Lexus GS Sedan Not Going Anywhere, Will Continue Sales in North America

Gecko

If Lexus can does the following for ES, I will say that I think the retirement of the GS makes sense.

- Base engine: All-new Dynamic Force 2.0T I4 with ~265hp/280lb-ft of torque "ES 300/RX 300" with 8AT
- Optional engine: All-new Dynamic Force 3.0L turbocharged V6 with ~340hp/360lb-ft of torque "ES 400/RX 400" with 10 AT
- Hybrid option for ES: Li-ion Hybrid system from the new Camry LE "ES 300h"
- Hybrid option for RX: Multi-stage hybrid system with new Dynamic Force V6, ~320hp
- Standard front-wheel drive
- Optional active AWD system with torque split that can flex from 50/50 to 30/70 front to rear (Standard on F-Sport V6)

For one, the next RX almost has to have these types of upgrades to be competitive. Two, so does the next generation Lexus midsize sedan, no matter if you call that an ES or a GS.

If you can buy either:

- an ES 400 F Sport with 340hp, 360lb-ft of torque, 10AT, the F Sport package, active all wheel drive, red leather interior option, etc
or
- an ES 300/400 with luxury package including pleated leather, woodgrain, 12" screen, upgraded wheels, Mark Levinson, Lexus Safety Sense +, Panoramic roof, etc

... nobody is going to even care about the GS. And Lexus knows that. The genius in this plan is that they can also sell a $40k FWD ES 300 with base equipment all the way up to a $65k ES 400 F Sport AWD - totally expanding one product line while saving costs on another. It's all about the Benjamins, baby.

Good sir, I see two things from your post that I wouldn't think Toyota/Lexus would do. To begin, do you believe that someone like Toyota/Lexus who spent AGES (must be in bold because it literally took forever) to build the V35A-FTS 3.5 liter twin-turbo V6 engine, and actually just slap in a 3.0L? I see so many who mention that they should put in a 3.0L turbo V6 in their mid range cars, however in my respectful opinion, I don't believe that Toyota/Lexus would do that because it would affect too much from R&D costs (knowing the bean counters from TMC), and I don't think they would do that, considering if they were to, they would need to adapt that engine to all kinds of markets (for example China) where they have a displacement tax, and some other countries, where they crack down on manufacturers in terms of emissions. I mentioned before a few posts ago, Toyota/Lexus would not create a product unless they are forced to. No other company has a mid range 6 cylinder engine then a higher displacement engine for their highest model. The closest I can think of is BMW. Where their single turbo I6 is in the Mx40i cars and the twin turbo I6 is in their M cars, but the same old 3.0L.

My second point is, shouldn't they have released an active AWD with the LS? It is their flagship no? Why release it with something like the ES?

I do like all of your other ideas Gecko, they make a lot of sense and I can see them releasing a new Dynamic Force turbo 4-cylinder engine. It's just that, all this stuff, should not go with FWD. That is why, there is a huge cult following of the GS.

Gecko

If Lexus can does the following for ES, I will say that I think the retirement of the GS makes sense.

- Base engine: All-new Dynamic Force 2.0T I4 with ~265hp/280lb-ft of torque "ES 300/RX 300" with 8AT
- Optional engine: All-new Dynamic Force 3.0L turbocharged V6 with ~340hp/360lb-ft of torque "ES 400/RX 400" with 10 AT
- Hybrid option for ES: Li-ion Hybrid system from the new Camry LE "ES 300h"
- Hybrid option for RX: Multi-stage hybrid system with new Dynamic Force V6, ~320hp
- Standard front-wheel drive
- Optional active AWD system with torque split that can flex from 50/50 to 30/70 front to rear (Standard on F-Sport V6)

For one, the next RX almost has to have these types of upgrades to be competitive. Two, so does the next generation Lexus midsize sedan, no matter if you call that an ES or a GS.

If you can buy either:

- an ES 400 F Sport with 340hp, 360lb-ft of torque, 10AT, the F Sport package, active all wheel drive, red leather interior option, etc
or
- an ES 300/400 with luxury package including pleated leather, woodgrain, 12" screen, upgraded wheels, Mark Levinson, Lexus Safety Sense +, Panoramic roof, etc

... nobody is going to even care about the GS. And Lexus knows that. The genius in this plan is that they can also sell a $40k FWD ES 300 with base equipment all the way up to a $65k ES 400 F Sport AWD - totally expanding one product line while saving costs on another. It's all about the Benjamins, baby.

Good sir, I see two things from your post that I wouldn't think Toyota/Lexus would do. To begin, do you believe that someone like Toyota/Lexus who spent AGES (must be in bold because it literally took forever) to build the V35A-FTS 3.5 liter twin-turbo V6 engine, and actually just slap in a 3.0L? I see so many who mention that they should put in a 3.0L turbo V6 in their mid range cars, however in my respectful opinion, I don't believe that Toyota/Lexus would do that because it would affect too much from R&D costs (knowing the bean counters from TMC), and I don't think they would do that, considering if they were to, they would need to adapt that engine to all kinds of markets (for example China) where they have a displacement tax, and some other countries, where they crack down on manufacturers in terms of emissions. I mentioned before a few posts ago, Toyota/Lexus would not create a product unless they are forced to. No other company has a mid range 6 cylinder engine then a higher displacement engine for their highest model. The closest I can think of is BMW. Where their single turbo I6 is in the Mx40i cars and the twin turbo I6 is in their M cars, but the same old 3.0L.

My second point is, shouldn't they have released an active AWD with the LS? It is their flagship no? Why release it with something like the ES?

I do like all of your other ideas Gecko, they make a lot of sense and I can see them releasing a new Dynamic Force turbo 4-cylinder engine. It's just that, all this stuff, should not go with FWD. That is why, there is a huge cult following of the GS.

Gecko

... nobody is going to even care about the GS. And Lexus knows that. The genius in this plan is that they can also sell a $40k FWD ES 300 with base equipment all the way up to a $65k ES 400 F Sport AWD - totally expanding one product line while saving costs on another. It's all about the Benjamins, baby.

The only qualm I have with this plan is that I think this car should be named "GS" for many reasons - not the least of which is that the GS is already a global product and the ES is not, and the GS is seen as more premium.

Now, if there is no active AWD option for this new ES and Lexus tries to stuff a torquey turbo V6 (or the 2GR-FKS) into an ES FWD or with DTC AWD, they have failed. Period.

What you proposed just mirrors what I wrote in the ES thread for China: basically they need to make the ES "one sedan to rule them all", except the version you have here is for the U.S. market where power demand is on average 50% higher than rest of the world. All the powertrain options you mentioned are totally reasonable for the 7ES to stay relevant with the exception of the multistage hybrid: it will be too long for a transverse mount.

Regardless, there is just no way Lexus could not achieve this because there already exist platforms that has demonstrated the plausibility of a transverse platform that can accommodate a wide range of drivetrain options: the Ford CD4, GM E2XX, and Volvo SPA. There exists the Lincoln Continental, Cadillac XTS, and Volvo S90. Lexus has no excuse to not have something at least as good as those.

I don't think Lexus is going to disappoint us with yet another 2GR with questionable AWD since this is the most important sedan launch for them before 2020, period. I'm only worried about them pulling a 5LS move here: downsizing the V6 to a turbo 4 (2.5L). This is highly possible because modern I4Ts could easily make 150hp/L without issues, making a 350hp 2.5L turbo 4 is a trivial task. V6TT on 7ES is really about decency and attitude.

P.S.: We shouldn't be comparing the ES to the A6 since the latter is based on MLB platform, which is longitudinal; the A6 is more comparable to the E-Class/5 series/GS than ES.

Gecko

... nobody is going to even care about the GS. And Lexus knows that. The genius in this plan is that they can also sell a $40k FWD ES 300 with base equipment all the way up to a $65k ES 400 F Sport AWD - totally expanding one product line while saving costs on another. It's all about the Benjamins, baby.

The only qualm I have with this plan is that I think this car should be named "GS" for many reasons - not the least of which is that the GS is already a global product and the ES is not, and the GS is seen as more premium.

Now, if there is no active AWD option for this new ES and Lexus tries to stuff a torquey turbo V6 (or the 2GR-FKS) into an ES FWD or with DTC AWD, they have failed. Period.

What you proposed just mirrors what I wrote in the ES thread for China: basically they need to make the ES "one sedan to rule them all", except the version you have here is for the U.S. market where power demand is on average 50% higher than rest of the world. All the powertrain options you mentioned are totally reasonable for the 7ES to stay relevant with the exception of the multistage hybrid: it will be too long for a transverse mount.

Regardless, there is just no way Lexus could not achieve this because there already exist platforms that has demonstrated the plausibility of a transverse platform that can accommodate a wide range of drivetrain options: the Ford CD4, GM E2XX, and Volvo SPA. There exists the Lincoln Continental, Cadillac XTS, and Volvo S90. Lexus has no excuse to not have something at least as good as those.

I don't think Lexus is going to disappoint us with yet another 2GR with questionable AWD since this is the most important sedan launch for them before 2020, period. I'm only worried about them pulling a 5LS move here: downsizing the V6 to a turbo 4 (2.5L). This is highly possible because modern I4Ts could easily make 150hp/L without issues, making a 350hp 2.5L turbo 4 is a trivial task. V6TT on 7ES is really about decency and attitude.

P.S.: We shouldn't be comparing the ES to the A6 since the latter is based on MLB platform, which is longitudinal; the A6 is more comparable to the E-Class/5 series/GS than ES.

Gecko

... nobody is going to even care about the GS. And Lexus knows that. The genius in this plan is that they can also sell a $40k FWD ES 300 with base equipment all the way up to a $65k ES 400 F Sport AWD - totally expanding one product line while saving costs on another. It's all about the Benjamins, baby.

The only qualm I have with this plan is that I think this car should be named "GS" for many reasons - not the least of which is that the GS is already a global product and the ES is not, and the GS is seen as more premium.

Now, if there is no active AWD option for this new ES and Lexus tries to stuff a torquey turbo V6 (or the 2GR-FKS) into an ES FWD or with DTC AWD, they have failed. Period.

What you proposed just mirrors what I wrote in the ES thread for China: basically they need to make the ES "one sedan to rule them all", except the version you have here is for the U.S. market where power demand is on average 50% higher than rest of the world. All the powertrain options you mentioned are totally reasonable for the 7ES to stay relevant with the exception of the multistage hybrid: it will be too long for a transverse mount.

Regardless, there is just no way Lexus could not achieve this because there already exist platforms that has demonstrated the plausibility of a transverse platform that can accommodate a wide range of drivetrain options: the Ford CD4, GM E2XX, and Volvo SPA. There exists the Lincoln Continental, Cadillac XTS, and Volvo S90. Lexus has no excuse to not have something at least as good as those.

I don't think Lexus is going to disappoint us with yet another 2GR with questionable AWD since this is the most important sedan launch for them before 2020, period. I'm only worried about them pulling a 5LS move here: downsizing the V6 to a turbo 4 (2.5L). This is highly possible because modern I4Ts could easily make 150hp/L without issues, making a 350hp 2.5L turbo 4 is a trivial task. V6TT on 7ES is really about decency and attitude.

P.S.: We shouldn't be comparing the ES to the A6 since the latter is based on MLB platform, which is longitudinal; the A6 is more comparable to the E-Class/5 series/GS than ES.

F1 Silver Arrows

To begin, do you believe that someone like Toyota/Lexus who spent AGES (must be in bold because it literally took forever) to build the V35A-FTS 3.5 liter twin-turbo V6 engine, and actually just slap in a 3.0L? I see so many who mention that they should put in a 3.0L turbo V6 in their mid range cars, however in my respectful opinion, I don't believe that Toyota/Lexus would do that because it would affect too much from R&D costs (knowing the bean counters from TMC), and I don't think they would do that, considering if they were to, they would need to adapt that engine to all kinds of markets (for example China) where they have a displacement tax, and some other countries, where they crack down on manufacturers in terms of emissions.
My second point is, shouldn't they have released an active AWD with the LS? It is their flagship no? Why release it with something like the ES?

1) If they want to go back to the high value market in China, they absolutely need a 3.0L V6TT since a 3.0 vehicle is subject to 25% displacement tax compared to 40% for 3.5. Not having a 2GR replacement meant the average selling price of the ES fell from ¥500k (for XV40) to merely ¥350k (for XV60) in the past five years. While the ES expanded significantly in sales volume, profitability suffered. It also meant the Chinese market RX has nowhere near to the amount of success it has in USA.
The V35A is a UR (V8) replacement, not a GR (V6) replacement: it competes against 4.0L V8s in the segment by offering similar power but much better fuel efficiency. TMC needs a smaller engine than V35A for its mainstream SUVs and trucks to replace the terribly old GR series. As I mentioned above, the only thing I fear is them ditching the V6 for a 2.5L turbo 4, which requires much less R&D. Also a 2.5 is subject to 12% displacement tax, which will make a killer engine for the Chinese market.
Also the V35A-FTS didn't take ages to develop. Rather TMC spent a decade testing individual technology components across multiple engine families and then they put together a complete technology package called Dynamic Force. What Toyota didn't expect is the downsizing revolution, so they are already too late when they started developing a modern turbocharging solution. Remember Dynamic Force technically does not need turbocharging to meet all the performance targets but the market had already shifted towards smaller displacements while the Dynamic Force engines were being developed: the 8AR-FTS can be considered a panic move. I think the A25A is the best evidence of this awkward timing: if they knew downsizing is the future, they would develop a 2.0 turbo instead.

2) Longitudinal AWD and transverse AWD are very different. The former is trivial to do while the latter is very challenging to be designed properly. When people talk about "bad AWD" it's more likely they are talking about a transverse one.

F1 Silver Arrows

To begin, do you believe that someone like Toyota/Lexus who spent AGES (must be in bold because it literally took forever) to build the V35A-FTS 3.5 liter twin-turbo V6 engine, and actually just slap in a 3.0L? I see so many who mention that they should put in a 3.0L turbo V6 in their mid range cars, however in my respectful opinion, I don't believe that Toyota/Lexus would do that because it would affect too much from R&D costs (knowing the bean counters from TMC), and I don't think they would do that, considering if they were to, they would need to adapt that engine to all kinds of markets (for example China) where they have a displacement tax, and some other countries, where they crack down on manufacturers in terms of emissions.
My second point is, shouldn't they have released an active AWD with the LS? It is their flagship no? Why release it with something like the ES?

1) If they want to go back to the high value market in China, they absolutely need a 3.0L V6TT since a 3.0 vehicle is subject to 25% displacement tax compared to 40% for 3.5. Not having a 2GR replacement meant the average selling price of the ES fell from ¥500k (for XV40) to merely ¥350k (for XV60) in the past five years. While the ES expanded significantly in sales volume, profitability suffered. It also meant the Chinese market RX has nowhere near to the amount of success it has in USA.
The V35A is a UR (V8) replacement, not a GR (V6) replacement: it competes against 4.0L V8s in the segment by offering similar power but much better fuel efficiency. TMC needs a smaller engine than V35A for its mainstream SUVs and trucks to replace the terribly old GR series. As I mentioned above, the only thing I fear is them ditching the V6 for a 2.5L turbo 4, which requires much less R&D. Also a 2.5 is subject to 12% displacement tax, which will make a killer engine for the Chinese market.
Also the V35A-FTS didn't take ages to develop. Rather TMC spent a decade testing individual technology components across multiple engine families and then they put together a complete technology package called Dynamic Force. What Toyota didn't expect is the downsizing revolution, so they are already too late when they started developing a modern turbocharging solution. Remember Dynamic Force technically does not need turbocharging to meet all the performance targets but the market had already shifted towards smaller displacements while the Dynamic Force engines were being developed: the 8AR-FTS can be considered a panic move. I think the A25A is the best evidence of this awkward timing: if they knew downsizing is the future, they would develop a 2.0 turbo instead.

2) Longitudinal AWD and transverse AWD are very different. The former is trivial to do while the latter is very challenging to be designed properly. When people talk about "bad AWD" it's more likely they are talking about a transverse one.

F1 Silver Arrows

To begin, do you believe that someone like Toyota/Lexus who spent AGES (must be in bold because it literally took forever) to build the V35A-FTS 3.5 liter twin-turbo V6 engine, and actually just slap in a 3.0L? I see so many who mention that they should put in a 3.0L turbo V6 in their mid range cars, however in my respectful opinion, I don't believe that Toyota/Lexus would do that because it would affect too much from R&D costs (knowing the bean counters from TMC), and I don't think they would do that, considering if they were to, they would need to adapt that engine to all kinds of markets (for example China) where they have a displacement tax, and some other countries, where they crack down on manufacturers in terms of emissions.
My second point is, shouldn't they have released an active AWD with the LS? It is their flagship no? Why release it with something like the ES?

1) If they want to go back to the high value market in China, they absolutely need a 3.0L V6TT since a 3.0 vehicle is subject to 25% displacement tax compared to 40% for 3.5. Not having a 2GR replacement meant the average selling price of the ES fell from ¥500k (for XV40) to merely ¥350k (for XV60) in the past five years. While the ES expanded significantly in sales volume, profitability suffered. It also meant the Chinese market RX has nowhere near to the amount of success it has in USA.
The V35A is a UR (V8) replacement, not a GR (V6) replacement: it competes against 4.0L V8s in the segment by offering similar power but much better fuel efficiency. TMC needs a smaller engine than V35A for its mainstream SUVs and trucks to replace the terribly old GR series. As I mentioned above, the only thing I fear is them ditching the V6 for a 2.5L turbo 4, which requires much less R&D. Also a 2.5 is subject to 12% displacement tax, which will make a killer engine for the Chinese market.
Also the V35A-FTS didn't take ages to develop. Rather TMC spent a decade testing individual technology components across multiple engine families and then they put together a complete technology package called Dynamic Force. What Toyota didn't expect is the downsizing revolution, so they are already too late when they started developing a modern turbocharging solution. Remember Dynamic Force technically does not need turbocharging to meet all the performance targets but the market had already shifted towards smaller displacements while the Dynamic Force engines were being developed: the 8AR-FTS can be considered a panic move. I think the A25A is the best evidence of this awkward timing: if they knew downsizing is the future, they would develop a 2.0 turbo instead.

2) Longitudinal AWD and transverse AWD are very different. The former is trivial to do while the latter is very challenging to be designed properly. When people talk about "bad AWD" it's more likely they are talking about a transverse one.

F1 Silver Arrows

My second point is, shouldn't they have released an active AWD with the LS? It is their flagship no? Why release it with something like the ES?

I do like all of your other ideas Gecko, they make a lot of sense and I can see them releasing a new Dynamic Force turbo 4-cylinder engine. It's just that, all this stuff, should not go with FWD. That is why, there is a huge cult following of the GS.

ssun30 covers most of the points about the necessity of a 3.0L turbo V6, so I won't go into depth there other than to say that Lexus needs that lower displacement engine in many vehicles - IS, RX, ES, RC, etc. and it seems like 3.5L TT V6 is seen as the replacement for the V8, so, most likely it will be a flagship or F engine. 3.5L TT V6, 3.0L T V6 and 2.0L T I4 covers 90% of the lineup very nicely without considering hybrids.

To your second point, Lexus is now behind on AWD systems and has been for quite some time. They are overdue for an AWD system with torque vectoring as well as front-to-rear active torque distribution. That quite frankly should have debuted on GA-L with LS and LC. With the FT-AC concept, Toyota finally made mention of a torque vectoring AWD system, so it seems to be in the works but it might be a few years before it's delivered. LS is mostly sold as RWD, and if they are going to eliminate the GS and offer a higher horsepower engine option, ES will really need such a system. For LS, it's probably more for convenience/traction.

All of this AWD trickery is part of what has made VWAG's MLB platform so successful - and cost effective - and has allowed them to build cars like RS7 or A8 on FWD-biased platforms. RWD can handle higher power with no problems, but we are approaching the limits of what you can do with transverse FWD and remain drivable without massive torque steer, so that is where advanced AWD systems come into play.

F1 Silver Arrows

My second point is, shouldn't they have released an active AWD with the LS? It is their flagship no? Why release it with something like the ES?

I do like all of your other ideas Gecko, they make a lot of sense and I can see them releasing a new Dynamic Force turbo 4-cylinder engine. It's just that, all this stuff, should not go with FWD. That is why, there is a huge cult following of the GS.

ssun30 covers most of the points about the necessity of a 3.0L turbo V6, so I won't go into depth there other than to say that Lexus needs that lower displacement engine in many vehicles - IS, RX, ES, RC, etc. and it seems like 3.5L TT V6 is seen as the replacement for the V8, so, most likely it will be a flagship or F engine. 3.5L TT V6, 3.0L T V6 and 2.0L T I4 covers 90% of the lineup very nicely without considering hybrids.

To your second point, Lexus is now behind on AWD systems and has been for quite some time. They are overdue for an AWD system with torque vectoring as well as front-to-rear active torque distribution. That quite frankly should have debuted on GA-L with LS and LC. With the FT-AC concept, Toyota finally made mention of a torque vectoring AWD system, so it seems to be in the works but it might be a few years before it's delivered. LS is mostly sold as RWD, and if they are going to eliminate the GS and offer a higher horsepower engine option, ES will really need such a system. For LS, it's probably more for convenience/traction.

All of this AWD trickery is part of what has made VWAG's MLB platform so successful - and cost effective - and has allowed them to build cars like RS7 or A8 on FWD-biased platforms. RWD can handle higher power with no problems, but we are approaching the limits of what you can do with transverse FWD and remain drivable without massive torque steer, so that is where advanced AWD systems come into play.

F1 Silver Arrows

My second point is, shouldn't they have released an active AWD with the LS? It is their flagship no? Why release it with something like the ES?

I do like all of your other ideas Gecko, they make a lot of sense and I can see them releasing a new Dynamic Force turbo 4-cylinder engine. It's just that, all this stuff, should not go with FWD. That is why, there is a huge cult following of the GS.

ssun30 covers most of the points about the necessity of a 3.0L turbo V6, so I won't go into depth there other than to say that Lexus needs that lower displacement engine in many vehicles - IS, RX, ES, RC, etc. and it seems like 3.5L TT V6 is seen as the replacement for the V8, so, most likely it will be a flagship or F engine. 3.5L TT V6, 3.0L T V6 and 2.0L T I4 covers 90% of the lineup very nicely without considering hybrids.

To your second point, Lexus is now behind on AWD systems and has been for quite some time. They are overdue for an AWD system with torque vectoring as well as front-to-rear active torque distribution. That quite frankly should have debuted on GA-L with LS and LC. With the FT-AC concept, Toyota finally made mention of a torque vectoring AWD system, so it seems to be in the works but it might be a few years before it's delivered. LS is mostly sold as RWD, and if they are going to eliminate the GS and offer a higher horsepower engine option, ES will really need such a system. For LS, it's probably more for convenience/traction.

All of this AWD trickery is part of what has made VWAG's MLB platform so successful - and cost effective - and has allowed them to build cars like RS7 or A8 on FWD-biased platforms. RWD can handle higher power with no problems, but we are approaching the limits of what you can do with transverse FWD and remain drivable without massive torque steer, so that is where advanced AWD systems come into play.

IS-SV

Agreed the sedan market across the board is falling, crossovers being growth segment.

This is off-topic concerning the GS, but regarding the shift from sedan to crossover market, I would rather like it to take this approach, of lifted sporty hatchback/coupe, rather than non practical high with low ground clearance non-off-road capable crossovers.

Examples:





But I thing the market is starting to get in that direction, with the X6, X4, GLE and GLC Coupe, the Q4 or e-Tron Sportback, the i-Pace, the rumored S50 (low version of XC40?), CH-R, and quite likely the Model Y. Lexus should by all means do that with a next generation "IS" "lifted lift-back coupe".

ssun30

What Toyota didn't expect is the downsizing revolution, so they are already too late when they started developing a modern turbocharging solution.

It is not that Toyota did not expect the downsizing revolution, it is that Toyota does not believe the downsizing revolution lie. But now they have no choice, the market forces them.

ssun30

Longitudinal AWD and transverse AWD are very different. The former is trivial to do while the latter is very challenging to be designed properly. When people talk about "bad AWD" it's more likely they are talking about a transverse one.

True. The really bad thing about FWD is the long front overhang, which is not possible to shorten due to crash safety regulations/necessities.

Gecko

To your second point, Lexus is now behind on AWD systems and has been for quite some time. They are overdue for an AWD system with torque vectoring as well as front-to-rear active torque distribution. That quite frankly should have debuted on GA-L with LS and LC. With the FT-AC concept, Toyota finally made mention of a torque vectoring AWD system, so it seems to be in the works but it might be a few years before it's delivered. LS is mostly sold as RWD, and if they are going to eliminate the GS and offer a higher horsepower engine option, ES will really need such a system. For LS, it's probably more for convenience/traction.

RWD can handle higher power with no problems, but we are approaching the limits of what you can do with transverse FWD and remain drivable without massive torque steer, so that is where advanced AWD systems come into play.

This is very true, especially that now SUVs or unibody instead of body-on-frame and that they have no more solid axles, but independent suspension. Traction control is a very cheap and inefficient way of putting down power. TMC needs a high tech AWD system, that is good on road, but can also be used off-road like in the next Land Cruiser for example.

IS-SV

Agreed the sedan market across the board is falling, crossovers being growth segment.

This is off-topic concerning the GS, but regarding the shift from sedan to crossover market, I would rather like it to take this approach, of lifted sporty hatchback/coupe, rather than non practical high with low ground clearance non-off-road capable crossovers.

Examples:





But I thing the market is starting to get in that direction, with the X6, X4, GLE and GLC Coupe, the Q4 or e-Tron Sportback, the i-Pace, the rumored S50 (low version of XC40?), CH-R, and quite likely the Model Y. Lexus should by all means do that with a next generation "IS" "lifted lift-back coupe".

ssun30

What Toyota didn't expect is the downsizing revolution, so they are already too late when they started developing a modern turbocharging solution.

It is not that Toyota did not expect the downsizing revolution, it is that Toyota does not believe the downsizing revolution lie. But now they have no choice, the market forces them.

ssun30

Longitudinal AWD and transverse AWD are very different. The former is trivial to do while the latter is very challenging to be designed properly. When people talk about "bad AWD" it's more likely they are talking about a transverse one.

True. The really bad thing about FWD is the long front overhang, which is not possible to shorten due to crash safety regulations/necessities.

Gecko

To your second point, Lexus is now behind on AWD systems and has been for quite some time. They are overdue for an AWD system with torque vectoring as well as front-to-rear active torque distribution. That quite frankly should have debuted on GA-L with LS and LC. With the FT-AC concept, Toyota finally made mention of a torque vectoring AWD system, so it seems to be in the works but it might be a few years before it's delivered. LS is mostly sold as RWD, and if they are going to eliminate the GS and offer a higher horsepower engine option, ES will really need such a system. For LS, it's probably more for convenience/traction.

RWD can handle higher power with no problems, but we are approaching the limits of what you can do with transverse FWD and remain drivable without massive torque steer, so that is where advanced AWD systems come into play.

This is very true, especially that now SUVs or unibody instead of body-on-frame and that they have no more solid axles, but independent suspension. Traction control is a very cheap and inefficient way of putting down power. TMC needs a high tech AWD system, that is good on road, but can also be used off-road like in the next Land Cruiser for example.

IS-SV

Agreed the sedan market across the board is falling, crossovers being growth segment.

This is off-topic concerning the GS, but regarding the shift from sedan to crossover market, I would rather like it to take this approach, of lifted sporty hatchback/coupe, rather than non practical high with low ground clearance non-off-road capable crossovers.

Examples:





But I thing the market is starting to get in that direction, with the X6, X4, GLE and GLC Coupe, the Q4 or e-Tron Sportback, the i-Pace, the rumored S50 (low version of XC40?), CH-R, and quite likely the Model Y. Lexus should by all means do that with a next generation "IS" "lifted lift-back coupe".

ssun30

What Toyota didn't expect is the downsizing revolution, so they are already too late when they started developing a modern turbocharging solution.

It is not that Toyota did not expect the downsizing revolution, it is that Toyota does not believe the downsizing revolution lie. But now they have no choice, the market forces them.

ssun30

Longitudinal AWD and transverse AWD are very different. The former is trivial to do while the latter is very challenging to be designed properly. When people talk about "bad AWD" it's more likely they are talking about a transverse one.

True. The really bad thing about FWD is the long front overhang, which is not possible to shorten due to crash safety regulations/necessities.

Gecko

To your second point, Lexus is now behind on AWD systems and has been for quite some time. They are overdue for an AWD system with torque vectoring as well as front-to-rear active torque distribution. That quite frankly should have debuted on GA-L with LS and LC. With the FT-AC concept, Toyota finally made mention of a torque vectoring AWD system, so it seems to be in the works but it might be a few years before it's delivered. LS is mostly sold as RWD, and if they are going to eliminate the GS and offer a higher horsepower engine option, ES will really need such a system. For LS, it's probably more for convenience/traction.

RWD can handle higher power with no problems, but we are approaching the limits of what you can do with transverse FWD and remain drivable without massive torque steer, so that is where advanced AWD systems come into play.

This is very true, especially that now SUVs or unibody instead of body-on-frame and that they have no more solid axles, but independent suspension. Traction control is a very cheap and inefficient way of putting down power. TMC needs a high tech AWD system, that is good on road, but can also be used off-road like in the next Land Cruiser for example.

Yes, a bit off topic but I see vehicles like X6, X4, GLE and GLC Coupe as crossovers still (lifted too) with sleeker rooflines and sexier/sporty styling, higher price tags, better profit margins), good business. It would be nice to see Lexus compete here too.

Versus the GS discussion as being more comparable to successful Mercedes and BMW sedan and 4 door coupe equivalents (given declining sedan market).

Yes, a bit off topic but I see vehicles like X6, X4, GLE and GLC Coupe as crossovers still (lifted too) with sleeker rooflines and sexier/sporty styling, higher price tags, better profit margins), good business. It would be nice to see Lexus compete here too.

Versus the GS discussion as being more comparable to successful Mercedes and BMW sedan and 4 door coupe equivalents (given declining sedan market).

Yes, a bit off topic but I see vehicles like X6, X4, GLE and GLC Coupe as crossovers still (lifted too) with sleeker rooflines and sexier/sporty styling, higher price tags, better profit margins), good business. It would be nice to see Lexus compete here too.

Versus the GS discussion as being more comparable to successful Mercedes and BMW sedan and 4 door coupe equivalents (given declining sedan market).

I couldn’t imagine a future Lexus riding on a Toyota platform. This wouldn’t go down well with the brand’s new found identity.

Would it be sensible to move GS upmarket where the old LS has vacated while underpinning the next ES with the GA-L platform?

I couldn’t imagine a future Lexus riding on a Toyota platform. This wouldn’t go down well with the brand’s new found identity.

Would it be sensible to move GS upmarket where the old LS has vacated while underpinning the next ES with the GA-L platform?

I couldn’t imagine a future Lexus riding on a Toyota platform. This wouldn’t go down well with the brand’s new found identity.

Would it be sensible to move GS upmarket where the old LS has vacated while underpinning the next ES with the GA-L platform?

renyeo

I couldn’t imagine a future Lexus riding on a Toyota platform. This wouldn’t go down well with the brand’s new found identity.

Would it be sensible to move GS upmarket where the old LS has vacated while underpinning the next ES with the GA-L platform?

What do you mean? All Lexus products are on Toyota platforms. Crown has shared platforms with the IS and GS, and it now shares GA-L with the LS and LC. The ES and RX are shared with the Camry/Avalon/Highlander/Sienna, NX is based on the Rav4, LX is based on the Land Cruiser 200 and GX is based on the Land Cruiser Prado/150. Toyota is part of Lexus' DNA.

renyeo

I couldn’t imagine a future Lexus riding on a Toyota platform. This wouldn’t go down well with the brand’s new found identity.

Would it be sensible to move GS upmarket where the old LS has vacated while underpinning the next ES with the GA-L platform?

What do you mean? All Lexus products are on Toyota platforms. Crown has shared platforms with the IS and GS, and it now shares GA-L with the LS and LC. The ES and RX are shared with the Camry/Avalon/Highlander/Sienna, NX is based on the Rav4, LX is based on the Land Cruiser 200 and GX is based on the Land Cruiser Prado/150. Toyota is part of Lexus' DNA.

renyeo

I couldn’t imagine a future Lexus riding on a Toyota platform. This wouldn’t go down well with the brand’s new found identity.

Would it be sensible to move GS upmarket where the old LS has vacated while underpinning the next ES with the GA-L platform?

What do you mean? All Lexus products are on Toyota platforms. Crown has shared platforms with the IS and GS, and it now shares GA-L with the LS and LC. The ES and RX are shared with the Camry/Avalon/Highlander/Sienna, NX is based on the Rav4, LX is based on the Land Cruiser 200 and GX is based on the Land Cruiser Prado/150. Toyota is part of Lexus' DNA.

Gecko

What do you mean? All Lexus products are on Toyota platforms. Crown has shared platforms with the IS and GS, and it now shares GA-L with the LS and LC. The ES and RX are shared with the Camry/Avalon/Highlander/Sienna, NX is based on the Rav4, LX is based on the Land Cruiser 200 and GX is based on the Land Cruiser Prado/150. Toyota is part of Lexus' DNA.

Of course it is all Toyota but when it comes to rwd platforms, I am sure it is built for Lexus first. Same goes for ES vs Avalon for instance.

Gecko

What do you mean? All Lexus products are on Toyota platforms. Crown has shared platforms with the IS and GS, and it now shares GA-L with the LS and LC. The ES and RX are shared with the Camry/Avalon/Highlander/Sienna, NX is based on the Rav4, LX is based on the Land Cruiser 200 and GX is based on the Land Cruiser Prado/150. Toyota is part of Lexus' DNA.

Of course it is all Toyota but when it comes to rwd platforms, I am sure it is built for Lexus first. Same goes for ES vs Avalon for instance.

Gecko

What do you mean? All Lexus products are on Toyota platforms. Crown has shared platforms with the IS and GS, and it now shares GA-L with the LS and LC. The ES and RX are shared with the Camry/Avalon/Highlander/Sienna, NX is based on the Rav4, LX is based on the Land Cruiser 200 and GX is based on the Land Cruiser Prado/150. Toyota is part of Lexus' DNA.

Of course it is all Toyota but when it comes to rwd platforms, I am sure it is built for Lexus first. Same goes for ES vs Avalon for instance.

spwolf

Of course it is all Toyota but when it comes to rwd platforms, I am sure it is built for Lexus first. Same goes for ES vs Avalon for instance.

Not sure we will ever really know for sure, but Toyota also has the RWD Crown and previously had Celsior and others, so I'm sure there is/was a holistic focus on multiple RWD applications across both brands.

spwolf

Of course it is all Toyota but when it comes to rwd platforms, I am sure it is built for Lexus first. Same goes for ES vs Avalon for instance.

Not sure we will ever really know for sure, but Toyota also has the RWD Crown and previously had Celsior and others, so I'm sure there is/was a holistic focus on multiple RWD applications across both brands.

spwolf

Of course it is all Toyota but when it comes to rwd platforms, I am sure it is built for Lexus first. Same goes for ES vs Avalon for instance.

Not sure we will ever really know for sure, but Toyota also has the RWD Crown and previously had Celsior and others, so I'm sure there is/was a holistic focus on multiple RWD applications across both brands.

Gecko

Not sure we will ever really know for sure, but Toyota also has the RWD Crown and previously had Celsior and others, so I'm sure there is/was a holistic focus on multiple RWD applications across both brands.

I am sure said economies of scale play into this, but since Lexus sells better than Crown and worldwide, it is common sense that Lexus is priority.
Same as with Avalon vs ES - it is referred to as Avalon platform to make Lexus ES seem less important, but in reality, Lexus ES sells at least 3x more than Avalon, maybe 4x these days with China. Pretty obvious that Lexus ES would be priority when designing it and then it trickles down to Avalon.

Just like old RX platform came from base Toyota and could never do what they wanted them to do, sure you can say it was a holistic approach but in the end when you build 2-3 million Toyota's off similar platform and $200k-$3000 Lexi, then it is obvious where the focus is and why RX was never as good drive as they wanted it to be.

Or with new biturbo V6 and V8 engines, they are obviously made for Lexus, since Toyota sells very few of these. Even 2.0t is not going into many Toyota vehicles, while it is spread into Lexus deeply.

Thankfully new TNGA is good platform and vehicles with it ride really good... it is going to be a boon for all of their vehicles, including ES and future RX.