Photo Gallery: The Lexus UX Arrives in the USA

Something interesting that I like from an esthetic point of view, but not from a function one, is how the hatchdoor is flush with the rear bumber. In a world where looks trumps function, let it then be all looks.


What I am interested in, is the air vents illumination. In a different application, it could be very good for battery wrist watches.

The UX is the first Lexus to use a new platform that also underpins the Toyota CH-R, but Kako says it’s the only thing they have in common. “We began the design in 2015, and it was always separate from the CH-R,” she says. “It was the first C-segment crossover for Lexus.”

Half of the chassis components are unique to the Lexus version, and the suspension is tuned differently. The UX also contains substantially more aluminum – including in its door panels, hood, and fenders – along with composite material in the liftgate. It has a lower centre-of-gravity than the Toyota.

It also has a lower hip point, which is how high the seat is from the floor. “It’s 55 millimetres lower than in the CH-R, and this feels sportier,” Kako says.

http://driving.ca/lexus/auto-shows/...s-more-luxury-and-tech-into-a-smaller-package

The UX is the first Lexus to use a new platform that also underpins the Toyota CH-R, but Kako says it’s the only thing they have in common. “We began the design in 2015, and it was always separate from the CH-R,” she says. “It was the first C-segment crossover for Lexus.”

Half of the chassis components are unique to the Lexus version, and the suspension is tuned differently. The UX also contains substantially more aluminum – including in its door panels, hood, and fenders – along with composite material in the liftgate. It has a lower centre-of-gravity than the Toyota.

It also has a lower hip point, which is how high the seat is from the floor. “It’s 55 millimetres lower than in the CH-R, and this feels sportier,” Kako says.

http://driving.ca/lexus/auto-shows/...s-more-luxury-and-tech-into-a-smaller-package

The UX is the first Lexus to use a new platform that also underpins the Toyota CH-R, but Kako says it’s the only thing they have in common. “We began the design in 2015, and it was always separate from the CH-R,” she says. “It was the first C-segment crossover for Lexus.”

Half of the chassis components are unique to the Lexus version, and the suspension is tuned differently. The UX also contains substantially more aluminum – including in its door panels, hood, and fenders – along with composite material in the liftgate. It has a lower centre-of-gravity than the Toyota.

It also has a lower hip point, which is how high the seat is from the floor. “It’s 55 millimetres lower than in the CH-R, and this feels sportier,” Kako says.

http://driving.ca/lexus/auto-shows/...s-more-luxury-and-tech-into-a-smaller-package

The UX is the first Lexus to use a new platform that also underpins the Toyota CH-R, but Kako says it’s the only thing they have in common. “We began the design in 2015, and it was always separate from the CH-R,” she says. “It was the first C-segment crossover for Lexus.”

Half of the chassis components are unique to the Lexus version, and the suspension is tuned differently. The UX also contains substantially more aluminum – including in its door panels, hood, and fenders – along with composite material in the liftgate. It has a lower centre-of-gravity than the Toyota.

It also has a lower hip point, which is how high the seat is from the floor. “It’s 55 millimetres lower than in the CH-R, and this feels sportier,” Kako says.

http://driving.ca/lexus/auto-shows/...s-more-luxury-and-tech-into-a-smaller-package

The UX is the first Lexus to use a new platform that also underpins the Toyota CH-R, but Kako says it’s the only thing they have in common. “We began the design in 2015, and it was always separate from the CH-R,” she says. “It was the first C-segment crossover for Lexus.”

Half of the chassis components are unique to the Lexus version, and the suspension is tuned differently. The UX also contains substantially more aluminum – including in its door panels, hood, and fenders – along with composite material in the liftgate. It has a lower centre-of-gravity than the Toyota.

It also has a lower hip point, which is how high the seat is from the floor. “It’s 55 millimetres lower than in the CH-R, and this feels sportier,” Kako says.

http://driving.ca/lexus/auto-shows/...s-more-luxury-and-tech-into-a-smaller-package

Any thoughts on the pricing structure of the UX in the U.S.? The UX200 has an obvious weakness in the engine/transmission department, so it needs to be convincing in terms of value. With Lexus' commitment to not price any vehicle below $30k, the UX200 needs really good standard equipment to have a fair chance of competing. Even with a luxury package or F-Sport package the price should not go above $33k. The UX250h doesn't have much room either, since the NX300 FWD starts at $36k (arguably the best value for the segment). To me a UX250h with E-4 AWD needs to start no higher than $36k since that's where the XC40 (standard AWD) starts.

There's no doubt the UX250h will be a money printer in EU. But in the U.S. the UX line-up seems deliberately undermined to protect the NX.

Any thoughts on the pricing structure of the UX in the U.S.? The UX200 has an obvious weakness in the engine/transmission department, so it needs to be convincing in terms of value. With Lexus' commitment to not price any vehicle below $30k, the UX200 needs really good standard equipment to have a fair chance of competing. Even with a luxury package or F-Sport package the price should not go above $33k. The UX250h doesn't have much room either, since the NX300 FWD starts at $36k (arguably the best value for the segment). To me a UX250h with E-4 AWD needs to start no higher than $36k since that's where the XC40 (standard AWD) starts.

There's no doubt the UX250h will be a money printer in EU. But in the U.S. the UX line-up seems deliberately undermined to protect the NX.

Any thoughts on the pricing structure of the UX in the U.S.? The UX200 has an obvious weakness in the engine/transmission department, so it needs to be convincing in terms of value. With Lexus' commitment to not price any vehicle below $30k, the UX200 needs really good standard equipment to have a fair chance of competing. Even with a luxury package or F-Sport package the price should not go above $33k. The UX250h doesn't have much room either, since the NX300 FWD starts at $36k (arguably the best value for the segment). To me a UX250h with E-4 AWD needs to start no higher than $36k since that's where the XC40 (standard AWD) starts.

There's no doubt the UX250h will be a money printer in EU. But in the U.S. the UX line-up seems deliberately undermined to protect the NX.

Any thoughts on the pricing structure of the UX in the U.S.? The UX200 has an obvious weakness in the engine/transmission department, so it needs to be convincing in terms of value. With Lexus' commitment to not price any vehicle below $30k, the UX200 needs really good standard equipment to have a fair chance of competing. Even with a luxury package or F-Sport package the price should not go above $33k. The UX250h doesn't have much room either, since the NX300 FWD starts at $36k (arguably the best value for the segment). To me a UX250h with E-4 AWD needs to start no higher than $36k since that's where the XC40 (standard AWD) starts.

There's no doubt the UX250h will be a money printer in EU. But in the U.S. the UX line-up seems deliberately undermined to protect the NX.

Any thoughts on the pricing structure of the UX in the U.S.? The UX200 has an obvious weakness in the engine/transmission department, so it needs to be convincing in terms of value. With Lexus' commitment to not price any vehicle below $30k, the UX200 needs really good standard equipment to have a fair chance of competing. Even with a luxury package or F-Sport package the price should not go above $33k. The UX250h doesn't have much room either, since the NX300 FWD starts at $36k (arguably the best value for the segment). To me a UX250h with E-4 AWD needs to start no higher than $36k since that's where the XC40 (standard AWD) starts.

There's no doubt the UX250h will be a money printer in EU. But in the U.S. the UX line-up seems deliberately undermined to protect the NX.

ssun30

Any thoughts on the pricing structure of the UX in the U.S.? The UX200 has an obvious weakness in the engine/transmission department, so it needs to be convincing in terms of value. With Lexus' commitment to not price any vehicle below $30k, the UX200 needs really good standard equipment to have a fair chance of competing. Even with a luxury package or F-Sport package the price should not go above $33k. The UX250h doesn't have much room either, since the NX300 FWD starts at $36k (arguably the best value for the segment). To me a UX250h with E-4 AWD needs to start no higher than $36k since that's where the XC40 (standard AWD) starts.

There's no doubt the UX250h will be a money printer in EU. But in the U.S. the UX line-up seems deliberately undermined to protect the NX.

I think question is not where it will start but where will it end... I assume it will start $33k or $34k for 2.0l and $2k more for hybrid, which will have awd as standard in the US it seems. Then go up to $40k... and it will miss some features in order to fit that price, Lexus likes artificially limiting options so cars dont compete.

"Loaded" XC40 is $45k in the US, so by your definition of pricing it should be $5k cheaper because loaded NX costs $46k.

Rather than comparing it to Volvo, that is a small player in the US, I think they will base the pricing on X1 and GLA, which start between $33k and $34k.. so that seems about right, it will have more equipment at those prices, which isnt hard.

ssun30

Any thoughts on the pricing structure of the UX in the U.S.? The UX200 has an obvious weakness in the engine/transmission department, so it needs to be convincing in terms of value. With Lexus' commitment to not price any vehicle below $30k, the UX200 needs really good standard equipment to have a fair chance of competing. Even with a luxury package or F-Sport package the price should not go above $33k. The UX250h doesn't have much room either, since the NX300 FWD starts at $36k (arguably the best value for the segment). To me a UX250h with E-4 AWD needs to start no higher than $36k since that's where the XC40 (standard AWD) starts.

There's no doubt the UX250h will be a money printer in EU. But in the U.S. the UX line-up seems deliberately undermined to protect the NX.

I think question is not where it will start but where will it end... I assume it will start $33k or $34k for 2.0l and $2k more for hybrid, which will have awd as standard in the US it seems. Then go up to $40k... and it will miss some features in order to fit that price, Lexus likes artificially limiting options so cars dont compete.

"Loaded" XC40 is $45k in the US, so by your definition of pricing it should be $5k cheaper because loaded NX costs $46k.

Rather than comparing it to Volvo, that is a small player in the US, I think they will base the pricing on X1 and GLA, which start between $33k and $34k.. so that seems about right, it will have more equipment at those prices, which isnt hard.

ssun30

Any thoughts on the pricing structure of the UX in the U.S.? The UX200 has an obvious weakness in the engine/transmission department, so it needs to be convincing in terms of value. With Lexus' commitment to not price any vehicle below $30k, the UX200 needs really good standard equipment to have a fair chance of competing. Even with a luxury package or F-Sport package the price should not go above $33k. The UX250h doesn't have much room either, since the NX300 FWD starts at $36k (arguably the best value for the segment). To me a UX250h with E-4 AWD needs to start no higher than $36k since that's where the XC40 (standard AWD) starts.

There's no doubt the UX250h will be a money printer in EU. But in the U.S. the UX line-up seems deliberately undermined to protect the NX.

I think question is not where it will start but where will it end... I assume it will start $33k or $34k for 2.0l and $2k more for hybrid, which will have awd as standard in the US it seems. Then go up to $40k... and it will miss some features in order to fit that price, Lexus likes artificially limiting options so cars dont compete.

"Loaded" XC40 is $45k in the US, so by your definition of pricing it should be $5k cheaper because loaded NX costs $46k.

Rather than comparing it to Volvo, that is a small player in the US, I think they will base the pricing on X1 and GLA, which start between $33k and $34k.. so that seems about right, it will have more equipment at those prices, which isnt hard.

ssun30

Any thoughts on the pricing structure of the UX in the U.S.? The UX200 has an obvious weakness in the engine/transmission department, so it needs to be convincing in terms of value. With Lexus' commitment to not price any vehicle below $30k, the UX200 needs really good standard equipment to have a fair chance of competing. Even with a luxury package or F-Sport package the price should not go above $33k. The UX250h doesn't have much room either, since the NX300 FWD starts at $36k (arguably the best value for the segment). To me a UX250h with E-4 AWD needs to start no higher than $36k since that's where the XC40 (standard AWD) starts.

There's no doubt the UX250h will be a money printer in EU. But in the U.S. the UX line-up seems deliberately undermined to protect the NX.

I think question is not where it will start but where will it end... I assume it will start $33k or $34k for 2.0l and $2k more for hybrid, which will have awd as standard in the US it seems. Then go up to $40k... and it will miss some features in order to fit that price, Lexus likes artificially limiting options so cars dont compete.

"Loaded" XC40 is $45k in the US, so by your definition of pricing it should be $5k cheaper because loaded NX costs $46k.

Rather than comparing it to Volvo, that is a small player in the US, I think they will base the pricing on X1 and GLA, which start between $33k and $34k.. so that seems about right, it will have more equipment at those prices, which isnt hard.

ssun30

Any thoughts on the pricing structure of the UX in the U.S.? The UX200 has an obvious weakness in the engine/transmission department, so it needs to be convincing in terms of value. With Lexus' commitment to not price any vehicle below $30k, the UX200 needs really good standard equipment to have a fair chance of competing. Even with a luxury package or F-Sport package the price should not go above $33k. The UX250h doesn't have much room either, since the NX300 FWD starts at $36k (arguably the best value for the segment). To me a UX250h with E-4 AWD needs to start no higher than $36k since that's where the XC40 (standard AWD) starts.

There's no doubt the UX250h will be a money printer in EU. But in the U.S. the UX line-up seems deliberately undermined to protect the NX.

I think question is not where it will start but where will it end... I assume it will start $33k or $34k for 2.0l and $2k more for hybrid, which will have awd as standard in the US it seems. Then go up to $40k... and it will miss some features in order to fit that price, Lexus likes artificially limiting options so cars dont compete.

"Loaded" XC40 is $45k in the US, so by your definition of pricing it should be $5k cheaper because loaded NX costs $46k.

Rather than comparing it to Volvo, that is a small player in the US, I think they will base the pricing on X1 and GLA, which start between $33k and $34k.. so that seems about right, it will have more equipment at those prices, which isnt hard.

spwolf

I think question is not where it will start but where will it end... I assume it will start $33k or $34k for 2.0l and $2k more for hybrid, which will have awd as standard in the US it seems. Then go up to $40k... and it will miss some features in order to fit that price, Lexus likes artificially limiting options so cars dont compete.

"Loaded" XC40 is $45k in the US, so by your definition of pricing it should be $5k cheaper because loaded NX costs $46k.

Rather than comparing it to Volvo, that is a small player in the US, I think they will base the pricing on X1 and GLA, which start between $33k and $34k.. so that seems about right, it will have more equipment at those prices, which isnt hard.

That's what I'm saying. The basic trim UX200 needs at least 'one free package' to make up for the engine deficit compared to its competitors. The Q3 in particular has a nice array of standard equipment (at $34k) so the UX200 needs to offer more at $33k. The UX250h can be priced at the same level as the GLA250/X1 28i/Q3 40TFSI.

I used the XC40 as a benchmark for the 250h since it is the cheapest subcompact to offer 2.0 turbo+AWD+decent standard equipment, so the 250h should not be more expensive than it.

IMO the UX should play the value game since it will discourage people from buying low grade NX. NX buyers are then more likely to buy a loaded NX thus improving the overall profitability.

spwolf

I think question is not where it will start but where will it end... I assume it will start $33k or $34k for 2.0l and $2k more for hybrid, which will have awd as standard in the US it seems. Then go up to $40k... and it will miss some features in order to fit that price, Lexus likes artificially limiting options so cars dont compete.

"Loaded" XC40 is $45k in the US, so by your definition of pricing it should be $5k cheaper because loaded NX costs $46k.

Rather than comparing it to Volvo, that is a small player in the US, I think they will base the pricing on X1 and GLA, which start between $33k and $34k.. so that seems about right, it will have more equipment at those prices, which isnt hard.

That's what I'm saying. The basic trim UX200 needs at least 'one free package' to make up for the engine deficit compared to its competitors. The Q3 in particular has a nice array of standard equipment (at $34k) so the UX200 needs to offer more at $33k. The UX250h can be priced at the same level as the GLA250/X1 28i/Q3 40TFSI.

I used the XC40 as a benchmark for the 250h since it is the cheapest subcompact to offer 2.0 turbo+AWD+decent standard equipment, so the 250h should not be more expensive than it.

IMO the UX should play the value game since it will discourage people from buying low grade NX. NX buyers are then more likely to buy a loaded NX thus improving the overall profitability.

spwolf

I think question is not where it will start but where will it end... I assume it will start $33k or $34k for 2.0l and $2k more for hybrid, which will have awd as standard in the US it seems. Then go up to $40k... and it will miss some features in order to fit that price, Lexus likes artificially limiting options so cars dont compete.

"Loaded" XC40 is $45k in the US, so by your definition of pricing it should be $5k cheaper because loaded NX costs $46k.

Rather than comparing it to Volvo, that is a small player in the US, I think they will base the pricing on X1 and GLA, which start between $33k and $34k.. so that seems about right, it will have more equipment at those prices, which isnt hard.

That's what I'm saying. The basic trim UX200 needs at least 'one free package' to make up for the engine deficit compared to its competitors. The Q3 in particular has a nice array of standard equipment (at $34k) so the UX200 needs to offer more at $33k. The UX250h can be priced at the same level as the GLA250/X1 28i/Q3 40TFSI.

I used the XC40 as a benchmark for the 250h since it is the cheapest subcompact to offer 2.0 turbo+AWD+decent standard equipment, so the 250h should not be more expensive than it.

IMO the UX should play the value game since it will discourage people from buying low grade NX. NX buyers are then more likely to buy a loaded NX thus improving the overall profitability.

spwolf

I think question is not where it will start but where will it end... I assume it will start $33k or $34k for 2.0l and $2k more for hybrid, which will have awd as standard in the US it seems. Then go up to $40k... and it will miss some features in order to fit that price, Lexus likes artificially limiting options so cars dont compete.

"Loaded" XC40 is $45k in the US, so by your definition of pricing it should be $5k cheaper because loaded NX costs $46k.

Rather than comparing it to Volvo, that is a small player in the US, I think they will base the pricing on X1 and GLA, which start between $33k and $34k.. so that seems about right, it will have more equipment at those prices, which isnt hard.

That's what I'm saying. The basic trim UX200 needs at least 'one free package' to make up for the engine deficit compared to its competitors. The Q3 in particular has a nice array of standard equipment (at $34k) so the UX200 needs to offer more at $33k. The UX250h can be priced at the same level as the GLA250/X1 28i/Q3 40TFSI.

I used the XC40 as a benchmark for the 250h since it is the cheapest subcompact to offer 2.0 turbo+AWD+decent standard equipment, so the 250h should not be more expensive than it.

IMO the UX should play the value game since it will discourage people from buying low grade NX. NX buyers are then more likely to buy a loaded NX thus improving the overall profitability.

spwolf

I think question is not where it will start but where will it end... I assume it will start $33k or $34k for 2.0l and $2k more for hybrid, which will have awd as standard in the US it seems. Then go up to $40k... and it will miss some features in order to fit that price, Lexus likes artificially limiting options so cars dont compete.

"Loaded" XC40 is $45k in the US, so by your definition of pricing it should be $5k cheaper because loaded NX costs $46k.

Rather than comparing it to Volvo, that is a small player in the US, I think they will base the pricing on X1 and GLA, which start between $33k and $34k.. so that seems about right, it will have more equipment at those prices, which isnt hard.

That's what I'm saying. The basic trim UX200 needs at least 'one free package' to make up for the engine deficit compared to its competitors. The Q3 in particular has a nice array of standard equipment (at $34k) so the UX200 needs to offer more at $33k. The UX250h can be priced at the same level as the GLA250/X1 28i/Q3 40TFSI.

I used the XC40 as a benchmark for the 250h since it is the cheapest subcompact to offer 2.0 turbo+AWD+decent standard equipment, so the 250h should not be more expensive than it.

IMO the UX should play the value game since it will discourage people from buying low grade NX. NX buyers are then more likely to buy a loaded NX thus improving the overall profitability.

ssun30

That's what I'm saying. The basic trim UX200 needs at least 'one free package' to make up for the engine deficit compared to its competitors. The Q3 in particular has a nice array of standard equipment (at $34k) so the UX200 needs to offer more at $33k. The UX250h can be priced at the same level as the GLA250/X1 28i/Q3 40TFSI.

I used the XC40 as a benchmark for the 250h since it is the cheapest subcompact to offer 2.0 turbo+AWD+decent standard equipment, so the 250h should not be more expensive than it.

IMO the UX should play the value game since it will discourage people from buying low grade NX. NX buyers are then more likely to buy a loaded NX thus improving the overall profitability.

I dont think Lexus has to be more affordable or better deal than Volvo in the USA, although none of these cars are good deal when NX is around.

They will likely position it vs X2, as stylish not just standard competitor otherwise nothing really makes sense at the pricing... considering how CT200h was priced 32k, even $33k seems too low.

I would not be surprised if at these pricing, for whatever reason it might be (volume, manufacturing, etc), it might be better for them to sell NX, hence lack of 250 option for NX and hybrid being positioned as only AWD option. Also with that comes loss of available equipment like ML.

So they likely might be trying to not compete with NX.

Since we are talking about relatively low possible volume, something like 20k per year, I dont think that pricing is all that important.

ssun30

That's what I'm saying. The basic trim UX200 needs at least 'one free package' to make up for the engine deficit compared to its competitors. The Q3 in particular has a nice array of standard equipment (at $34k) so the UX200 needs to offer more at $33k. The UX250h can be priced at the same level as the GLA250/X1 28i/Q3 40TFSI.

I used the XC40 as a benchmark for the 250h since it is the cheapest subcompact to offer 2.0 turbo+AWD+decent standard equipment, so the 250h should not be more expensive than it.

IMO the UX should play the value game since it will discourage people from buying low grade NX. NX buyers are then more likely to buy a loaded NX thus improving the overall profitability.

I dont think Lexus has to be more affordable or better deal than Volvo in the USA, although none of these cars are good deal when NX is around.

They will likely position it vs X2, as stylish not just standard competitor otherwise nothing really makes sense at the pricing... considering how CT200h was priced 32k, even $33k seems too low.

I would not be surprised if at these pricing, for whatever reason it might be (volume, manufacturing, etc), it might be better for them to sell NX, hence lack of 250 option for NX and hybrid being positioned as only AWD option. Also with that comes loss of available equipment like ML.

So they likely might be trying to not compete with NX.

Since we are talking about relatively low possible volume, something like 20k per year, I dont think that pricing is all that important.

ssun30

That's what I'm saying. The basic trim UX200 needs at least 'one free package' to make up for the engine deficit compared to its competitors. The Q3 in particular has a nice array of standard equipment (at $34k) so the UX200 needs to offer more at $33k. The UX250h can be priced at the same level as the GLA250/X1 28i/Q3 40TFSI.

I used the XC40 as a benchmark for the 250h since it is the cheapest subcompact to offer 2.0 turbo+AWD+decent standard equipment, so the 250h should not be more expensive than it.

IMO the UX should play the value game since it will discourage people from buying low grade NX. NX buyers are then more likely to buy a loaded NX thus improving the overall profitability.

I dont think Lexus has to be more affordable or better deal than Volvo in the USA, although none of these cars are good deal when NX is around.

They will likely position it vs X2, as stylish not just standard competitor otherwise nothing really makes sense at the pricing... considering how CT200h was priced 32k, even $33k seems too low.

I would not be surprised if at these pricing, for whatever reason it might be (volume, manufacturing, etc), it might be better for them to sell NX, hence lack of 250 option for NX and hybrid being positioned as only AWD option. Also with that comes loss of available equipment like ML.

So they likely might be trying to not compete with NX.

Since we are talking about relatively low possible volume, something like 20k per year, I dont think that pricing is all that important.

ssun30

That's what I'm saying. The basic trim UX200 needs at least 'one free package' to make up for the engine deficit compared to its competitors. The Q3 in particular has a nice array of standard equipment (at $34k) so the UX200 needs to offer more at $33k. The UX250h can be priced at the same level as the GLA250/X1 28i/Q3 40TFSI.

I used the XC40 as a benchmark for the 250h since it is the cheapest subcompact to offer 2.0 turbo+AWD+decent standard equipment, so the 250h should not be more expensive than it.

IMO the UX should play the value game since it will discourage people from buying low grade NX. NX buyers are then more likely to buy a loaded NX thus improving the overall profitability.

I dont think Lexus has to be more affordable or better deal than Volvo in the USA, although none of these cars are good deal when NX is around.

They will likely position it vs X2, as stylish not just standard competitor otherwise nothing really makes sense at the pricing... considering how CT200h was priced 32k, even $33k seems too low.

I would not be surprised if at these pricing, for whatever reason it might be (volume, manufacturing, etc), it might be better for them to sell NX, hence lack of 250 option for NX and hybrid being positioned as only AWD option. Also with that comes loss of available equipment like ML.

So they likely might be trying to not compete with NX.

Since we are talking about relatively low possible volume, something like 20k per year, I dont think that pricing is all that important.

ssun30

That's what I'm saying. The basic trim UX200 needs at least 'one free package' to make up for the engine deficit compared to its competitors. The Q3 in particular has a nice array of standard equipment (at $34k) so the UX200 needs to offer more at $33k. The UX250h can be priced at the same level as the GLA250/X1 28i/Q3 40TFSI.

I used the XC40 as a benchmark for the 250h since it is the cheapest subcompact to offer 2.0 turbo+AWD+decent standard equipment, so the 250h should not be more expensive than it.

IMO the UX should play the value game since it will discourage people from buying low grade NX. NX buyers are then more likely to buy a loaded NX thus improving the overall profitability.

I dont think Lexus has to be more affordable or better deal than Volvo in the USA, although none of these cars are good deal when NX is around.

They will likely position it vs X2, as stylish not just standard competitor otherwise nothing really makes sense at the pricing... considering how CT200h was priced 32k, even $33k seems too low.

I would not be surprised if at these pricing, for whatever reason it might be (volume, manufacturing, etc), it might be better for them to sell NX, hence lack of 250 option for NX and hybrid being positioned as only AWD option. Also with that comes loss of available equipment like ML.

So they likely might be trying to not compete with NX.

Since we are talking about relatively low possible volume, something like 20k per year, I dont think that pricing is all that important.

p.s. Just checked Q3, nice base spec for sure. But I cant believe that they dont have auto crash even as option. Thats where UX will do good against it, since advanced level of auto crash, radar cruise and more are available in base spec.

For all the PR their new system (not yet available) get in A8 for being L3 capable (at very specific set of circumstances and speed), most of VW cars have either poor or optional or not even available auto crash.

p.s. Just checked Q3, nice base spec for sure. But I cant believe that they dont have auto crash even as option. Thats where UX will do good against it, since advanced level of auto crash, radar cruise and more are available in base spec.

For all the PR their new system (not yet available) get in A8 for being L3 capable (at very specific set of circumstances and speed), most of VW cars have either poor or optional or not even available auto crash.

p.s. Just checked Q3, nice base spec for sure. But I cant believe that they dont have auto crash even as option. Thats where UX will do good against it, since advanced level of auto crash, radar cruise and more are available in base spec.

For all the PR their new system (not yet available) get in A8 for being L3 capable (at very specific set of circumstances and speed), most of VW cars have either poor or optional or not even available auto crash.

p.s. Just checked Q3, nice base spec for sure. But I cant believe that they dont have auto crash even as option. Thats where UX will do good against it, since advanced level of auto crash, radar cruise and more are available in base spec.

For all the PR their new system (not yet available) get in A8 for being L3 capable (at very specific set of circumstances and speed), most of VW cars have either poor or optional or not even available auto crash.