Yes, I was about to mention the new Audi system but agree it's so ridiculous and absurd that I preferred not to. You expressed it much better than I could've.
You can refer to my latest post. The Audi TFSI uses an acceleration speed related calculation to determine the number. But still, extremely strange and misleading.
A
Joaquin Ruhi
Yes, I was about to mention the new Audi system but agree it's so ridiculous and absurd that I preferred not to. You expressed it much better than I could've.
You can refer to my latest post. The Audi TFSI uses an acceleration speed related calculation to determine the number. But still, extremely strange and misleading.
A
Joaquin Ruhi
Yes, I was about to mention the new Audi system but agree it's so ridiculous and absurd that I preferred not to. You expressed it much better than I could've.
You can refer to my latest post. The Audi TFSI uses an acceleration speed related calculation to determine the number. But still, extremely strange and misleading.
S
telithos
That's good know. My biggest complaint with the RAV4 hybrid is that it handles like crap. You feel every bit of that 4000lbs curb weight and high center of gravity when you make a turn or even some slight side to side motion to avoid something on the road. It's not confidence-inspiring. I am really curious to see what the UX ends up weighing in with the hybrid system, as that will have a big impact on how it drives.
there is already a hybrid in C-HR... sure this will be heavier but it will certainly have more complex suspension setup too.

Toyota's new TNGA is game changing for Toyota. I feel confident saying C-HR has best suspension in the class and that's a big change for Toyota where they used to have a setup thats good for something but rarely good at everything.
S
telithos
That's good know. My biggest complaint with the RAV4 hybrid is that it handles like crap. You feel every bit of that 4000lbs curb weight and high center of gravity when you make a turn or even some slight side to side motion to avoid something on the road. It's not confidence-inspiring. I am really curious to see what the UX ends up weighing in with the hybrid system, as that will have a big impact on how it drives.
there is already a hybrid in C-HR... sure this will be heavier but it will certainly have more complex suspension setup too.

Toyota's new TNGA is game changing for Toyota. I feel confident saying C-HR has best suspension in the class and that's a big change for Toyota where they used to have a setup thats good for something but rarely good at everything.
S
telithos
That's good know. My biggest complaint with the RAV4 hybrid is that it handles like crap. You feel every bit of that 4000lbs curb weight and high center of gravity when you make a turn or even some slight side to side motion to avoid something on the road. It's not confidence-inspiring. I am really curious to see what the UX ends up weighing in with the hybrid system, as that will have a big impact on how it drives.
there is already a hybrid in C-HR... sure this will be heavier but it will certainly have more complex suspension setup too.

Toyota's new TNGA is game changing for Toyota. I feel confident saying C-HR has best suspension in the class and that's a big change for Toyota where they used to have a setup thats good for something but rarely good at everything.
S
telithos
That's good know. My biggest complaint with the RAV4 hybrid is that it handles like crap. You feel every bit of that 4000lbs curb weight and high center of gravity when you make a turn or even some slight side to side motion to avoid something on the road. It's not confidence-inspiring. I am really curious to see what the UX ends up weighing in with the hybrid system, as that will have a big impact on how it drives.
there is already a hybrid in C-HR... sure this will be heavier but it will certainly have more complex suspension setup too.

Toyota's new TNGA is game changing for Toyota. I feel confident saying C-HR has best suspension in the class and that's a big change for Toyota where they used to have a setup thats good for something but rarely good at everything.
S
telithos
That's good know. My biggest complaint with the RAV4 hybrid is that it handles like crap. You feel every bit of that 4000lbs curb weight and high center of gravity when you make a turn or even some slight side to side motion to avoid something on the road. It's not confidence-inspiring. I am really curious to see what the UX ends up weighing in with the hybrid system, as that will have a big impact on how it drives.
there is already a hybrid in C-HR... sure this will be heavier but it will certainly have more complex suspension setup too.

Toyota's new TNGA is game changing for Toyota. I feel confident saying C-HR has best suspension in the class and that's a big change for Toyota where they used to have a setup thats good for something but rarely good at everything.
S
ssun30
Still, power equivalency is way better than 'torque equivalency' system VAG is experimenting with. Audi models now have severely inflated equivalency model numbers e.g. the Q3 30TFSI (actually a 140hp 1.4T) A4 40TFSI (190hp 2.0T) A6 45TFSI (250hp 2.0T) and A8 50TFSI (300hp 3.0SC). These cars don't even really have the torque the model numbers suggest. I call this false advertising since consumers are cheated to believing they are buying something much much better. The less knowledgeable common folks will think they are buying an A4 with a V8 when it is merely a 2.0 I4T. And this is extending to other VAG models as well. At least BMW underrate all their equivalency values. The 330i will smoke the A4 45TFSI any day, and the 340i is very comparable to a real V8.
Yet, a lot of people buy into all these BS because they think some extremely sophisticated German engineering is going on under the hood (for christ sake it's an iron block carried over from the 90s) , but complain Lexus overrate their hybrids.
Audi's system will end up being so ridiculed by the drivers that they will change it in 2-3 years. A4 30TFSI is slower than modern 2.5l NA engine, so it is just crazy that they are labeling it as such. It just no grounds in reality at all.
S
ssun30
Still, power equivalency is way better than 'torque equivalency' system VAG is experimenting with. Audi models now have severely inflated equivalency model numbers e.g. the Q3 30TFSI (actually a 140hp 1.4T) A4 40TFSI (190hp 2.0T) A6 45TFSI (250hp 2.0T) and A8 50TFSI (300hp 3.0SC). These cars don't even really have the torque the model numbers suggest. I call this false advertising since consumers are cheated to believing they are buying something much much better. The less knowledgeable common folks will think they are buying an A4 with a V8 when it is merely a 2.0 I4T. And this is extending to other VAG models as well. At least BMW underrate all their equivalency values. The 330i will smoke the A4 45TFSI any day, and the 340i is very comparable to a real V8.
Yet, a lot of people buy into all these BS because they think some extremely sophisticated German engineering is going on under the hood (for christ sake it's an iron block carried over from the 90s) , but complain Lexus overrate their hybrids.
Audi's system will end up being so ridiculed by the drivers that they will change it in 2-3 years. A4 30TFSI is slower than modern 2.5l NA engine, so it is just crazy that they are labeling it as such. It just no grounds in reality at all.
S
ssun30
Still, power equivalency is way better than 'torque equivalency' system VAG is experimenting with. Audi models now have severely inflated equivalency model numbers e.g. the Q3 30TFSI (actually a 140hp 1.4T) A4 40TFSI (190hp 2.0T) A6 45TFSI (250hp 2.0T) and A8 50TFSI (300hp 3.0SC). These cars don't even really have the torque the model numbers suggest. I call this false advertising since consumers are cheated to believing they are buying something much much better. The less knowledgeable common folks will think they are buying an A4 with a V8 when it is merely a 2.0 I4T. And this is extending to other VAG models as well. At least BMW underrate all their equivalency values. The 330i will smoke the A4 45TFSI any day, and the 340i is very comparable to a real V8.
Yet, a lot of people buy into all these BS because they think some extremely sophisticated German engineering is going on under the hood (for christ sake it's an iron block carried over from the 90s) , but complain Lexus overrate their hybrids.
Audi's system will end up being so ridiculed by the drivers that they will change it in 2-3 years. A4 30TFSI is slower than modern 2.5l NA engine, so it is just crazy that they are labeling it as such. It just no grounds in reality at all.
S
ssun30
Still, power equivalency is way better than 'torque equivalency' system VAG is experimenting with. Audi models now have severely inflated equivalency model numbers e.g. the Q3 30TFSI (actually a 140hp 1.4T) A4 40TFSI (190hp 2.0T) A6 45TFSI (250hp 2.0T) and A8 50TFSI (300hp 3.0SC). These cars don't even really have the torque the model numbers suggest. I call this false advertising since consumers are cheated to believing they are buying something much much better. The less knowledgeable common folks will think they are buying an A4 with a V8 when it is merely a 2.0 I4T. And this is extending to other VAG models as well. At least BMW underrate all their equivalency values. The 330i will smoke the A4 45TFSI any day, and the 340i is very comparable to a real V8.
Yet, a lot of people buy into all these BS because they think some extremely sophisticated German engineering is going on under the hood (for christ sake it's an iron block carried over from the 90s) , but complain Lexus overrate their hybrids.
Audi's system will end up being so ridiculed by the drivers that they will change it in 2-3 years. A4 30TFSI is slower than modern 2.5l NA engine, so it is just crazy that they are labeling it as such. It just no grounds in reality at all.
S
ssun30
Still, power equivalency is way better than 'torque equivalency' system VAG is experimenting with. Audi models now have severely inflated equivalency model numbers e.g. the Q3 30TFSI (actually a 140hp 1.4T) A4 40TFSI (190hp 2.0T) A6 45TFSI (250hp 2.0T) and A8 50TFSI (300hp 3.0SC). These cars don't even really have the torque the model numbers suggest. I call this false advertising since consumers are cheated to believing they are buying something much much better. The less knowledgeable common folks will think they are buying an A4 with a V8 when it is merely a 2.0 I4T. And this is extending to other VAG models as well. At least BMW underrate all their equivalency values. The 330i will smoke the A4 45TFSI any day, and the 340i is very comparable to a real V8.
Yet, a lot of people buy into all these BS because they think some extremely sophisticated German engineering is going on under the hood (for christ sake it's an iron block carried over from the 90s) , but complain Lexus overrate their hybrids.
Audi's system will end up being so ridiculed by the drivers that they will change it in 2-3 years. A4 30TFSI is slower than modern 2.5l NA engine, so it is just crazy that they are labeling it as such. It just no grounds in reality at all.
S
amoschen7
It is an artificial calculation inversely related to 0-100Km/h acceleration speed. That’s why the former A6 had both 30FSI(2.5 NA V6) and 40 TFSI (2.0 Turbo L4). This also explains why different models with exact same engine have different designations sometimes. But yea, VW is using a torque related designation right now.
I'm not convinced. If Audi does use 'acceleration equivalency' (see? it's getting worse and worse) here, then why not choose a scaling system that accurately represent the performance? This whole system just arbitrarily chooses a reference point to inflate the equivalency number and cheat consumers. There's just nothing right about it.

OK we are going off the thread here. Enough for now.
S
amoschen7
It is an artificial calculation inversely related to 0-100Km/h acceleration speed. That’s why the former A6 had both 30FSI(2.5 NA V6) and 40 TFSI (2.0 Turbo L4). This also explains why different models with exact same engine have different designations sometimes. But yea, VW is using a torque related designation right now.
I'm not convinced. If Audi does use 'acceleration equivalency' (see? it's getting worse and worse) here, then why not choose a scaling system that accurately represent the performance? This whole system just arbitrarily chooses a reference point to inflate the equivalency number and cheat consumers. There's just nothing right about it.

OK we are going off the thread here. Enough for now.
S
amoschen7
It is an artificial calculation inversely related to 0-100Km/h acceleration speed. That’s why the former A6 had both 30FSI(2.5 NA V6) and 40 TFSI (2.0 Turbo L4). This also explains why different models with exact same engine have different designations sometimes. But yea, VW is using a torque related designation right now.
I'm not convinced. If Audi does use 'acceleration equivalency' (see? it's getting worse and worse) here, then why not choose a scaling system that accurately represent the performance? This whole system just arbitrarily chooses a reference point to inflate the equivalency number and cheat consumers. There's just nothing right about it.

OK we are going off the thread here. Enough for now.
S
amoschen7
It is an artificial calculation inversely related to 0-100Km/h acceleration speed. That’s why the former A6 had both 30FSI(2.5 NA V6) and 40 TFSI (2.0 Turbo L4). This also explains why different models with exact same engine have different designations sometimes. But yea, VW is using a torque related designation right now.
I'm not convinced. If Audi does use 'acceleration equivalency' (see? it's getting worse and worse) here, then why not choose a scaling system that accurately represent the performance? This whole system just arbitrarily chooses a reference point to inflate the equivalency number and cheat consumers. There's just nothing right about it.

OK we are going off the thread here. Enough for now.

S