Rendered: The Production Lexus LF-1 Limitless Crossover

maiaramdan

Honestly Land Cruiser whatever it will be a brand, sub-brand or model they always need to be stiff BOF SUV

I would like to have a complete engineering report regarding unibody vs body-on-frame vs integrated body-on-frame vs whatever else, to know what is truly better for a car like Land Cruiser 200, without all the accounting and marketing bullsh*t. There are a lot of misconceptions, and off course for the Land Cruiser I want the best.

There's a lot of papers and documents that talks about stiffness of the ladder frame chassis in compare to the unibody frame

maiaramdan

There's a lot of papers and documents that talks about stiffness of the ladder frame chassis in compare to the unibody frame

Maybe, but is stiffness wanted /needed for off-road heavy duty? Metal bridges are not stiff for example. Semi trailers are not stiff either.

Levi

I would like to have a complete engineering report regarding unibody vs body-on-frame vs integrated body-on-frame vs whatever else, to know what is truly better for a car like Land Cruiser 200, without all the accounting and marketing bullsh*t. There are a lot of misconceptions, and off course for the Land Cruiser I want the best.

I think Mike Sweer said in an interview that unibody can certainly be engineered to achieve similar strength as a frame, at least for light-to-mid size pick-up trucks. But it would kill all the weight benefit due to the amount of strengthening required. The ride quality advantage will stay, but BOF trucks can be engineered to have a smooth ride as well.

The conclusion is like this: if the manufacturer doesn't have any BOF experience, then it's better to do strengthened unibody (aka Honda Ridgeline); if it has been making BOF for decades, then it's better to figure out how to improve ride quality. Either way works and the effort is similar, so there is no absolute answer to this. But for full-size trucks with a lot of payload rating, a frame is unbeatable (so at least Tundra will stay BOF).

ssun30

I think Mike Sweer said in an interview that unibody can certainly be engineered to achieve similar strength as a frame, at least for light-to-mid size pick-up trucks. But it would kill all the weight benefit due to the amount of strengthening required. The ride quality advantage will stay, but BOF trucks can be engineered to have a smooth ride as well.

The conclusion is like this: if the manufacturer doesn't have any BOF experience, then it's better to do strengthened unibody (aka Honda Ridgeline); if it has been making BOF for decades, then it's better to figure out how to improve ride quality. Either way works and the effort is similar, so there is no absolute answer to this. But for full-size trucks with a lot of payload rating, a frame is unbeatable (so at least Tundra will stay BOF).

Why I asked it because comparing different cars (CUV/SUV vs 4x4) is always comparing apple to oranges. Take the Pajero and Prado for example: the first is unibody and has IRS, the second is body-on-frame and has SRS. While conceptually the Pajero is like a German SUV, it drives like a (very good) truck, not like a car. What is more important is how the product is executed, rather than by which means. Costs plays a role, less so for the Land Cruiser. So Toyota can make the best either way. That means, if BOF still has the advantage, with enough money and R&D, it can be made to be lighter and more agile, if it is desired.

Honestly after watching the cullinan today and previously this year the Maybach I really want the LF-1 to become production model with whatever name they want LX or GX or new name but they must make it fast, Lexus have a winner in their hands, and really much more better than anything else in this category design wise

The final name will be LF1.

LF-A —> LFA

mordecai

The final name will be LF1.

LF-A —> LFA

Well, it's not like the LS is called LFFC, nor is the GS called LFGh. Something like a "LF1 500" sounds weird.

Well here is what I have been saying regarding 2-box vs 3-box SUV, and why after my personal experience it turned out to be an important thing. Looks like Rolls-Royce confirms that.

Rolls-Royce Motors Cars PressClub

One final feature brings Rolls-Royce’s ultimate level of luxury to this configuration of Cullinan, creating the first truly “three-box” SUV. Inspired by the age when one never travelled with one’s luggage, a glass partition isolates the passenger cabin from the luggage compartment, creating an inner ecosystem for the occupants. In addition to enhanced and class-leading silence within the cabin, a further benefit becomes clear in the hottest and coldest of environments. Thanks to the sealed cabin created by the glass partition wall, the occupants can remain in the optimum temperature even when the luggage compartment stands open.

However, it is not the first 3-box SUV (sorry for being picky). If we count BOF vehicles, which are also 2-box, they have 3-box variants, that would be dual cab pick-ups with hardtop canopy. The Honda Ridgeline is closer, because it is a unibody pickup. But then, the truly first normal unibody SUV to have a separate cabin was the current Volvo XC90 Excellence. Why I mentioned normal, is because before, armored SUVs at B6 level, also have separate luggage compartment, namely the Mercedes-Benz ML Guard and the BMW X5 Security Plus. The reason is simply because the glass would be a lot more heavy to be opened, and because making a fixed wall is simpler and safer than securing an opening. Increased comfort turned out to be beneficial byproduct.

Lexus has had fixed rear seats in its sedans for a few reasons: rigidity and NVH, maybe also costs, but paying the price for (questionable) practicality. GX and LX are utilitarian, more so because of their Prado and Land Cruiser base. However, the LF-1 is the right car for being a 3-box, 4 seats crossover. It is big, but not tall nor flat surfaced, which is good for utility. It is more like the LS of the the 21st century, so not really focused on being the all-round car, like the RX is.

Will the LF-1 be a 3-box 4 seat luxury grand touring crossover? It better be because that is exactly what I feel it should when looking at it and imagining its purpose.




PS: Every luxury CUV/SUV and sedan/coupe (except surprisingly the full of electronics Range Rover and Mercedes, but that is a matter of time as they were the last but hat the tech on the AMG GT) now has AWD with AWS. Lexus LF-1, that I assume will be AWD, better also have AWS, and standard.

Levi

Will the LF-1 be a 3-box 4 seat luxury grand touring crossover? It better be because that is exactly what I feel it should when looking at it and imagining its purpose.

It will depend on whether the LF-1 needs to be family-friendly. A four-seater takes a big practicality penalty which could dissuade buyers. A 3-row six-seater, on the other hand, retains the 2nd row comfort of the four-seater but can be practical. And of course they can build a 2-row like they did for the LX by simply removing the 3rd row. The 2-box layout allows that extra versatility.

Honestly Lexus should bringing this as fast as they can regardless the name even they will borrow a dead name from Toyota stable but they must make it fast

ssun30

The 2-box layout allows that extra versatility.

I am questioning the versatility for such a type of car. The same way I do not see Lamborghini Urus customers transporting IKEA furniture. With the 3-box layout of the now benchmark SUV (Rolls-Royce status), I expect to see this layout at its competitors. What I do not want to see is the LF-1 criticized for having no 3-box version with 2 individual seats. As for the third row, I do not see enough place, and there are the RX/GX/LX (if the later are not discontinued) that have ample third row space. With the 3-box CUV/SUV layout, luxury sedans will be displaced even faster, especially as status sedans will inevitability be luxury BEVs, driven in the city: BMW iNext, next Jaguar XJ, next Lagonda sedan, new VAG platfrom with Porsche Mission-e and its derived Audi and Bentley versions, as a possible Lamborghini version in guise of an electric Estoque production vehicle. As for size, luxury sedans are not easier to drive in the city than luxury CUVs/SUVs, so again, a CUV/SUV will easily replace a luxury sedans, that is reduce its market share closer to the level of coupes/sportscars.

We have also discussed about a luxury Lexus van. Luxury vans are a thing in Japan. I do not know how the case is in the US, but in Europe there is a thing as 'luxury vans' also. We see that in the US, trucks are a kind of status symbol, and they are what we could call luxury truck, by American standards. This is also a potential market in Europe and Australia, but the trucks are mid-sized compared to full-sized in North America. VW Amarok and the Mercedes X Class with V6 are really considered as luxury, or at least premium trucks. An expansion of this market is possible. But so it the one of luxury/premium vans, such as the VW Transporter and the Mercedes V Class. They are used as VIP cars, special escort or whatever. One thing some of my well-off friends have in common, is a go-fast (chipped diesel to over 200 PS) AWD, all-round cargo/passenger multivan VW Transporter T5 or T6, with all options, leader seats, etc. No CUV/SUV can compared to such practicality/versatility. These van are comfortable and safe, with a lot of tech. They are not mainstream however.

It would be a mistake to not build a 3-box version (optional) with 2 individual rear seats, if the goal of the LF-1 is to be a flagship that sells in huge numbers (relatively), unlike the LS and LC. (I am not criticizing these cars, no German rival sells in huge numbers -- relatively --, except the S Class sedan).

@Levi
2 rows high performance SUV is growing rapidly
and honestly it doesn't means to be 3 rows

Lexus already have RX-L as 3 rows, plus at least one of either GX & LX if they even choose one of the 2 names to be the production version of it

maiaramdan

2 rows high performance SUV is growing rapidly
and honestly it doesn't means to be 3 rows

Lexus already have RX-L as 3 rows, plus at least one of either GX & LX if they even choose one of the 2 names to be the production version of it

I mainly talk about volumes, not rows. Unless I was not clear: box = separate volume.

LF-1 already had even very small

I have had a look at the concept pics again. It looks almost like a production ready vehicle. More LC concept, than LS, NX or UX concept.

Hope you are right and really hope it turn to production around the same time as the next GLS / Q8 / X7

Levi

Could be called LA (Luxury All-Purpose Vehicle), which it basically is: style of LC, luxury of LS, practicality of LX.

Joaquin Ruhi

I like that! :thumbsup:

Other possibilities along those lines are LM (Luxury Multipurpose) and LT (Luxury Touring).

It seems that the right answer is "none of the above", for Lexus parent Toyota registered an LQ trademark. For more details, see my latest Kaizen Factor story.

On 7 May 2018, Toyota registered the LQ trademark in the United States, under Serial Number 87909977, for “automobiles and structural parts thereof”. All signs suggest that this will be the prefix for the production version of the "flagship crossover" LF-1 Limitless Concept.

But what could the Q mean? And are there other LQ possibilities? My thoughts appear in my latest Kaizen Factor story

Why do I have a gut feeling that this car will further launch more models down the line having the Q designation...... Oh right. See BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Audi.

For those who didn't read the article yet or simply didn't get what I mean, I have a feeling that we're starting to get crossover coupes from Lexus. Starting from the top, then the midsize and the compact class. They're witnessing the amount of success the GLC Coupe/GLE Coupe/X6 are getting, and I am thinking that Lexus want's a piece of that lucrative market.

F1 Silver Arrows

Why do I have a gut feeling that this car will further launch more models down the line having the Q designation...... Oh right. See BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Audi.

For those who didn't read the article yet or simply didn't get what I mean, I have a feeling that we're starting to get crossover coupes from Lexus. Starting from the top, then the midsize and the compact class. They're witnessing the amount of success the GLC Coupe/GLE Coupe/X6 are getting, and I am thinking that Lexus want's a piece of that lucrative market.

I didn't say it in so many words in my article, but the thought certainly crossed my mind. Will LQ be followed by RQ and NQ?

Can't say I like that name, seems awkward. LQ 500 doesn't work for me. And like was mentioned in the article, I'm interested to see what Lexus would say the Q stands for in the press release lol.

Joaquin Ruhi

I didn't say it in so many words in my article, but the thought certainly crossed my mind. Will LQ be followed by RQ and NQ?

Can we have an F LQ, RQ,NQ, any SUV???

James

Can we have an F LQ, RQ,NQ, any SUV???

Those may be the cars that they actually F rather than the SUV's. Though, we never know, they can F the SUV's too. The more the merrier. :)

LT sounds much better and it kind of fits with the current use of the T in CT. Why make a complete new letter associated with other brands and no history in Lexus.

asoksevil

LT sounds much better and it kind of fits with the current use of the T in CT. Why make a complete new letter associated with other brands and no history in Lexus.

But there will probably be no more CT, which will be replaced by UX.

Lexus is fortunately quite flexible with their nomenclature, unlike the Germans, which is an advantage that they should use, especially in such a marketing driven automotive industry. Unlike the Germans, any modification of nomenclature in the Lexus lineup does not cause confusion, the main reason is that their letters are not in alphabetic order, but have meaning.

Some examples
LS = Luxury Sedan
LC = Luxury Coupe
LX = Luxury SUV (4X4)
UX = Urban SUV

Seeing how the LF-1 is presented, F1 being the project name of the LS1, LFA being the first (Alpha) and probably last of its kind, the LF-1 is quite clearly the Lexus flagship, something that we did not expect having the LS, LC and LX. The LF-1 is a synthesis of all three models, being the ultimate luxury, with style of a coupe, in a world of SUVs.

I on the contrary think LQ is a very fitting name, and will be the only Lexus to use a different second letter, there are many Lexus' with S, C and X. Q will make it stand out.

I guess LQ stands for Lexus Quintessence.

QUINTESSENCE (noun)

Oxford

The most perfect or typical example of a quality or class.

Do not forget TMC's Kaizen and Lexus' "Pursuit of Perfection".

asoksevil

LT sounds much better and it kind of fits with the current use of the T in CT. Why make a complete new letter associated with other brands and no history in Lexus.

While I personally agree 100%, perhaps Lexus wants to make a distinction between more upright, utilitarian, almost wagon-like "T" Touring models and more flowing, fastback coupe-like "Q" models? Or perhaps they wanted to avoid associations with the plebeian Chevrolet, which has used LT as a trim level designator for what seems like eons?

Levi

I guess LQ stands for Lexus Quintessence.

QUINTESSENCE (noun)
The most perfect or typical example of a quality or class.

Do not forget TMC's Kaizen and Lexus' "Pursuit of Perfection".

:thumbsup::thumbsup: I think you nailed it! That is, by far, the best and most logical explanation of what the "Q" stands for.

Lexus Registers LQ Nameplate for New Flagship Crossover?

The production version of the LF-1 Limitless gets its name.

View the original article post

"LQ" is really not working for me. It doesn't flow or sound elegant, and brings Audi to mind.

"LT" made more sense to me because Lexus already has some stake in that line with the CT. "Luxury Touring" or "Tourer."

Oh well... whatever they call it... just bring it ASAP.

Can we roughly estimate when they are going to release the LQ if they register the trademark? What is their typical lead time?
I think an optimistic estimate would be production concept in 19H2, launch in 20H1, and availability in 20H2.